^ Oh, and of course if atheists are right, than every death attributable to one guy saying that some other guy believes in the wrong god was utterly wasted. Oops indeed...
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
^ Oh, and of course if atheists are right, than every death attributable to one guy saying that some other guy believes in the wrong god was utterly wasted. Oops indeed...
Yes, but that's more to do with religion than belief.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
But again, most atheists, myself included, have no problem with others believing in God, it is the overt enforcement of those beliefs on broader society through the mechanism of religion that is objectionable. While I may disagree with a belief in God, I don't condemn anyone for it. I do object to the organization of believers into clubs that try to coerce the rest of society into their club or exterminate the opposition.
I would expect the same courtesy for my political beliefs from you. If I were a Communist, I would expect you to allow me to hold that belief system, but if I started to organize a group to change society in that direction, I shouldn't be surprised if some people who disagree with my beliefs raise some objections.
I think this is a fundamental point that people like calgaryborn miss when they argue about militant atheists. Outspoken atheists generally object to the effects of religion on society moreso than the effects of faith on the individual, although certain outspoken atheists do have something to say about that as well. In my opinion it is perfectly valid to point out objections to the effects of religion, or faith-based initiatives. I also think it is valid for an individual to judge others based on their stated beliefs, but that kind of judgment is definitely open to question. If I told you I was a communist, you might immediately jump to a judgment about my education, my background, my level of intelligence, my credulity, or any of a number of other things. You may or may not be right but we pass judgment on these things all the time with respect to other people.
(No I'm not a Communist)
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
The Following User Says Thank You to onetwo_threefour For This Useful Post:
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour
(No I'm not a Communist)
Congressman Doyle: Are you asking this committe to believe that you attended the meeting of a communist organization because of a girl? Peter Appleton: Yes sir... I'm sure that even a majority counselor like yourself has familiar with the concept of impressing a girl!
^ Funny enough, that brings up a story that is totally apropos.
When I was fourteen, I totally had the hots for a 20 year old junior librarian (smoking hot and super friendly). Being a big bag of hormones, I spent a lot of the time at the library chatting her up. Eventually she invited me to come out to a "youth group." I had no idea what I was getting into, but I jumped at it because she invited me. Turns out it was a pentecostal church youth group and I got roped into going to this thing for about six months and even went to a weekend retreat, and was 'saved'. Ultimately I realized I was never going to get what I was looking for so I quit going. So I became a pentecostal to impress a girl!!
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onetwo_threefour For This Useful Post:
That's exactly the point. I'm not rejecting it. The very notion of rejecting it is absurd.
This is what you said:
"Why would I bother to go out of my way to reject FSM when the concept is clearly bogus to begin with?"
When you say "the concept is clearly bogus to begin with", you are rejecting it.
You're just doing it immediately because to you the evidence against is sufficient that there doesn't need to be any kind of deliberation.
Unless reject to you means something else. If "reject" a concept and saying a concept is "clearly bogus" don't mean the same thing, then you'll have to explain the difference between the two definitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Slinger
Well, this is a bit of a non-starter. For one, I'm not sure that any adult really believes in Santa, Unicorns or Harry Potter however I'm sure there's someone out there to prove me wrong.
So arguing against something only lends credibility to something if some portion of the population believes in that thing?
Did the argument against a heliocentric solar system led credibility to the concept of a geocentric solar system?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Slinger
Second, let's presume that there is someone out there that is a hard core believer in Santa. Would you bother to argue with him/her?
Sure, why not? I wouldn't go out and find them, but if they started a thread on CP or I was in a group of friends and it came up, sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Slinger
If so, I would be curious why you would bother.
Because it beats sitting around watching TV?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Slinger
What would be gained by it?
A better understanding of the other person? Nothing happens in a vacuum and I think understanding other people helps me better deal with them. Rather than just throwing insults and jibes.
Maybe I might become a Santa believer?
To better understand society? Santa isn't, but belief in god is a huge factor in our culture.
To help someone else understand my point of view? Personally my views on a lot of things have changed over the years, and that comes as a result of input of information. If I never had conversations about any issues, found out what other people thought and why they thought it, then I'd never change my mind about everything. I doubt I'm right about everything in life, so it's far better to learn than to just keep silent about every issue and never grow.
