Search results

What did Kant conclude? If we cannot rely on logic and reason then what can we use? You can add any metaphysics as you want, it cannot be proved and it cannot be known. Metaphysics is essentially redundant.

The definition of ownage .. without shoes .. wa5vIkOnwJw

Bboying for the winnnnn <33333

This is me. CwqgaDoe2JM This is my hero. 7hidbdQoqMg

Dawkins was on Q&A tonight. He was rubbish. Bring back Hitchens I say.

Scorch, I'm as anti-theist as they come, but seriously mate, religion has no influence on our legal system or government. I don't know why you're being so stubborn on this. Name me one ruling in a western court or an approved bill in parliament that had the authority of religious faith. All of...

But those remarks, "One Nation Under God' have not yet been dealed with. They haven't been ruled on by the courts. They are currently being taken up by secular critics. Stop confusing history with law ffs .. If you grant that religion has no influence or authority in legislative and...

The burden of proof lies with you. So prove it. Religion has no business in legislative and exectutive procedures.

Then you shouldn't be arguing for why religion has a hold on government, but rather society in general.

Again .. there is a difference between historical background and justifications for making laws. Don't confuse them. The constitution is strictly secular. If you don't know that, you don't know anything. Examples are poor, they're ethical issues not religious. Many secularists are pro-life...

This point, originally made by Christopher Hitchens, is the primary argument by which makes monotheism in the highest degree, extremely improbable in respect to its truth claims. But to Scorch, I think the premise to your question is wrong. Religion has no control on most Western governments...

Atheism is a response position to theism. An atheist is anyone who doesn't believe in a theistic god. That means even deists and agnostics are still atheists, that is, they don't believe in an intervening god, thereby making them atheists by definition.

Well, I could not phrase my inquiry better than nonstampcollector. I share his views and the two videos are quite brilliant in displaying them. I don't have the slightest intention of proving anything, let alone the unusual spritual contrast of old and new testaments. I'm asking you to...

PK7P7uZFf5o AqfGu6vTxFY ... address the implications and notions of these videos convincingly and you may have the ghost of a point.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAH you make a terrific troll .. omgawd .. HAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHA

undoubtedly from a creationist website. what frustrates me about this debate is that this isnt even philosophy or theology, where everyone has the same and equal right to speculate about the nature of metaphysics. this is science. and if you have no qualifications in this field, formal...

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?! Kent Hovind is a goddam fraud! He gets destroyed in every debate and just recites the same pathetic arguments over and over, without acknowledging the complete asswhooping theyve gotten. Educate yourself about evolution here. IBHEsEshhLs And listen to Hovind...

this thread used to be good ...

Epik High nigga ! IbbjQg0nWO4

Nah, it's me .. hehe