Discussion in 'Religion and Lighthearted Discussion' started by Lifer, Jun 12, 2008.
Do you think Dr. Stephan Hawking is smart? He believes.
I'm smart... and I believe.
There is your answer...
Its pretty sad when non-believers, who cant stand it that there are people who believe, resort to pushing the theory that basically says people who believe in God are stupid.
Its beyond childish.
i mean. yeah.. plenty of them do
Smart? Yes. Honest and introspective? No. At least as far as monotheism is concerned.
And Stephen Hawkins is an atheist Reflex.
?? So anyone who believes in God in dishonest?
To post another question....
Can an imbecile believe in evolution?
Whats an "Athiest Reflex"?
sorry, its late, i couldnt help myself..
It's an automatic reaction honest and introspective people have towards religion
you didnt answer my other question. Why is believing in God dishonest? Or not introspective?
If a person says he believes in God when he really doesnt, I guess THAT would not be honest. But if a person does believe, please explain the use of the word.
Not being honest with themselves. If you can't ask yourself difficult questions and strip away the walls that you've been indoctrinated with since you were 6 years old then you will probably continue to rely on the comfort of religion and easy answers.
questions like, "if I came here tomorrow not knowing anything about any religions, which religion has the largest body of evidence to convince me with? Which book do I pick? which thousand year old fables to I choose to believe in." Unfortunately for you, the honest answer to these questions is "none of them."
How do you know who is and who isnt being "honest" with themselves?
The answer "none of them", is an answer. It has nothing to do with "honesty"
Its just your opinion, which you are entitled to, but it is nothing more than that.
Nope. The concept of evolution is a lot more complicated. It's easier just to believe in God.
Having the question under consideration (and therefore not, theoretically, closed), it's rude as hell to use the colored language and reliance on literalist religious strawmen to make your point.
Now, once your point is made, if you are in fact able to make one, and having established the utter uselessness and fallacy of all religion, you can feel free to follow up with the colored language.
As in the case of the religious enthusiast, your discourse here smacks of the "easy answers" one finds by association with -- or long familiarity in print with -- viewpoints that echo one's own far too often. This familiarity can appear to the outsider as disrespect, as I have said many a time to the proselytizers hereabouts.
Thanks for the advice oh longwinded one
I knew we could find common ground.
Yeah actually attempting to think through points and counterpoints is, naturally, an exercise of futility.
Sorry it's not all black and white.
Ah yes, the old, "I'm too smart for the room" approach. We will enjoy, while you continue to enjoy yourself. Something tells me the former isn't the futile act.
Ooo how positively snarky!
Like I said, enjoy. Might involve skipping the better stuff, but you're doing that anyway
Ah yes, the old "I'm too smart to read" ploy. Or is it "card"?
Separate names with a comma.