For entertainment? It's fun discussing things. It exercises the mind, it helps define existing beliefs or identify weaknesses or areas that require further consideration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Slinger
Would the Santa follower be saved by you? I'm guessing (and I could be wrong) that you wouldn't lend any credence to the conversation to begin with.
If I don't think there's any value to a conversation at all, why would I have it? By definition everything anyone does has value to them, even if the value isn't readily apparent to themselves.
If the Santa believer was a crazy person, then it probably wouldn't be a productive conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Slinger
1000 years ago it was "true" that the Earth was flat. 1000 years ago it was true that God created everything. 1000 years from now maybe we'll discover that God farted and caused the Big Bang. I guess my point is (besides working in a fart reference) is that I'm not comfortable talking about what's true and what's not true with any degree of certainty.
You used an important phrase, "degree of certainty". Science doesn't operate in truths, but it does operate in degrees of certainty.
But it's easy to use the word true, so I think it's easier just to keep in mind that by true it means "the best explanation at the moment", so you can still talk about what's true and what's not true without having to resort to saying "nothing is true" which is just a way of saying "I don't want to talk about it".
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Arguing what is true and what is not true is a slippery slope. Descartes argued it much better than I could have but I'll try to paraphrase: you can't really know anything for certain that you see or hear or touch or smell. For all you know you're dreaming or living in someone elses fantasy. The only thing you can know for certain is that you are conscious of thinking. This is where the "Cogito Ergo Sum" or "I think therefore I am" comes from, although my explanation is sloppy at best.
Russell pointed out that even cogito ergo sum is going too far, because "I" might not be the same "I" from one moment to the next. Rather, the best one can say is that "sense data are being perceived". These sense data certainly exist, but what they represent is not 100% certain. Later in the same book (I think it was Problems of Philosophy), he argues that an objective reality is the simplest and most plausible explanation, but by no means a certain one. This I agree with. I can't be 100% certain of anything but the perception of sense-data, but I can have varying degrees of certainty about different things. I don't think this is the time or place to get into the details of it, though.
Quote:
Obviously, this is an extreme example but I think it fits the conversation. 1000 years ago it was "true" that the Earth was flat. 1000 years ago it was true that God created everything.
A thousand years ago it was true that the Earth was not flat...we just came to a conclusion that was false based on a lack of available information. Semantics aside...if you think about it, "the Earth is flat" is approximately true on small enough scales. I'd liken the statement "The Earth is flat" to something like "invariant mass is equal to actual mass at v>0", which was an assumption made by Newton and falsified by Einstein. The statement is approximately true at low velocity but way off at very high velocity. Nevertheless, Newton's laws are still used to calculate spacecraft trajectories because the scales involved are suitable. Likewise, the flat earth approximation is made when building a house. I should mention though that Eratosthenes worked out that the Earth was round more than two thousand years ago. I suppose this information must have been lost for some time.
Quote:
1000 years from now maybe we'll discover that God farted and caused the Big Bang.
This hypothesis has already been conceived by Seth MacFarlane and presented in Family Guy.
Quote:
I guess my point is (besides working in a fart reference) is that I'm not comfortable talking about what's true and what's not true with any degree of certainty.
I wouldn't say that I'm not comfortable talking about what's true with any degree of certainty. I have a high (but not perfect) degree of certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, but a much lower degree of certainty that it will rain between 38-42 mm tonight.
So I guess that a better way to put my statement is this: If someone were to withhold information or an explanation which is more likely/plausible than one I currently hold, for fear of "rocking the boat" or whatever else, that would upset me.
2Pe 3:8-10 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. ...
So...assuming life on Earth started 3.5 billion years ago; he spent 9 589 thousand years from creating the planet to creating the first living organism? Also, if the universe is really 13.7 billion years old then why wait 25 479 years from birth to a blue dot? Drafting process?
Again this goes back to my belief of the beginning when God created man and man chose to eat of the apple that he was instructed not to. Thereafter this decision creates a seperation between man and God for all future generations. When Jesus died this was to bridge that gap to make it easier to restore with God. When I say I believe the bible I mean I believe the bible, which is why I disagree with your scenarios because they are leaving out that piece. Granted I know there are a lot of people that don't believe in that (I'm not going to debate creationism vs evolution either).
