Search results

granted, ashen was arbitrary. the request was for the colors to turn black and the requirement of a triad necessitated an intermediate step between all colors of the spectrum and the absence of all colors. my choice of the spectrum of visible light was also arbitrary, but it seemed apt. :mrgreen:

alabaster, ashen, ebony

blush, lavender, apricot

this has been the underlying theme throughout most of my posts in this sub-forum of late, that atheism demands an act of will. it is not merely a denial of the supposed proof of a creator, it is a denial of the god myth itself. to be an atheist is, quite literally, to be without a god. while...

is this any more unfair than expecting the ancient collected works that make up the sacred texts of the world to live up to the standards of modern science? just as we wouldn't expect plato's republic to deal with every nuance of modern political thought, we can't rationally expect such ancient...

while we may both be atheists, this is where you and i part ways. man does not live by science alone. you would have us throw out art, love and the multitude of human experiences that are beyond the ken of science. you would have us define the poet through a series of ones and zeroes...

don't get too excited. these are, after all, just further examples of the depths to which the political animal has sunk. on a positive note, at least we will be spared the mindless yammerings of their counterparts on the left. with obama a shoe in for the nomination, we won't be enduring...

you really didn't miss much. i was reminded why i seldom bother to pay attention to speeches and debates, they only say what is expected of them.

why is it someone always has to push the concept of freedom beyond reasonable bounds? of course no one has the right to harm others. that has never been the question. the question is how you define "harm".

the limitation of science is that it is entirely subject to observation and there are very strict limits to what we can and cannot observe. we cannot observe the past, so there is no way to completely test the veracity of scripture. we cannot simply demand that an event in history repeat...

this is the sorry excuse of the small mind, "i can't see it, so it must not be there." with such an attitude, our search for knowledge would have ended millennia ago. in principle, there must be a way to determine whether gods exist. some means which we have not yet discovered or which are...

this is precisely what i've been trying to get through your head, the inability of science to measure certain phenomena. science, at least in its present state, is not the be all and end all of the quest for knowledge. just as twelfth century man was incapable of determining atomic structures...

over and over again you and others have waved this flag in the face of believers, seemingly secure in your false logic. what you discount, through blindness or perhaps just overweening pride, are the volumes of what many consider to be historical documentation. though twisted by centuries of...

it has been this endless game of follow the leader that brought us to the brink of disaster in the first place. always looking for someone to show us the way, we fail to live up to the standards we set for the nation. i know y'all just want a leader so you'll have someone to blame when it all...

what we call certainty so often seems to come after our choices have already been made, especially when dealing with matters of faith. we may make our decisions based on faulty logic or no logic at all, but that's just the way it is. my own feelings on the subject are that we should at least...

the question was never intended to be why atheism exists, but a case by case inquiry as to the reasons behind each individual's belief that there is no god. you may wish to get involved in the semantics of the word "claim" or to split hairs as to what exactly an atheist is, but this certainly...

another rant that ends up being simply an attack on christianity, ho hum. you want us all to believe you are so rational, that there is some definitive proof that has led you to the inescapable conclusion that there is no god. you would like us all to see you as above emotional reaction and...

why do you find it so hard to separate that original myth of a creator from the surrounding mythologies that go into creating a religion? you have provided a rudimentary example of the reasoning behind the skeptical view of religion, nothing more. you haven't touched on the concept of the...

upon just what "scientific evidence" have you based the conclusion that there is no god? i can understand that a great deal of religious doctrine may be refuted through the application of scientific methodology, but how does one prove that there is no god? just as a man, consigned to the...

without conclusive evidence, all we have is consensus. this doesn't mean that consensus is correct, but that any other conclusion is no more valid than tradition. it is still little more than uninformed opinion. when such an overwhelming majority is so convinced of these mythologies, one must...