Likes Likes:  0
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 165

Thread: The race of Adam and Eve?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    764
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Even the article you posted merely state that it is unlikely. All God had to do was case that big ban.

    How one can assert that they can *prove* God didn't cause it is beyone me.

    As I said, you seems to carelessly rely on arguments from ignorance. Saying god is unnecessarly say nothing about his existence.
    -Youji Hajime.

    Engrish does not mine strong point

  2. #62
    Kimpatsu Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Vapour
    Even the article you posted merely state that it is unlikely. All God had to do was case that big ban.
    No; the big bang does not need god to explain it. Quantum fluctuations are all the explanation that is needed. If you say, "god did it", you are merely substituting one (as yet) unexplained issue (the origin of particles), with another, less parsimonious one (who created god?). If god didn't need a creator, why would particles? The very existence of god violates Occam's razor. And note: the article (or more accurately, the excerpt) doesn't state that god is unlikely; it says that she is infinitely unlikely. Besides, as I keep saying, the infinite anthropomorphic god is self-contradictory.
    Originally posted by Vapour
    How one can assert that they can *prove* God didn't cause it is beyone me.
    Clearly.
    Originally posted by Vapour
    As I said, you seems to carelessly rely on arguments from ignorance. Saying god is unnecessarly say nothing about his existence.
    Then you are wrong. I am NOT relying on arguments from ignorance. You just haven't internalised a thing I've written, have you? Try reading this essay http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/libr...mpossible.html
    as to why an infinitely anthropomorphic god cannot exist.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    764
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default


    As I keep saying, the universe is exactly as it would be if no god existed. It's exactly as we expect it to be if there is no god.
    Which say nothing about the existence or non existence of God, not to mention the fact that your argument require to pressume that the universe do not require God, unless of course, you know how the law of universe originated.
    -Youji Hajime.

    Engrish does not mine strong point

  4. #64
    n2shotokai Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Kimpatsu
    If you really believe that, Yoji, you just don't know what atheism IS. Or are you just yanking my chain?
    Speaking of chain yanking ....... how many times has one individual in this thread purposely yanked and baited people with less than subtle attacks? I guess some people find it necessary to find ways to fill their time with senseless argument

    This yanking, baiting and crusade to kill any belief in a higher power makes about as much sense as Bible thumpers knocking on doors.

  5. #65
    Kimpatsu Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Vapour
    Which say nothing about the existence or non existence of God, not to mention the fact that your argument require to pressume that the universe do not require God, unless of course, you know how the law of universe originated.
    It says everything about the putative existence of god. As to the origin of universal laws, what are you arguing? The strong anthropic principle?

  6. #66
    Kimpatsu Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by n2shotokai
    Speaking of chain yanking ....... how many times has one individual in this thread purposely yanked and baited people with less than subtle attacks? I guess some people find it necessary to find ways to fill their time with senseless argument

    This yanking, baiting and crusade to kill any belief in a higher power makes about as much sense as Bible thumpers knocking on doors.
    You just don't get it, Steve. I have all of science and rationality on my side; you have only your beleif, which throws said rationality out of the window. It may appear arrogance to you, but there are limits. Imagine that you're an expert on Ancient Rome, and then a bunch of people came along and claimed that Rome was a fiction, a Victorian fabrication. Wouldn't you feel irritated at their inability to comprehend the facts? And wouldn't that seem like arrogance?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    6,227
    Likes (received)
    118

    Default

    Originally posted by Kimpatsu
    No, HUMANkind. Don't be sexist.
    Yes, we mustn't be sexist! And "Mankind" has the word "man" in it, so it is therefore sexist.

    Tony's right, we must say "Humankind." But wait, "Human" has "man" in it, too.

    We must stop saying "Humankind" because it has the word "man" in it, so it is therefore sexist.

    We must say "Personkind." But wait, "Person" has "Son" in it, and a "son" is a male child. We cannot say "Personkind" because it has the word "son" in it, so it is therefore sexist.

    What are we to do?! How are we ever to communicate this concept without succumbing to sexism?



    Give me a break! "Mankind" is a perfectly acceptable word.

    --Brian Owens
    Last edited by Brian Owens; 10th January 2004 at 07:50.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    6,227
    Likes (received)
    118

    Default

    Originally posted by Kimpatsu
    If god didn't need a creator, why would particles?
    Particles, waves, energy, etc. are all scientifically explainable concepts. But the infinite existance or self creation of particles, waves, energy, etc. flies in the face of scientific theory.