So good gets pissed because we ate an apple he said we couldn't eat but created us with free will and an enquisitive nature so we would be certain to want to eat it.
And with that arguement at 14 I realised it was twaddle, a supreme all powerfull being who gives us free will but does not want us to use it. It makes no sense
Off topic but figured since a lot of heathens are in the thread non-stampcollector has a new funny video out on Hitler the atheist.
Btw nice to see on CP not one mention of Hitler/Atheist yet, on many other forums it would be hard to make it past page 1 without someone playing that card.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Btw nice to see on CP not one mention of Hitler/Atheist yet, on many other forums it would be hard to make it past page 1 without someone playing that card.
While the early descriptions of hair, skin and eye color clearly have implications for defining Jesus' "race", they are not explicit in their desire to ascribe a racial identity to him in the modern sense. By the 19th century, however, theological arguments were increasingly replaced by more secular biological ones, as attempts were made to envisage Jesus in the context of the people and culture of the Middle East. While some writers stressed his Jewishness, the growth of anti-Semitic racial theory led others, such as Emile Burnouf and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, to argue that he was racially an "Aryan." This led to portrayals of Jesus as a blond Nordic individual, a concept that was taken up by the Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg and by Hitler himself. As quoted within the book Hitler's Table Talk, Hitler argued that Jesus was of Celtic ancestry on the grounds that "The Jews would never have handed one of their own people to the Roman courts; they would have condemned Him themselves. It is quite probable that a large number of the descendants of the Roman legionaries, mostly Gauls, were living in Galilee, and Jesus was probably one of them."[7]
It would be hilarious to get a kid and dad team together to go on these shows just to **** with them.
Q:What did Jesus look like?
Kid: He looked kinda like a Mexican Peewee Herman.
That video does a lot to show the underlying racism, fear, and delusion of some of the Fox News viewers. Everyone in heaven is young and white, I'm shocked by that. Imagine if the kid had said Jesus was black, or Jesus was actually a woman. GET THIS CRAZY KID OUT OF HERE.
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
I'll respect your wishes with no attacks that as long as you don't quote the bible in your argument's...fair?
Why not? As the bible is the source of his beliefs, he should be allowed to quote it. Many of the people on this forum that don't agree with him are actually well versed in the Bible and we even have a biblical scholar on the forum that likely would fall into the non-apologist/critical camp. Go ahead and quote the Bible all you want. The point of this entire thread was supposed to be about Biblical contradiction, not atheism per se.
Last edited by Hack&Lube; 11-17-2010 at 04:44 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
Okay I see where you are coming up with this one, but I have to disagree with the fact that the doctor is the one that gave the disease in the first place. This is where I go back to my beliefs of how the world started. I think I would change the analogy a bit to say that the doctor has a virus locked in a cabinet (say it's a liquid) and tells the patient, "don't open the cabinet and take that liquid." The patient ignores the doctor and takes the liquid anyway thus infecting them.
And so the patient (who is the mother of all mankind) opens the cabinet and thus all her children and the entire human race is infected with the virus that they had no choice in avoiding when they were born. However, the Doctor has the cure all along for the virus (since he in fact created in the first place!) but he only gives it out to a select few. Instead of compassionately sparing everyone from the eternity of absolute and ultimate suffering and pain that is their fate, he chooses to watch them suffer in excruciation for eternity except for a select few that agree to follow certain tenets and submit to certain authority.
That's like me breeding a batch of intelligent, beautiful puppies but I go and infect them with painful diseases the moment they are born that I know will cause them massive suffering at the end of their lives and I just stand there and watch them suffer (forever) because they didn't sit when I commanded them to sit but rather followed their natural-born instincts.
In these threads people often fall back to the discussion of damnation which is probably one area of faith that is not discussed enough but it really requires a lot of critical thought and it's also an area that doesn't have that much biblical basis. It's more an invention of the early and medieval church isn't it? I would like to hear Textcritic's opinion on this and the theological theories about sheol (the Hebrew word that was usually translated into the concept of "Hell") and what it really means in scripture.
Whereas my god tells me from the second I come crying out of the womb and feel cold because I'm torn away from the cozyness of my mom that "LIFE SUCKS KID, NOW DEAL WITH IT!"
