« BACK TO FORUM
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Brigitta
Joined: Oct 3, 2005
Posts: 30 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Country: Malawi
Province/State: Blantyre
City: Blantyre
|
Atheism
October 31, 2005 - 09:11 AM
|
|
I am not an atheist but would like to understand atheism and its theories from an atheist point of view. I do have my own opinions about it, but I guess I could hear something different from the atheists themselves. mind if I give my opinion on atheism so you can answer me?:i heard that man is a born worshipper and I think that’s true if you go back into your history,whether European, African,Asian or Middle East(America&Australia are too new!) you will find that from the beginning of your history your ancestors worshipped some god or other because they felt that there was a power in existence higher than humans,which was responsible for them.And I always say that now that man has a list of amazing creations/inventions of his own to his credit which have enabled him solve so many of life’s mysteries and overcome challenges, he cant see how they could possibly be such a power when he is,he has the power and can look after himself.why,he can "create",so it is really hard to imagine someone creating him too so the only explaination that makes sense to his very superior creative mind is that he just happened by some scientific reaction or other.Also,man has become such a complicated creature with the growth of his knowledge and capability and simple explanations like “The Creation of the Universe” can no longer satisfy his great mind. He looks for FACTS more than that he looks for TRUTH, after all, how do you define truth first?he looks for PROOF and not TESTIMONY,after all testimony is just words and can easily be baseless?
How the universe came into being, how man came into existence is not a question of faith and belief for him, but scientific occurrences which he has the ability to discern even though he didn’t exist by then(but then is that not what makes him and his wonderful mental abilities great?)
So the existence of atheism does not amaze me at all. It stems from man’s growing knowledge and ability to see himself through with things he has made, can see and can control which has lessened his dependence on gods he cannot see.But i could be wrong.or just ignorant.tell me.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Saladin
Joined: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 1000 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
 Virtual Volunteer
Gender & Age: Male, 27
Country: Egypt
Province/State: Al Qahirah
City: Cairo
|
Re: Atheism
October 31, 2005 - 09:32 AM
|
|
This is an interesting topic. Although I have an important question: How much reliable is human science -where most of it is founded on human "conventions" and "assumptions": e.g. mathematics and electromagnetics- to be compared with the universe as a whole?
What had been proven to be scientifically correct in the 1800s, was proven to be wrong or "deficient" in the 1900s, and the latter will be probably proven to be wrong or deficient in the future.
Science is not that reliable....it continouously changes, and even the most accepted theories are soon modified and replaced by other new theories.
There will ALWAYS be some aspects in our life that science cannot be granted 100 % relaibility to judge them.
There's an interesting book called: "The Unnatural Nature of Science", by lewis Wolpert...I think it's provides suitable feedback.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Marco
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 59 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Age: 33
Country: Germany
Province/State: Berlin
|
Re: Atheism
November 18, 2005 - 05:10 AM
|
|
hah. i like that question too much.
@theBMK: as you know i am an atheist, but not the kind of you described (quite well). u r right to see the cause of atheism in history itself. i agree an do the same with religion. my point of view is an agnostic, means i dont know if theres a god or not, but consider it as not probable.
for me the most important thing is that people reflect critical and do things to help and comfort themselves AND OTHERS (solidarity!). because we are social (toolmaking) animals we need coexistance so theres is only one proper way of coexistance and this is solidarity.
another important aspect to understand my atheist view is to consider EMOTION and REFLECTION as something different, which better go together, but dont have to automatically. i just read a very good book on the "genetical and social development of human emotion and motivation" starting with the first one-cell animals 1 million years ago... a very good, very (self-)critical book with A LOT of interesting theories which always admits when something is not that clear ...
emotion is what the evolution brought us in the need for decisionmaking (the cell: move left or right? / the human: eat the leaf and/or the rabbit? / human baby: cry or sleep?)
