I think you are misrepresenting Dan. I think Dan is perfectly tolerant of other peoples religous views. He may VERBALLY knock them, in self defense. But unlike the religious people, I would never expect Dan to use FORCE, physical or legal, to deny them the right to practice their religion. I dont see atheists running around killing religious people in the name of atheism. I believe everyone has a right to their religion as long as it does not impose on anyone elses RIGHTS. I bet Dan feels the same way. peace axeman
Obviously, his points do not prove that God exists. But the point about the rock argument and the serious limitations of word games are arrived at logically, as a matter of fact, and do negate some of the argumensts that have been attempted to prove that God CAN'T exist!!
Omnipotent: having virtually iunlimited authority or influence omnipotence: an agency or force of unlimited power (Webster's College Dictionary) How does this rock argument prove that a being does not have unlimited power? It is nothing but a petty word game, created by the communication tool of an infitessmal finite being that relies completely on its 5 senses and limited logic structure.
Actually, logic has been used to describe, through philosophy, how things can (not must, but can) exist outside of our logic systems. So I'm sorry it is all Greek to you. The easiest way is to point out that we know nothing for sure other than that each of us thinks and therefore must exist. Everything else that we "know" about the objective universe is the result of our perceptions through our use of the 5 senses (assuming they are accurate and that there is not more we need beyond our 5 senses). However, our perceptions often deceive us, from the color and texture of what we see to much else. Moreover, math itself, our most objective and our highest tool for studying the objective universe has proven that it is limited and has contradictory attributes itself (Russel's Paradox is but one example). There you go for starters.
I agree that Dan believes in people's rights to believe in what they want, and I agree that Dan would not use violence. And of course, it is those who do not believe even in said basic liberty who are the most dangerous. However, when you go beyond simply questioning or challenging someone to the point that you insult every person who does not agree with you, even if the subject of the attack is perfectly rational and does not harm anyone else, then you are fostering an atmosphere of disrespect and possibly worse, potentially leading to all kinds of problems. Obviously, Thunderbolt is disrespectful and therefore deserves insults (although the highest road is to ignore him, which I have done for the most part but still not as much as I should have). But clearly not EVERYONE who is religious should be lumped in with those who are religious and intolerant of other religions or the non-religious. Didn't we question how a benevolent God would hold us responsible for the "sins" of those who lived thousands of years ago?
You know this thread is like a soap opera. One can come in anywhere, and not really miss anything of value.
Yes this post is a joke. Why don't you all just wait till you die before deciding if there is an afterlife. Runningbear