The finest art I've actually seen was a showing of Claude Monet's late period here at the Portland Art Museum. The paintings are nothing but blobs of color up close because he was almost blind, but if you step back a little from them, they resolve into some of the most beautiful paintings I've ever seen.
David Koresh, Joseph Smith, Muhammad, Jesus Christ, and notable others throughout history have proclaimed to have the true purpose of God's plan revealed to them. None of them have truly come back from the dead to prove their claims. On the subject of "miracles" such as the resurrection of Jesus, I quote Arthur C. Clarke.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
My own standard of proof as to atheists is not binary. But it seems so to you, making this whole premise an argument from ignorance in the limitations of possibility for a third option.
You don't believe athiests exist. Fine. Your "belief" assumes a binary relationship, in that they either exist, or they don't, but you have taken the negative position, and wish proof to the contrary.
By limiting the dialogue to a binary understanding of the semantics, you have placed an unreasonable limitation on the respondents and their ability to prove anything to you. Nice sophistry, but there are third options you will not allow by limiting the semantics of the exchange. You are god, of this thread, by making rules that are unreasonable, intentional, and capricious. Have fun with that. And goodbye. I have no need to prove my beliefs, or lack of such, to you, or anyone else.
And that is my third option: Not participating further beyond exposing your logic as self-limiting and thus inflammatory. I'm not unaware of this irony as a commentary on the demands of athiests for proof that god exists, but its a broken analogy. People and their beliefs are well documented scientifically; the existence of lack thereof, of a diety is not.
It's like asking for proof the sun exists. And then denying the proof of your ability to see.
Nice thread. It has as much substance as any other virtual argument, meaning zero to none.
Argument from ignorance is not a valid form of reducto ad absurdum, which this thread is attempting, but failing miserably at.
It's like asking someone to build an ark, and then giving them Peter Pan tools to do it with.
I have no need to prove my existence to you, as your opinion, or beliefs, have no impact on my world whatsoever. Go ahead and deny the existence of athiests if you wish. I've dealt with flat-earthers too.
The villain never thinks of himself as the villain, while the hero is always conflicted by the means that are required to hunt the villain and resolve the conflict. Collateral damage makes us all bad people at times, no matter what our intentions may be. So in answer to your question, I am a person, neither good nor bad by my own definitions, but others may perceive me at times to be either one or the other depending on how my actions affect them.
And that, as they say, sounds like a personal problem.
You've got the goods on Obama but are receiving death threats from the Secret Service as a result? Don't give it to a lawyer as insurance, Obama's one of them and they all stick together...
Yeah. Maybe if I shaved, I'd know how to spell maybe. And then I could stand out. Funny how when you don't agree with religious people they go straight to ad hominem. Don't bother looking that up, personal attacks are where it started, and personal attacks are where it will end.
Stand out as much as you'd like. I'm sure "God" and the "angels" look down on me just as much as you do. But then, they have the right to. You don't. Very christian.
Done with this thread now. I can find ignorance and bigotry by looking out the door. I don't need to log on and tolerate it.
I eat meat, but I've been a grazer in the past. After four years of granola and tofu, I starting killing stuff again. I have nothing against vegetarians. I just find it cheaper, and tastier, for stuff with a face to die.
Well, to say that corporations are the most efficient form of business is to ignore the primary factor of bureaucracy, which is to slow the process to geological time-frames.
Smithian division of labor provides for self-interest in a worker as well, for the highest paid individuals will be the ones most knowledgable in their field, which pretty much dictates a small business cooperative as the most efficient and profitable model for everyone involved. This is the basis of the American Dream.
When you tie up intellectual propriety under the legal clause of work-for-hire you get a lot of unhappy workers. Todd MacFarlane and Image Comics are a perfect example of motivated and independent and extremely talented individuals breaking the norm and challenging the mainstream to succeed in business.
It can and does happen, and governments role should be to encourage this quality of free-market cooperative exchange rather than regulating it toward bureaucratic Leviathans like Government Motors. JMO
Galactic_bodhi Forum Posts (9,196)
RE: Canadian Women ROCK!
I like Americans. Like the Osmonds, they're a little bit country, a little bit rock and roll.