Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
afx114
Participant
ParticipantParticipant[quote=Rustico]This is going viral,
“I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.[/quote]
The sentiment of that quote is nice and all, but: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/anatomy-of-a-fake-quotation/238257/
“The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity” -Abraham Lincoln
Participant[quote=Rustico]This is going viral,
“I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.[/quote]
The sentiment of that quote is nice and all, but: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/anatomy-of-a-fake-quotation/238257/
“The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity” -Abraham Lincoln
Participant[quote=Rustico]This is going viral,
“I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.[/quote]
The sentiment of that quote is nice and all, but: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/anatomy-of-a-fake-quotation/238257/
“The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity” -Abraham Lincoln
Participant[quote=Rustico]This is going viral,
“I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.[/quote]
The sentiment of that quote is nice and all, but: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/anatomy-of-a-fake-quotation/238257/
“The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity” -Abraham Lincoln
Participant[quote=Rustico]This is going viral,
“I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.[/quote]
The sentiment of that quote is nice and all, but: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/anatomy-of-a-fake-quotation/238257/
“The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity” -Abraham Lincoln
Participant[quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.
To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]
I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.
1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”
Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.
Participant[quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.
To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]
I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.
1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”
Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.
Participant[quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.
To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]
I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.
1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”
Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.
Participant[quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.
To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]
I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.
1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”
Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.
Participant[quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.
To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]
I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.
1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”
Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.
Participant[quote=Hobie]Palin personality comes off more genuine and real. And this is why she continues to have audiences. [/quote]
That’s funny, to me she comes across as fake and cartoon-like. But maybe that’s because I’m just so polished and smooth.
Participant[quote=Hobie]Palin personality comes off more genuine and real. And this is why she continues to have audiences. [/quote]
That’s funny, to me she comes across as fake and cartoon-like. But maybe that’s because I’m just so polished and smooth.
-
AuthorPosts
