FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB General Discussion Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-17-2003, 01:49 PM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: A Shadowy Planet
Posts: 7,585
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by emotional
(edited to add) : so when Sir William Crookes discovers the chemical element Thallium he's a respected scientist, but when he decides to research psychic/paranormal phenomena, he's a pseudoscientist? That's a double standard! That's the foul game materialists are playing!
It's not a double standard if he applies the same skepticism and critical analysis to psychic/paranormal phenomena as he would to chemical analyses of Thallium.

There have been many well-respected scientists who have gone on to explore more pseudoscientific pursuits.
Shadowy Man is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 01:49 PM   #32
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Default

(edited to add) : so when Sir William Crookes discovers the chemical element Thallium he's a respected scientist, but when he decides to research psychic/paranormal phenomena, he's a pseudoscientist? That's a double standard! That's the foul game materialists are playing!

[bzzzt] Wrong. You are the weakest link. Good-bye!

When he discovered Thallium, he was practicing science. When he posited seances as evidence of an afterlife, he was practicing pseudoscience. Smart people, even scientists, sometimes believe weird things. Not a double standad, not a foul game; just a fact.
Mageth is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 02:30 PM   #33
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah
Posts: 1,945
Default

Very well, since I'm not winning this debate, I'm backing out.

With or without evidence, I believe in life after death. Because I must.
emotional is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 09:39 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 889
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by emotional
Very well, since I'm not winning this debate, I'm backing out.

With or without evidence, I believe in life after death. Because I must.
The black candle did work C did it not. And so the old salt and the brier strung with toads feet boiled well and poured over the third step. The phase was just right. Lucky you.

I believe in it because I must.

JT
Infidelettante is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 10:08 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 533
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Duvenoy
What?! Of course athiesm is a religion! I know all about athiests. They worship at the vile alter of Darwin the Charlatan, and work to teach our children his evil lies. On Febuary 12th, all the athiests celebrate the birthday of their false god, and praise his father, SATAN! These celebrations are nothing but profane debaucheries! They dance and drink strong liquors, and inhale the smoke of forbidden substances. Blood sacrifice has been rumored.

Will the world ever be saved from the curse of athieism? I don't know. SATAN and his son Darwin have made them very powerful. But if we presevere; if we can become strong enough, praise the Almighty, we shall send this foul religion to the hell it so richly deserves!

doov
Sounds like fun. This is after all the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Blood sacrifice is why I joined this club. :banghead:
trekbette is offline  
Old 04-18-2003, 04:38 AM   #36
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Just another hick from the sticks.
Posts: 1,108
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by trekbette
Sounds like fun. This is after all the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Blood sacrifice is why I joined this club. :banghead:
Please do not say that, even in jest. I only mentioned the blood sacrifice as a rumor, which is all that it is. If I were to speak against it as a proven fact, I would be reducing myself to the level of the lying and decietful, athiestic Darwinists.

I urge you to begin a careful study of Answers in Genesis. The Rev. Ham and his team of Creation Scientists pummel the misbegotton athiests rigorously. All of the science anyone needs to know can be found in the Bible. Rev. Ham translates it with unerring accuratcy.

The athiests can worship Darwin all the way to HELL, where they meet their demi-god's FATHER. THEN they'll see the error of their depraved religion!

doov
Duvenoy is offline  
Old 04-18-2003, 05:08 AM   #37
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nowhere Land
Posts: 441
Default

Slamanap claims that we believe that:
Quote:
there is nothing higher than man out there
Are we? Most blood thirsty of all creatures is man. True that animals kill, but only for food, man, on the other hand, kill for purpose beyond subsistence
Rousseau_CHN is offline  
Old 04-18-2003, 05:14 AM   #38
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nowhere Land
Posts: 441
Default

Quote:
I purpose that you cannot argue against the existence of God unless you first assume his existence.
Slamanap, that is absurd. If we first assume his existence, then to doubt it makes us look ridiculous.

But why continue this thread, slamanap has probably left and won't come back anymore...his number of post has hardly moved since.
Rousseau_CHN is offline  
Old 04-18-2003, 05:34 AM   #39
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: US
Posts: 5,495
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Rousseau_CHN
Slamanap, that is absurd. If we first assume his existence, then to doubt it makes us look ridiculous.
While it may have come across as sophistry, I think Salmanap is right - to argue the case rationally IMO you have to look at both POV's. I take that assuming god's existence for sake of argumentation is a "Well, let us suspend belief for a moment and imagine that there really were a god....."

Rousseau, you raise a good point though, for rational argumentation, the believers should come up with proof positive that god does exist starting from the assumption that he/she/it doesn't.

On the other hand, going to an evangelical service could be to some like taking their first snort of coke.....so assumptions can be dangerous. Can we get an FDA ruling on the potential adverse effects of blind faith?

Cheers, John
John Page is offline  
Old 04-18-2003, 02:30 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 533
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Duvenoy
Please do not say that, even in jest. I only mentioned the blood sacrifice as a rumor, which is all that it is. If I were to speak against it as a proven fact, I would be reducing myself to the level of the lying and decietful, athiestic Darwinists.

I urge you to begin a careful study of Answers in Genesis. The Rev. Ham and his team of Creation Scientists pummel the misbegotton athiests rigorously. All of the science anyone needs to know can be found in the Bible. Rev. Ham translates it with unerring accuratcy.

The athiests can worship Darwin all the way to HELL, where they meet their demi-god's FATHER. THEN they'll see the error of their depraved religion!

doov
I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were serious. Being an atheist for me means that I do not believe in any god or demon, this includes satan, zeus or any other mythological character you can dream up.
trekbette is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:26 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.