A horse does not have the capacity to believe in God or in atheism. It is similar to the rock in that its brain does not contain the ability to consider such things.
True....because they have limited or no intelligence. Like rocks, and horses, and vegetables.
False, A horse, like a rock, or a vegetable, does not believe in gods. The fact that they lack the minds to do so proves my point about it being a product of advanced intelligence.or in atheism.
What about an infant human, what do they believe?
Why are people arguing with Whott now? This thread should be closed for the sake of all involved
No, there's no question at hand. Pascal thought that those who didn't think God would present itself in different forms were committing intellectual laziness. In order to believe that God would present itself in various forms, you first must ABSOLUTELY believe that there's a God out there. Something that Einstein (repeated here over and over again, in many quotes) did not believe in. And Albert Einstein was the exact opposite of intellectual laziness, making Pascal theory completely false.
Because I cleared the air.Why are people arguing with Whott now? This thread should be closed for the sake of all involved
A horse cannot be atheist because atheism is the belief that there is no god. If a horse isn't intelligent enough to conceive of a god, then how can that horse believe god doesn't exist?
What do they believe? I mean really... Do you read horse brains now?
DPG:
I cannot understand how you got all worked up about Manu saying he does not believe in God. As if him saying that, ironically, was some kind of sin.
And what amazes me the most is that you keep defending your position.
He does apparently as he is implying babies don't believe in god either. He also said something whotttish a page or two ago about humans believing in god for their entire existence. I'd like to see evidence of that. One piece of evidence to the contrary is early humans not burying their dead. Might be nothing but it sure as seems to go against The Theory of Whottt.
What's even worse is basically comparing a horse or an infant to Manu. I mean, this all started when he disputed that Manu did not believe in god because he wasn't smart enough... I mean... REALLY?
I did not get all worked up in the context of what he said. I got surprised that he even bothered to answer a question that seems to be personal on a fan forum. Most stars are not that open or honest. That is all. I did not say it was a sin, I said I do not care about his beliefs. I said good for him for being honest, but I thought it was surprising, and he might get grief about it from some fans.
Last edited by DPG21920; 10-13-2008 at 06:40 PM.
So being a believer makes you rational as opposed to being a believer?to Manu. He is one of the rational. I love him more every day.
I wonder how many other agnostics/athiests there are on the Spurs?
WTF?!
That movie looks so stupid.
It's obviously jealousy. Manu's a millionaire with a relatively hot wife and has millions of people who adore him. Whottt is a loser with no money (his own admission) who has at least a few people who think he has the intellect of a field mouse.What's even worse is basically comparing a horse or an infant to Manu. I mean, this all started when he disputed that Manu did not believe in god because he wasn't smart enough... I mean... REALLY?
Disclaimer - I mean no disrespect to field mice the world over.
Surprisingly funny if you take it for what it is worth. There is a lot of one liners.WTF?!
That movie looks so stupid.
Yeah I like some ty movies that don't try too hard. ie Roberts cracks me up, and it is TURRUBLE.
Exactly. This is nucking futs
No, you have misunderstood Pascal. The intellectual laziness is not in failing to declare that God presents himself in non-empirical ways. The laziness is in failing to ask whether, if God exists, how he might present himself. The skeptic is always questioning, and not taking shortcuts to a preconceived answer. The fallacy of the modern man is to fashion himself a skeptic simply because he refuses the indoctrination of his elders, not recognizing his own penchant for self-deception.
Of course, you have committed another fallacy which is not germane to the question at hand and therefore is only of secondary importance. While I do not believe Einstein was intellectually lazy in coming to his agnostic conclusions, because he obviously put some consideration into them beyond mere empiricism, it does not follow that simply because he is Albert Einstein and formulated the Theory of General Relativity, that he necessarily would put the same rigor into all his thoughts. For example, Richard Dawkins is a knowledgeable evolutionary biologist who tends toward cheap polemic when discussing his atheism. Your use of Einstein in this argument threatens to become an exercise in simple name-dropping.
Xylus go home?
Just in case you decide to browse old stump.
Feel free to tell me what a Feral Child believes...
This entire thread isn't about Manus' beliefs but everyone elses who disagree with him. Be real with yourselves and this can go a lot smoother.
Why are people arguing with Whott now? This thread should be closed for the sake of all involved
Right...arguing with me will you owned at the most personal level.
You see even if I were to not humor Xylus' terming of a limited ability to conceive as any sort of actual belief system, when in truth it's pretty much a certainty that every atheist in this thread has a perception of God as being some old man up on a throne in the cloud, a perception learned in childhood that they are unable to reconcile with their more mature perception of reality and a lack of provable evidence as to the existence of higher beings based on that immature perception, the fact of the matter is it ultimately boils down to a lack of a imagination and actual study, imgaination being itself a product of advanced intelligence, although not to the degree that Spiritual beliefs are.
IOW...what these guys reject is their vision of religion...it's ironic though because all that proves me to me is that they have never actually gone to any great length to read the bible, and it's their own re ed view they reject.
You see even in Christianity, the Bible makes it pretty clear that God is most definitely not some old man sitting on throne in the clouds, or anything of that sort, the bible makes it pretty clear that a normal human being would not be able to understand what they saw if they were to see God.
And yet the assholes think they are smart because they have cleverly figured out that God does not exist, because they have never seen him....or some like that.
They poo poo the lack of a scientific explanation or description in these ancient texts, ignorant of the fact that these texts were written before the existence of science...
Ignorant of the fact that science itself is the child of religion...not the sibling.
Again, an infant is without the capacity to make such decisions.
Your whole point is made moot by this point that I made earlier:
A conscious belief.Actually, Atheism is a belief that no God exists
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
