07 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerBefore I edited, my post was implying that the opening posts had been lifted word-for-word from another website; but after further reviewing both sites, it seems plausible to me that they were both authored by the same single internet user. So I retracted. Okay?
Why?
Otherwise, the opening posts seem like a bunch of anti-theist trash to me. The bulk of it is so sweepingly generalized that it cannot be properly aimed at any particular theist -- at least not without hitting a number of strawmen. But it doesn't really have anything interesting or compelling to say about theism generally, either, since much of what s/he describes is in no way necessarily related to theistic belief; and because s/he doesn't actually offer any evidentiary support that is specific to atheism. The "support" offered concerning the age of the universe is a good example of all these points: it has nothing to say generally about theism or atheism since both are compatible with the belief that the universe is billions of years old. It would, presumably, have something to say against young earth creationism; but the poster seems intent on drawing from a number of such localized examples to reach bloated (pragmatic) conclusions. Beyond that, his point just seems to be that religious fundamentalists can at times be dangerous idiots; or that young earth creationists are divorced from some aspects of reality; things we already know and things that can be said about any number of other people, too.
The opening posts are just a bunch of pragmatic crap. For a rational agent, adoption of something like theism will be critically considered, if at all, on epistemic grounds related to justification, warrant, evidence for or against theism. The initial posts offer nothing of substance regarding this.
08 Dec 06
Originally posted by spruce112358It is not "as easy as that" and you know it. If someone sits down next to you with his Brussels sprouts, the smell of which you cant stand, then he chews on them in a disgusting manner and feeds them to your children by introducing them as the only option in school lunches and introducing certain laws which require certain Brussels sprout practices and people keep coming up to you to try to evangelize to you their belief that Brussels sprouts are good for you "man cannot live on bread alone" then I think there would be nothing wrong with objecting to them in a slightly more serious manner than just sitting back and saying "I wont eat them".
I guess I find objecting to religion almost as humorous as objecting to Brussels sprouts.
Do you object that they exist? That other people eat them?
If you don't like religion -- don't partake. It's as easy as that. If you like a particular religion -- adopt it. If you like parts of several religions -- adopt those. If religion as a whole doesn't ...[text shortened]... at "religion is harmful" or "religion is wrong" or "God doesn't exist" is ridiculous.
And there is nothing ridiculous about the statement "God doesn't exist."
08 Dec 06
Just a couple of points in my views.
Christianity is not meant to be about making war or taking control of other people. It's core is Jesus, who helped people on his own two feet. He didn't utilise the systems that got formed because of him(like Bush attempts), but he did good by himself for God. There is some scriptures in the Bible which are stuck in my head, and in a way I consider it was what Jesus lived his life like. It's about keeping your eye's fixed on the women God gave you, and not to wander to your neighbours wife who is sweet to taste but eventually she becomes bitter in your stomach. I know I'm all back-to-front here, but I think it's how Jesus lived his life FOR God. He never turned away, but always did God's will. What's God's will. IT IS GOOD. God's will is always good. So yeah, if Christians were able to define better what God ACTUALLY is(perfect good), then there isn't harm in that. I don't believe Bush follows God's will 100%, but is reliant on others. Pretty much anybody at all who will help achieve his goals of stopping terrorism. Innocence is lost.
I don't see the big problems that Christians have with science. Science is about proof to me. I'm pretty sceptical, but if see something is true I won't disregard the scientific evidence. Science is cool. I like.
08 Dec 06
Originally posted by wedgehead2I didn't say they were written by God. Nor did I say they provided evidence for a God (that's two strawmen). What I said was that they provide evidential support for the [Christian] faith.
Classing the Gospels as empirical data is slightly dodgy, as they were written by humans. To be honest, they provide no evidence for a God. Rather they are more a set of, as you say, historical texts/ stories, written by man, not god.
So what if it's written by humans? I don't get your implication here.
08 Dec 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadYeah, it is. First of all, your objection is more to how the person eats than what he eats. Presumably people who eat sprouts at home don't get your ire up (do they? Or does that also bug you on some level?These IDIOTS eating sprouts!)
It is not "as easy as that" and you know it. If someone sits down next to you with his Brussels sprouts, the smell of which you cant stand, then he chews on them in a disgusting manner and feeds them to your children by introducing them as the only option in school lunches and introducing certain laws which require certain Brussels sprout practices and pe ...[text shortened]... eat them".
And there is nothing ridiculous about the statement "God doesn't exist."
Second, has he got a right to eat sprouts or not? I say, yes he does.
Third, if I don't like what my kids eat, I'll change schools.
As for the evangelists -- well, they have a right to talk and I have a right not to listen.
The statement "God does not exist" is ridiculous because the common concept of God defines him as something that cannot be properly defined using terms we all agree on. So saying that something that cannot be defined absolutely does not exist is meaningless.
08 Dec 06
Originally posted by spruce112358ridiculous
The statement "God does not exist" is ridiculous because the common concept of God defines him as something that cannot be properly defined using terms we all agree on. So saying that something that cannot be defined absolutely does not exist is meaningless.
causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable
So, according to you it is also ridiculous to say that:
Fairies don't exist.
The flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.
Father Christmas doesn't exist.
Surely the opposite is also true. Anyone who claims that God exists is also being ridiculous as he is claiming that something that cannot be defined absolutely exists.
