Reply With Quote
Take this statement in which ever way brings a smile to your face:
Manu doesn't believe in God. God believes in Manu.
through FEAR. You can make someone beleive pretty much anything through fear.
There are tons and tons of examples throughout history of this. Let me give you one:
Spaniards came to South America and enslaved indians. Indians were used as slaves to mine gold, farm, etc. Then slaves started thinking, "why do we have to work for these lazy spaniards?" Spaniards realized this and started using religion to keep these slaves working. They said, "obey our laws, work and God will not punish you". Indians beleived this because they were scared.
I am not saying Indians were "idiots" but were immensely intellectually inferior than spaniards at the time.
Take this statement in which ever way brings a smile to your face:
Manu doesn't believe in God. God believes in Manu.
Because what Pascal said applies both to agnostic and atheists the same. As explained by Einstein himself, he did not view God in the same vein that Pascal did at all. Calling people that do not believe in God intellectually lazy is a theory that does not hold water at all when you see somebody like Einstein, an agnostic that had nothing of intellectual laziness.
But you knew that when you read it... you're just trying not to look like a fool...
Just like I inferred that intelligent people are the opposite of idiots. If idiots can be convinced with lack of proof and fear than intelligent people would need proof and could not be bullied by fear.
Hmmm... that's exactly his point...
The statement wasWould you say the opposite is true?
So yes, the opposite (converse) is true, the converse being:intellegence and faith go hand in hand.
there exists an intelligent person who is a non-believer
This is obviously true as Einstein was an atheist
There are intelligent people who do not believe and ones that do.
No, because there are intelligent people that believe as well as intelligent people that do not. So what about the intelligent people that believe? You would have to prove to them beyond a reasonable doubt and that cannot be done. It all depends on where you place the burden of proof, that was my point.
I did not say anything about proof. You brought that up on your own.
Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[54]
In case you're wondering...that's a big you from old Alby as he rolls over in his grave.
PS: I'm pretty sure Edison wasn't an atheist either.
The intellectual lazy blame god every time they don't know the answer to something.
I'm going to guess you're taking the "other means" phrase out of context to mean, rather than "besides objective evidence," which is the sense Pascal meant, instead to mean "besides your own faith."
This doesn't work if your faith system makes exclusive claims of itself, at least not in the sense I think you would like.
@ Baseline Bum for taking my comments out of context.
You should pursue a career in politics.
My apologies then. I just assumed that is what you meant when you said "believe or burn", meaning you would not have to show proof just instill fear.
Einstein repeatedly said he did not believe in a personal god, and got tons of hate mail from preachers and believers nationwide to take his ass back to Germany when they killing every Jew in sight.
That doesn't make him an atheist. He just flat out said he didn't like it when atheists quoted him to support their views.
In fact he said it makes him angry when they do that.
That still doesn't make him an atheist.and got tons of hate mail from preachers and believers nationwide to take his ass back to Germany when they killing every Jew in sight.
What do you mean out of context? You said 'intellegence' and faith go hand in hand. I.e., one requires the other.
You should pursue a career in politics.
Knowing what I know of Einstein...I'd be willing to bet were he alive today there are many aspects of intelligent design he'd agree with.
A big 'you're a dumbass' from Einstein to whott.
Last edited by baseline bum; 10-13-2008 at 05:04 PM.
What do you know? Another "Trust Me, I know(TM)" moment?
Man, throughout reading this thread I've become so sick of DPG's analogies. In the course of his trainwreck discussion he's compared Manu's statements with:
-Hilter and the Nazis
-The KKK
-racism in general
-Obama being confused as a Muslim.
He's done is best to say that Manu's statement does not bother him, but if thats the case why does he compare it directly with the most vile things he can think of? Its so ridiculous to sit here and try to paint a case where Manu will see some sort of Christian backlash as a result of his statements when a) most of the people who will find out about this already have through this forum and Manu's - NBC isn't going to run this on the nightly news and Katy Couric isn't going to sit down for a four part interview series on what Manu ing Ginobili thinks - and b) (this should have given him a ing clue) THE ONLY PERSON UPSET IN ANY MANNER OVER THESE STATEMENTS IN THIS THREAD HAS BEEN DPG!!!! How one does not automatically rethink their stance when the target demographic is the one thats arguing AGAINST is a sign of complete idiocy. It shows that you're not paying attention and doing your best at ignoring the reality that keeps repeatedly slapping you in the face.
I know that he kept saying that everyone in the thread mis understood him but never once did he stop to think that it wasn't a comprehension problem on the part of anyone else (although he did his best to through that out every chance he got) but maybe a communication error on his own part. Here's a hint: if almost everyone is coming to the same conclusion based on what you write its not a comprehension problem but a clarity problem.
In any event he also failed to take into consideratino at any point that people also understood his view but still throught it was completely re ed. Why does he continously compare Manu's statments to those of Josh Howard and the backlash Howard has recieved but never brought up an athletee like John Ameechee who came out and said he was gay and did not recieve a negative backlash but a POSITIVE one. His argument is also fundementally one of cowardice. To censor what you say because you are a public figure is a stance that Americans in general shy away from because we have been able to grow as a country due to the exact opposite!!!!! How can one sit there and continously defend such a gutless position without feelng gross?
And to finish off, I think Bo is completely incorrect. He got what he deserved in this thread because once you start calling people uneducated (which is ironic because I know for a fact that Baseline Bum is smarter than DPG and has had more education) and you start throwing around your intelligence as a shield all bets are off. I can't remember if its Travis or EHJ that says but one of them says the forum is self correcting. This thread is an excellent example of that at work.
Like an untestable hypothesis with no supporting evidence being put on an equal footing with a testable scientific theory with tons of evidence backing it? I doubt it.
Can someone provide the cliff notes to Manny's monologue?
Why does anyone even bother arguing with Whottt anymoer? Would you argue with a re ed child on the street who told you the Easter Bunny was the Antichrist who was goign to kill us all by ticlking us to death with a demonic feather?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
