Search results

Well it depends what you mean, many cultures have killed completely innocent people and have felt it was justified.

It's quite easy to be happy existing in a little 'reality' that you build for yourself. For Atheists (and I guess agnostics) most things are 'pointless', but we live in our own little mortal reality. Sure, there is no solid objective evidence that says "killing the innocent is wrong", but I am...

.... What a fast, unjustified assumption. I do not believe this is about rushing through the proposed laws, I believe it probably has something to do with a specific problem from the current situation. He has informed labor.

Wow there's some neo-nazi band called ad-hominem?

I believe Sepulchre has said before he is a christian, yet he is bringing up theories about god which lead to god being nothing but a natural force in the universe with no conscious.

No you can look at it analytically. What you're saying could be applied to anything... "The romans were right, the sun in the sky is our God and it is just a matter of 'faith' to believe that over believing science".

Atheists aren't the people who are claiming they have all the answers, it is theists, and atheists challenge this. I do not buy the argument that religion has helped, because I believe it is very likely that those who do good (or bad) in the name of religion would do it without the religion...

Sasha add my email tzxcrg@empyrean3.net I'm on msn

There is no answer to why. We are here, and we enjoy the reality we exist in, even tho it means nothing.

Oh I see, but this 'energy' can very likely just be nothing but energy, with no conscious, just a mass of energy? You are calling it a being, why is it not merely energy with no mind/conscious ?

Explain that again? You seem to be making the assumption that God = Collection of all numbers, so if there is a number, it is a part of god? It seems like circular reasoning, you are assuming that God = Everything not in the universe, so if it's not in the universe, then it's a part of God...

I agree again. If your lecturers believe you are a committed/hard working student, then they will be more likely to mark you highly.

Incorrect use of 'begs the question'. Not only that... it is that 'God' is the natural world. I honestly don't see how this conflicts with the logic of most atheists/agnostics, however it does conflict with the logic of most theists.

How is it necessarily a part of god?

If 'god' can be eternal, than certainly other substances also can.

Einstein and Spinoza believed in a "god" but this god was the natural world, most atheists/agnostics see the world from a naturalistic / scientific perspective.

I worded the second part incorrectly. Spinoza's beliefs are hardly proof of god... It is very possible to be an atheist and agree with spinoza's opinion on what "god" is, much as einstein did.

Why not an infinite universe? or better yet, infinate void, from which our universe was created?

Well it would depend on your lecturers, but I think you'll find both phil and psych are the exception accross uni courses. In my opinion, subheadings make your essays more structured and don't take away from your work... so what's the problem?

Moonlight lays out his arguments in coherant ,logical ways. People do not challenge his points logically because they cannot (or at least do not currently possess any counter-argument), but at the same time they do not conceed that he has defeated their argument.