A take it you are agnostic.
09 Dec 06
2 edits
Originally posted by wedgehead2Hmmm, written by man and not by God.
Classing the Gospels as empirical data is slightly dodgy, as they were written by humans. To be honest, they provide no evidence for a God. Rather they are more a set of, as you say, historical texts/ stories, written by man, not god.
They didn't float down from the sky with a golden glow but were penned by dusty men on the earth, so they are not from God.
It seems that there is a deep rooted fundamental conviction in some people that God and man cannot coordinate together to produce something.
Basically there is a great distrust that on the earth there could exist something as "men of God" who could be moved by God to produce inspired communication from God. The presence of style and personal flavor seem to negate that Mark or Luke could write divine writings.
Its a curious thing kind of skepticism that God, if God exists, and man CANNOT have any coordinated interaction.
I'd rather believe that in the man Jesus Christ we see the ultimate harmony and interweaving of Divinity with Humanity.
10 Dec 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe difference is, is that there is evidence for the existence of God and not for the spaghetti monster. Notice I said evidence and not proof. The evidence I have for Biblical accuarcy include such things as Biblical archaelogy and prophesy that has come about such as Daniel 9:24 which gave a timetable for the coming of Christ as well as the prophesies Christ fulfilled when he came. What evidence do you have by saying that God does not exist?
ridiculous
causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable
So, according to you it is also ridiculous to say that:
Fairies don't exist.
The flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.
Father Christmas doesn't exist.
Surely the opposite is also true. Anyone who claims that God exists is also being ridiculous as he is claiming that something that cannot be defined absolutely exists.
A take it you are agnostic.
10 Dec 06
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyReligion is just a function of society, geography & peer pressure.
The difference is, is that there is evidence for the existence of God and not for the spaghetti monster. Notice I said evidence and not proof. The evidence I have for Biblical accuarcy include such things as Biblical archaelogy and prophesy that has come about such as Daniel 9:24 which gave a timetable for the coming of Christ as well as the prophesies Christ fulfilled when he came. What evidence do you have by saying that God does not exist?
If you were a native of Tibet you'd be trying to convince everyone of the virtues of Buddhism - a religion that is vastly different & mutually exclusive to the one which you believe in now.
Guess what though - you're from the US & your a................. Christian.
How remarkable!😛
10 Dec 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy are you putting words in my mouth? I can speak for myself.
ridiculous
causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable
So, according to you it is also ridiculous to say that:
Fairies don't exist.
The flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.
Father Christmas doesn't exist.
Surely the opposite is also true. Anyone who claims that God exists is also being ridiculous as he is claiming that something that cannot be defined absolutely exists.
A take it you are agnostic.
No, I am not agnostic. I define God to be a thing I have experienced in a particular way. I'm not sure if anyone else has had the same experience. Some people describe something similar.
For me, anyone who says "God does not exist" has made a false statement. It may be true that for them, God doesn't exist. Or they may define a similar experience in a different way. But for you to assert God doesn't exist for me is preposterous because there is no way for you to experience what I experience.
10 Dec 06
Originally posted by whodeyThat's an impressive U-turn on, for example, evolution and, let's say, radio dating.
No I do not as I once did. I do not dispute the findings of science, rather, I view it as studying how the laws of the physical universe interact with creation. Therefore, all that will be revealed by science will be what has been created in the tangible universe as well as the laws governing them, nothing more. I just so happen to believe that there is m ...[text shortened]... t is needed in our lives that is all we would require. Science is merely a peice of the puzzle.
10 Dec 06
Originally posted by SquelchbelchIf you were a native of Tibet you'd be doing the same.
Religion is just a function of society, geography & peer pressure.
If you were a native of Tibet you'd be trying to convince everyone of the virtues of Buddhism - a religion that is vastly different & mutually exclusive to the one which you believe in now.
Guess what though - you're from the US & your a................. Christian.
How remarkable!😛
So what?
Doesn't change the relative merits of each.
10 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Squelchbelch...and your view of religion is somehow immune from this claim? Suggesting truth to be relative, as you seem to have done here, is ultimately self-defeating and leads to a loss of reason.
Religion is just a function of society, geography & peer pressure.
If you were a native of Tibet you'd be trying to convince everyone of the virtues of Buddhism - a religion that is vastly different & mutually exclusive to the one which you believe in now.
Guess what though - you're from the US & your a................. Christian.
How remarkable!😛
11 Dec 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat is why it is important to keep an open mind and pursue the truth despite it perhaps rubbing you the wrong way. The problem with many creationists is that many of them have a preconcieved notion of how God chose to create the universe as I once did whether or not evolutionary processes are apart or not apart of the overall goal. In reality, however, what appears to be heretical to Biblical teaching about creation is not necessarily so. Evolution seems to have played a role but I believe it was directed and initiated by God himself. I also do not believe that the universe revolves around the sun and had I been a Christian during the life of Galileo I to would have been made to recant or be burned at the stake so to speak. I view evolutionary findings in much the same light as what happened to Galileo. No where in the Bible does it say that the universe revolves around the Earth just as it does not say that evolutionary processes were not used for creation. It was merely assumed to be so and thus incorportated into the theology of the time. The church has for far to long been at war with the world of science and it has chased away many an educated mind as a result.
That's an impressive U-turn on, for example, evolution and, let's say, radio dating.