the reflection developed out of emotion for the same reason but opened up the horizon of variety. the mind grow in capacity up to the level of self-awareness in combination with complex communication and social structure and from that point on it makes sense to reflect the action of reflection from the emotional process within and between people seperatly. from that point of selfawareness (selfdistance and higher communication) we have the opportunity to decide in opposite to our own emotions, e.a. according to ideas, ideologies or enforcment. still i am sure its better reflection and emotion go hand in hand, not only because they have the same root in evolution, but also it just feels better ;-)
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Marco
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 59 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Age: 33
Country: Germany
Province/State: Berlin
|
AT A MUSLIM (for instance)
December 18, 2005 - 09:01 AM
|
|
hey smsana... you know nothing about atheism at all, right? it really sounds like your muslim education is 100% complete. so cannot even imagine that there is a world outside you never heard of, right? do you think you can convince me to become a muslim quoting from the quran? thats funny. you are really funny! the quotings makes sense IF YOU WANT to be a muslim. i want to understand society and human beings, because i want to live and fight for a new world without oppression and exploitation. im not searching for "peace of mind" and "strong believe" even though I HAVE it (maybe more than you). (you will laugh: the only thing i dont have is sex, because im too busy with my activities for this NEW WORLD).
atheism, in my point of view, DO NOT MEAN TO BELIEVE IN NOTHING, because its simply not possible to believe in nothing. WHY? because how can we know something is right for 100%? the next day (year, century) somebody will present good reasons for another explanation... we never know the future, so ... we cannot KNOW at all, but have to believe. BUT HOW do we believe? an atheist believe the way of MOST PROBABLE explanation she/he could find and always keep her mind open for new aspects. a muslim (for instance) do limit all her explanations in refrence to a very old outdated book... so actually you are lacking something. not me!
by the way: i believe in love. i believe in equality and solidarity. i believe marriage is a stupid tradition and i believe in a lot of other things. some you might share the most might be quite unknown to you ...
the atom? no. energy! everything is energy! even the atoms are energy. they consist on something called neutrons and protons and electrons. but heres a very interesting fact: if you seperate the protons and neutrons of one atom from another (which is very difficult) you well get very much less weight summarizing the weight of all the single pieces than if they are together as one atom! during the seperation they give a huge amount of enregy to the environment and loose anormously in weight. if we could easily seperate the atoms of 1kg bread (or shit, or wood or whatever) we could lift a 150 story-building with that energy. the only problem is that its VERY difficult and dangerous to seperate the atom into pieces. so we cannot use it as an energy-ressource. but what can we learn from this? material is a kind of energy! where does the energy came from? the astromathematics say, there was something like a BIG-BANG some billion years ago where everything startes from one VERY VERY VER VERY HOT point in the universe. since than our universe is expanding. but as far as i know the speed of expansion is lowering. from that, scientist GUESS there will be a turning point in the VERY FAR future, where the universe will implode again. mhm. so if you can agree to that point, but say "Who start the universe?" i will admit, that i have no idea who or HOW it started. but i have ideas how it develeped from that point and this explanation dont need divine guidance at all and is still very probable... even though these things are very impressing and beautifull and BIG ...
you asked me: "why they get married, who told them?" ok. as i said i dont like marriage at all. who told me. i learned about marriage from teachers, books, my parents, friends, radio, television, internet ... i see married people in the streets everyday, ... so what do i do? i try to get my own opinion on that. i try to understand why people are marrying. i try to know wether they are happy. i try to know what it means to marry, today and in the past (in history). my conlusion for now is: MARRIAGE IS A CAGE FOR MALE AND FEMALE. if i would try to explain, how i came to this conclusion i would never find an end, because of all the social aspects involved in this topic ...
so please. if you want to discuss than try to answer without a single quote from quran. you cannot? you dont even like? then theres no way of discussion between us ...
the wind of change shall enter your mind.
and peace for pakistan, india and all over the world!
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
grandma
Joined: Apr 5, 2004
Posts: 436 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Country: Egypt
|
Re: Atheism
December 22, 2005 - 04:16 AM
|
|
Salam (peace) for all
First of all we all know the rules of discussions here
I would like to share scientific discussion but I could not hide like others my anger when i read "old outdated book... "
because this show dissrespect to our book and harm our feeling not as blind followers but as educated updated scientific people know clearlrly that we have one book for all have scientific evidences we can discuss if we continue healthy scientific discussion
please remove these words to continue putting in mind
that no one can convince or guide anyone
salam
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Saad Iqbal
Joined: Oct 27, 2005
Posts: 30 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 24
Country: Pakistan
Province/State: Sindh
City: Karachi
|
old outdated ?
December 23, 2005 - 02:12 AM
|
|
Salaam(peace) 2 all,
believe it or not...... what this 'old outdated' book, as u called it, predicted 1400 years ago, are now 110% true.
So how can u say such a book an outdated one?
prove it.....
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Brigitta
Joined: Oct 3, 2005
Posts: 30 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Country: Malawi
Province/State: Blantyre
City: Blantyre
|
Re: Atheism
December 29, 2005 - 09:47 AM
|
|
"astromathematics say, there was something like a BIG-BANG some billion years ago where everything startes from one VERY VERY VER VERY HOT point in the universe. since than our universe is expanding. but as far as i know the speed of expansion is lowering. from that, scientist GUESS there will be a turning point in the VERY FAR future, where the universe will implode again. mhm. so if you can agree to that point, but say "Who start the universe?" i will admit, that i have no idea who or HOW it started. but i have ideas how it develeped from that point and this explanation dont need divine guidance at all and is still very probable... " [Originally posted by Fuchs]
The probability base..."it is very probable" yes it is probable, but then again a "probability" means "not a solid fact" or in other words " partially speculation" or even "mere speculation".probability theories of course need no divine guidance, they are man made(nothing divine about man)based on scientific studies that deny the existence of a divine being who has been credited with CREATING the universe and all in it.
Should not the question of "since there was already an existent universe and matter from which that great great bang that brought all these awesome living and nonliving things into existence today,where did it come from?" just sway u a bit(just a bit) to thinking or realising that the universe and all its awesome contents(the human being being the most awesome of all) are way beyond scientific explaination?If u say they are not, how come the big bang theorists with all their amazing intellect(isn't the human intellect phenomenal?) and universe-deep scientific research just cannot go beyond the bing bang's origin to the origin of the pre-existent matter?enlighten me on this simple question before we procedd to the next part of this topic?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Marco
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 59 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Age: 33
Country: Germany
Province/State: Berlin
|
Re: Atheism
January 8, 2006 - 07:54 AM
|
|
i am sorry you feel harraced by my expressions concerning holy books. i didnt meant to hurt, although it seems invitable if you want me to say how i think about it. i thought in this thread atheists are meant to explain their perspective ...
if you want me to PROVE the outdating of the bible i want to state just two things:
First: if you are looking for PROVE you'll find prove for (almost) anything you want to prove yourself. you will agree that you are not ready to miss the bible as they light and the guidance and the word of god. so? useless competition ...
Second: As i told you i think that its NOT possible to KNOW something 100% for sure (because our capacities are limited and because of the future, which can bring new enlightment). so? we have no other choice than to believe the most probable untill we know more (if care about critical attitude at all).
@ thebmk: you might wonder a bit, but my opinion about these bigbang theorists is not even that affirmative. the most scientists do very big mistakes in their work. The "critical theory of society" made these mistakes in the beginning, too. and some are even doing today. these mistakes are for instance:
- POSITIVISM: the believe that nature-science will reveal the secrets of the whole universe, including human society, like building a house untill everything is covered by it. this is not very probable. today this house appaers to break down from time to time and had to be rebuilt. id say we dont need a house at all but a fundament of exeperiance and a flexible critical theory of society developing in progress and shaping the new world of love, solidarity, personal freedom and so on (not only my vision).
