|
SFRobertsDickClarke (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Really, in what way could you explain how I do hopping back and forth? I'm curious...
amazonhippie (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
This British dude hops back and forth between what point he's trying to get across. Sometimes he sounds like an Atheist. Sometimes he sounds like a Christian.
It's almost as if he believes both ideas, although he claims to be a Christian.
SFRobertsDickClarke (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
See the one which is entitled "There is no evidence for God - Really"
magicpet (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
You have 46 videos. Which one contains the evidence which religion offers?
SFRobertsDickClarke (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Human experaince is in my opinion possibly the most compelling argument for it. Apart from that there is a lot of the evidence which religion offers, which while it does not provide 100% proof, it does lead us in a direction. See another video of mine for a discussion of that.
magicpet (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
But why assume that there is a purpose of the universe? and not many? or none?
SFRobertsDickClarke (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
You've missed the point if your looking for something provable here. What I said was that religion is to do with the purpose, not the nature of the universe. The nature of the universe has indeed been applied via technology to make our lives easier. However the purpose of the universe is something diffrent.
magicpet (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
no, because Religion has no proven, demonstratable usefulness to acomplish anything whatsoever: as a guideline, as a healthy ingredient in life. Science doesn't need it at all. Logic and reason are the guiding forces in science not superstition. In fact, religion would be counter productive as a guide because it would assume to be true assertions that aren't proven. Creationism is a good example of that.
evrythinitypeistaken (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
but um what be good to get your opinion on that; do you believe that society or mankind is evolving? to begin with i believed so, because the standard of living has improved; but i suppose that in itself falls into the trap of believing all our satisfaction is wrapped up in immediate circumstances. and also ignores countries that are still in abject poverty. i also thought democracy was a big stepping stone until i realised that was a very western way of thinking!
evrythinitypeistaken (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
we usually desire things completely contrary to our immediate, physical benefit and progression obviously that scientific definition of mankind, which argues that all our problems are solved with bread, and everything we are can be objectively scientifically proven is wrong. it neglects far too much of the human experience! maybe thats the beauty in miracles, they completely reverse the laws of science! but yeah, great thoughts! sorry if this long rant wasnt particularly relevant! |
