Theli

AJ113...
Excuse me for interupting your pillowtalk here, but this remark is just too stupid. (here you go, gemma)
Do you use the same argument regarding serial killers?
As defending someone like Charles Manson or Ted Bundy, would you compare their "deathcount" with the total number of murders commited by humanity and then draw the conclution that they are insignificant?


If a religion/belief or the authority empowered by that religion/belief is cause of a negative influence on our society (war,racism,prejudice) then the people holding that beleif is partially responsible. Won't you agree?

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Gemma Therese

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Theli:
[QB]AJ113...


too studip.
____________

Am I the only one who finds this a little ironic?

Galileo

Is this the way one judges whether god is real or not? To be unquestioningly pious and unthinkingly devoted?

The answer quoted to whether god/s exist is as purposeless and as meaningly as something resembling: "God exists. Fullstop (period)"

I'm sure that if there is a God, he/she/it will be very disappointed for after creating us in his/her/its own image (according to Christianity) and having had so many years to explore our world and discover the many things he/she/it created around and within us (which is what god wants us to do according to the Vatican in recent comments released on science and technology), our devotion proves us to be really not that bright.

Because a loophole the size of forever is so obvious that god would probably laugh to death.

you say that
what i understand from this sentence is that our personal prejudices and emotions should not interfere with the existance/non-existance of any substance or thing, whether tangible or abstract

then the quote contradicts itself with
where is the contradiction?
well, the two sentences bear no relationship to each other whatsoever. What does proving the existance of god with tangible evidence have anything to do with the fact that personal emotion is irrelevant in proving something's existance?

If you mean that Gemma's belief is personal and therefore whether god exist is irrelevant then i absolutely agree, but if you mean that in proving God's existance one should not involve personal emotion, and also that tangible evidence is not needed to prove god, then there you have contradicted yourself.

If emotions are irrevelant in proof, then obiviously logic deductions based on evidence are relevant. Then you say that proof of God's existance does not need tangible evidence?

do we see a contradiction yet?

if you don't, then i seriously suggest a rethinking of concept before rushing to assert it on print which only achieves ambiguity in content.

but cut out all the faults in technique, i agree partly with your opinion that devotion is quite personal (correct me if that's not your opinion), but in consideration with the topic, that does not constitute the existance of God.

If logic and evidence is not necessary in the proof of something's existance then i say aliens exist, what do you think? (question directed to all not just member originally quoted)

I would like to get back on track in discussing the original question posted by Gemma i think she would appreciate it too. I see the discussion has sidetracked into why Gemma is catholic and how is in un/intelligent rather than "does god exist"

although after a few hundred posts, a topic's bound make a few strange turns, but it hasn't gone sour, which means we as humans are still thinking.

Well i must congratulate Gemma then, for grabbing at this opportunity of starting a controversial topic before someone else gets to it.

Theli

[quote]Originally posted by Gemma Therese:
<strong>Crap! I was in a hurry while writing that post.
I didn't realize I would leave myself open for empty headed criticism attacks.
The spelling error is fixed, you can go find something else to point at and laugh.

Gemma Therese

I didn't laugh, I simply found it ironic.

Galileo

(Calling to Gemma Therese, this is GOD, you're being implicitly nasty to someone, very unchristian of you.)

Ignore bracket if taken offence. Merely aiming for the absurd to try and get your attention.

Will the topic ever get back on track???????

If personal attacks (especially the spelling/grammatical error kind) continue, methinks topic shall disappear...

Galileo

Galileo

Sorry Gemma, must criticise.

You have just used the example of something very tangible to prove or relate to an indirect proof of something that is obviously not.

Poor introduction, many people, i would suppose, have poked fun at that.

and back to the ironic thing

am i the only person who finds this ironic?

Gemma Therese

Galileo:

Um, you totally contradict yourself.

In the first post, you bemoan the fact some people are hung up on grammar and not staying on the topic.

In the second post, you point out I misspelled "regardless".

So which is it?

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

I believe such an acknowledgement demonstrates a good deal of integrity. I also believe that your eagerness to testify to your faith demonstrates commitment. At some point, however, you become indistinguishable from the kook on the corner with the megaphone. Do you want to have a discussion (including a discussion of logic, facts, and evidence), or do you simple wish preach to the infidels?