- OBJECTIVISM: scientists (and others) very often divide the world in the active and passive parts. so there are active SUBJECTS and passive OBJECTS. it means the subjects have the rights and the possibility to act and treat and explain the objects. in objectivist literature there are very often WHITE MALE scientists claiming the truths and degrading even other human beings as objects. i neither think that they have the truth most probably, nor do i support such an arrogance at all from my perspective (which is always in favour of the oppressed and exploited). for instance the scientifical racism developed after 200years of colonialisation. in the beginning of it europeans were still discussing whether indians (for instance) should be considered human or prehuman. many people believed they should be treated equal. those who peronally profit from slaves were absolutely convinced of "barabarity". it was the right attitude to go further with their murderous business. later it was the whole european nations profiting from the colonisation so the people need scientific explanation for the "african barbarity" as they were already in the SCIENTIFIC AGE (18th and 19th century). others were working on those racist theories since a long time and when the social situation was ready for it these racist theories became dominant in the society .... i think everything is partly active and passive, even if one aspect is dominant. just think of a simple stone. dont it influence his environment? maybe not consciously, but the stone onetime looses from the rock, then fall and maybe hit the head of a person. together with the rock, the whether (erosion) and a windbreeze it bacame very active for a moment. not to mention that it is spreading minerals into the soil and prevent plants to grow below and so on. still i can take it and use it how i feel like because my skills and tools are "superior". but i dont see myself in a activity-competition with that stone...
so concerning that universe thing: i dont even read that much about it. the main fundament of the bigbang-theory is a kind of continious wave-flow (backgroundwaves) which is coming from all directions onto and through the earth. scientists interprete these "wave-carpet" as the echo of the bigbang. the analyses of the "material" and the measuring of the direction and intension of these waves support this theory very strong. the source of these waves is the most distant point in ALL DIRECTIONS. so whats behind? actually there is no behind as we guess today, because the space/universe is crooked so its not possible to go or watch straight into the unverse. what appears to be straight is always crooked. also: the deeper we look into the universe, the deeper we look into the past (speed of light). so as we see the source of these waves at "the end" of the universe, we see its beginning (through a huge bow) the same time.
yes. sure! these theories are interpretations! i never said more than that: they are more probable than the genesis in the bible. i dont even care that much about it. i dont plan to leave our planet ;-)
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Brigitta
Joined: Oct 3, 2005
Posts: 30 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Country: Malawi
Province/State: Blantyre
City: Blantyre
|
Re: Atheism
January 30, 2006 - 09:56 AM
|
|
Originally posted by Fuchs
-yes. sure! these theories are interpretations! i never said more than that: they are more probable than the genesis in the bible. i dont even care that much about it. i dont plan to leave our planet ;-)
Hello Fuchs.The intention was to hear the low down on atheism from an atheist viewpoint and now i think am beginning to get the hang of it.am not trying to argue about it am trying to understand it and discuss it if it thats okay with concerned parties.if not, no loss.
too bad that the learned fellows of science would even use science as a weapon for degrading other human beings and treating them like objects.but then everything is what it is like it is and no sorry attempts to establish crap theories(the superiority of certain kinds over others gig)is going to change what is coz it is,as the truly worthy and enlightened recognise and understand.
just to let you know,believing in creation does not mean not believing in science and its findings.on the contrary, science findings provide a greater insight to the wonders of nature.if it wasnt for science we wouldnt know what we know today about how all that we know of from living to
nonliving things functions and why plus how to handle them when they malfunction.not to mention that this technology would not be where it is today.how can i possibly list the great findings of science that have improved your lives and worlds to such great extents? but then in all its greatness, science has its limitations, or is it the scientist who have limitations?figure that one out.
the difference betweeen a finding and a theory is that a finding is based on real facts and o theory as you say,on probabilities and why not mere ideas or even imagination?
it appears that the one point of dissension between science and the Bible is the origin of the universe,since the historical and moral content of the Bible is as far as facts of time nature and principle are concerned, undisputed.(surely history is on the Bible's side,and so are the world's legislations when you look at how laws for regulating human relations seem to sum down to the Biblical ones?)
the probabiliy of science theories vs the novelty of Genesis is,i presume,the backbone of atheism and therefore an atheist anthem.the universe is one great phenomenon and its contents are so grand and amazing that the human mind looks for an equally grand and amazing explaination for its existence.how amazing, all a human being knows since history,(Genesis aside) is that he originated from his forefathers who also originated from their forefathers who originated from their forefathers...........i wonder why after all these years of great discoveries and achivements in science,and it gets better everyday,the all knowing man still doesnt know whwere he came from, except of course for the very probabale theories about bangs and events he or any of his forefathers werent even there to witness(of course he couldnt have witnessed them since he is only a product of these very likely events that brought him into existence).
speaking of old and outdated holy books am certain you said that not as an insult, but as an expression of your opinion,with due respect to the contrary beliefs of others.i gather in atheism there is no recognition and therefore no respect of things divine but am sure respect for the opinions of others is one thing believers and nonbelievers have in common.of course if you ask the Bible believers they will define their books as "old and timeless" rather than outdated,and that its wisdom,guidance,principles and prophecies which always come to pass are still as true today as they were in the long gone past.
Fuchs, am so glad you do not intend to leave this planet.its ours and am sure the most coducive environment for humans.imagine yourself or other humans whisked away to live on planet Venus with all that blinding light and burning heat(am sure not even us tropical residents
born right under the sun would survive a millisecond!)thats an attempted joke hope you are laughing.
am i correct to think that this is in opposition to the Christian desire to get to heaven?not to worry.noone is taking you to places you dont want to get to let alone believe in.Peace.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Marco
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 59 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Age: 33
Country: Germany
Province/State: Berlin
|
Re: Atheism
February 4, 2006 - 11:39 AM
|
|
dear BMK
while reading your explications i am laways remembering a film i never saw up to now (how come? ;-) ... "A beautiful mind" you know it?
as far as i know there are scientists who call themselves CREATIONISTS. dealing with material and human society they practically atheist but still believe there is a plan, a ONE, in and behind everything. i neither agree nor disagree with that. even it appears to be like that in my eyes, but there is one idea i think its more probable than a "DIVINE" ONE unifying all and everything: i hope doesnt sound to uninspired... it think this thing is ENERGY. scientists since EINSTEIN discovered that even material is a form of energy. I would add, LOVE is the ultimate concept of energy-flow and energy-harmony for human beings. so instead of worshipping a GOD i suggest we better worship whats obviously behind everything and whats beautifull and powerfull and admirable ... as well. in my eyes even very much more than the abstract idea of a gods creation. believe me, i tried praying to god myself for years! today i am still praying, because i realised its the best way of meditation using all my feelings and thoughts and getting straight and honestly to my self. i learned the important thing about praying ist to be honest to oneself and think about oneself whishes and needs very honestly and try to find a solution of reality and love for everything ... thats it...
may the the love and the light and the power (all energy) be with you, yours, marco
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Saladin
Joined: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 1000 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Virtual Volunteer
Gender & Age: Male, 27
Country: Egypt
Province/State: Al Qahirah
City: Cairo
|
Re: Atheism
February 5, 2006 - 07:03 AM
|
|
<<BUT>>
Fuchs,
First, good to hear that atheists also "believe"....that's a great improvement. Muslims also "believe" Marco.
Second, you showed that atheists do not respect others, at least that is what I felt from the above quote. This is a really offensive way to describe our holy book as being "outdated", and it really shows how ignorant and stereotypical is your knowledge of Islam....just to make things crystal clear bro.
To say that Muslims limit their explanations of the universe by the Qur'an is the most irrelevant doctrine I have ever heard. Just consider that there are four main "references" for Muslims: the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the "Ijtihad" or "MIND effort", and "Ijma'" or "CONSENSUS".
Even the Qur'an and the Sunnah, they are subject to "renewal" and "ijtihad" according to each time and circumstances.
Muslims believe also that Islam is "more than probable"....it's our freedom of choice.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Saladin
Joined: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 1000 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Virtual Volunteer
Gender & Age: Male, 27
Country: Egypt
Province/State: Al Qahirah
City: Cairo
|
Re: Atheism
February 6, 2006 - 02:04 AM
|
|
Al-Kafir, and Marco,
it's nice to discuss the reasons because of which both of you became convinced with atheism, as well the other causes because of which I became convinced with Islam, if both parties would show considerable mutual respect.
I indicated my reasons clearly for being convinced with Islam, and I find them more suitable and less materialistic.
I see that you're talking about "How did we exist"; I'm talking about "Why did we exist" as well.
Questioning God's nature is something beyond human ability.
The question remains: if you know that you, mother nature, and the whole universe already exist....do you think all of this:
1) Created itself
2) Some beyond-measurement superpower created it for a certain purpose
3) Was created by "chance"
I'd choose # 2....
Second question: What if God's existence was proven "scientifically", and all people became "believers" ?
1) Would Hitler be treated the same way as Mother Theresa after death ?
2) Would you consider that science itself is a sufficient parameter or just a "probable" one ?
3) Or it's not fair that -if God ever existed- to be able to "prove" for 100% that He exists using "scientific evidence"?
**The word "believing" itself implies that you put aside scientific evidence when dealing with God's nature.
[This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah; Who BELIEVE in the UNSEEN, seadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them]
peace
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Atheism
February 6, 2006 - 02:19 AM
|
|
I am going to jump in here - Ayman, actually since the scientific method was created - science has not been proven WRONG - that is a misnomer - for instance Newtons theories are perfectly correct - Relativity did not disprove them, it simply established boundaries for their validity - ie they are only valid for slow moving objects and Newtonian physics breaks down for objects approaching the speed of light.
Much of, for instance, Astronomy which was disproven was not based on the Scientific method in the first place and was disproven by actual observation.
Science gets refined over the years, but something proven by experiment and evidence is rarely disproven later.
Now there is another issue - atheism and science are not somehow synonomous. Science really does not have an opinion as to the existance of God as it can be neither proven nor disproven scientifically - and so it is totally outside of the realm of science - which deals with what is knowable and provable.
This also highlights a problem with Atheism - it is based on Fatih in much the same way as is religion - since the existance of God is not something that can be proven or disproven then beleiving anything - either in its existance or non-existance - is a matter of faith.
the Agnostic is the true scientist as the Agnostic simply says "I don't know"
The truth is that none of us really know - but that doesn't stop us from beleiving.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Marco
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 59 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Age: 33
Country: Germany
Province/State: Berlin
|
Re: Atheism
February 6, 2006 - 08:53 AM
|
|
@ ayman. pls. understand that i am in a trap, when i try to explain my view and also try not to hurt.
@ al-kafir. thanks for this "atheism is not per se belief", but we should consider it the same with religion. some people dont believe or reflect. they just choose a religious lifestyle looking for the easiest way to survive and have fun or not to be punished. id say this the majority atheist or religious. then some people compensate their fear and anger through fanatic belief mostly politcally ideology (religious or not). i hope what we share here is the critical attitude ...
again: why not worshipping? its a nice something. the only problems in it is the hierarchy we have, mostly between a worshipper and a the omniscant super SUBJECT. and then also the mysterical attitudes. if the phenomenom we worship is something within analyses of critical science and if this something is not something to rule everything like a supernatural illusion, but something which is briefly EVERYTHING and especially LOVE, why not worshipping it. i mean ENERGY ...
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
C. Gudz
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 52 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 31
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Re: Atheism
February 8, 2006 - 05:05 AM
|
|
I appreciate your last reply al-kafir. Pascal's wager and the fallacies that you quote truly give us something to think about, whether or not we are agnostic, atheist, or religious. It was also articulated very well, which is critical for expressing oneself when engaging in complicated ideas.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
|
Home
Community