    There is no hypothosis, theory, fact, or extrapolation of fact that can explain the origin of existence itself.
    Originally posted by Kimpatsu
    The very existence of god violates Occam's razor.
    No, it doesn't.

    --Brian Owens

  9. #69
    Kimpatsu Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Yagyu Kenshi
    Give me a break! "Mankind" is a perfectly acceptable word.
    No, it isn't, in this context. "Humankind" is the term we now use to denote the human race. "Mankind" refers only to males, just as "womankind" refers only to females. "Humankind" is therefore more precise.
    BTW, "press" is a "subset" (sic) of "express", too. Just because you can find the word "man" in "human" doesn't make the term "human" unacceptable.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    764
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Kimpatsu
    It says everything about the putative existence of god. As to the origin of universal laws, what are you arguing? The strong anthropic principle?
    Nececity or non-necessity does not make a case for existence or non existence. Wrong argument.
    -Youji Hajime.

    Engrish does not mine strong point

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,809
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default PC silliness

    Originally posted by Kimpatsu
    No, it isn't, in this context. "Humankind" is the term we now use to denote the human race. "Mankind" refers only to males, just as "womankind" refers only to females. "Humankind" is therefore more precise.
    Mankind refers to 'man', the species; not 'man', the gender. Just as the term 'man-made' does not preclude the object having been made by a woman, a female can 'man' a desk, and a 'man-hour' denotes an hour of work performed by either a male or a female.

    In Old English the principal sense of man was “a human,” and the words wer and wyf (or wæpman and wifman) were used to refer to “a male human” and “a female human” respectively. So, 'mankind' is correct in keeping with the original meaning of the word.

    "Humankind" is also an extremely clumsy sounding term, in addition to being quite unneccesary.
    David F. Craik

  12. #72
    Kimpatsu Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Vapour
    Nececity or non-necessity does not make a case for existence or non existence. Wrong argument.
    Yes, it does. As god is not necessary to explain natural phenomena, to postulate her existence violates Occam's razor. Nature is parsimonious; it does not allow for unnecessary complication. The existence of god would violate said rule, so god does not exist.

  13. #73
    Kimpatsu Guest

    Default Re: PC silliness

    Originally posted by Soulend
    Mankind refers to 'man', the species; not 'man', the gender. Just as the term 'man-made' does not preclude the object having been made by a woman, a female can 'man' a desk, and a 'man-hour' denotes an hour of work performed by either a male or a female.
    But it's sexist and thus should be avoided.
    Originally posted by Soulend
    In Old English the principal sense of man was “a human,” and the words wer and wyf (or wæpman and wifman) were used to refer to “a male human” and “a female human” respectively. So, 'mankind' is correct in keeping with the original meaning of the word.
    Which is still sexist; the word itself dates from a patriarchal society. Again, for that reason, it should be avoided. And "human-made" can replace "man-made" very easily.
    Originally posted by Soulend
    "Humankind" is also an extremely clumsy sounding term, in addition to being quite unneccesary.
    It's not at all clumsy; much better than calling the head of a meeting a "chair". As for necessary, from the viewpoint that sexism must be eliminated from the language, it's totally necessary.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,714
    Likes (received)
    153

    Talking

    Originally posted by Yagyu Kenshi
    Yes, we mustn't be sexist! And "Mankind" has the word "man" in it, so it is therefore sexist.

    Tony's right, we must say "Humankind." But wait, "Human" has "man" in it, too.

    We must stop saying "Humankind" because it has the word "man" in it, so it is therefore sexist.

    We must say "Personkind." But wait, "Person" has "Son" in it, and a "son" is a male child. We cannot say "Personkind" because it has the word "son" in it, so it is therefore sexist.

    What are we to do?! How are we ever to communicate this concept without succumbing to sexism?



    Give me a break! "Mankind" is a perfectly acceptable word.

    --Brian Owens
    Er... "Woman" has "man" in it too. Man puts his grubby mark on freakin' EVERYTHING.

    Cady Goldfield

  15. #75
    n2shotokai Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Kimpatsu
    You just don't get it, Steve. snip ...... Imagine that you're an expert on Ancient Rome, and then a bunch of people came along and claimed that Rome was a fiction, a Victorian fabrication. Wouldn't you feel irritated at their inability to comprehend the facts? And wouldn't that seem like arrogance?
    No, I would not feel irritated. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and to their own beliefs, just as you are entitled to your beliefs. Yes belief, as you believe their is no God. It would only be arrogance to believe I was the only one who was right and that I should change everyone's thinking to match my own. That is arrogance.

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •