Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 10:15:12
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Nimble Dark Rider
|
sebster wrote:And remember that acceptance doesn't mean letting them do whatever. When the guy starts going on about stoning homosexuals I explain to him that I believe very strongly that people have the right to find love however they can if it doesn't harm anyone else, and if he wants to continue his plans to stone homosexuals then I'm going to cave his head in with a star picket.
And now we're getting into why this crap actually matters. Because to the guy who wants to persecute the homosexuals because God hates homosexuals, it doesn't matter that you believe very strongly that people have the right to find love however they can if it doesn't harm anyone else, because all that means is that you disagree with God. God, creator of the universe and definer of good, says you're wrong. And looky here, you've gone and laid the groundwork to make it impossible to refute his claim that God exists. You've helped create a situation that must apparently end with someone getting his head caved in.
You've put a completely ridiculous definition onto my use of the word 'useful' in order to disagree with me. That's a ridiculous thing, and I'd ask you to never do it again. It will only make you look bad and reduce your ability to have interesting conversation.
AbaddonFidelis pointed out that despite science doing harm to people at Hiroshima, we don't ditch science. I pointed out that science remained true regardless of it's positive or negative uses - and that it didn't have to be useful at all to still be true. The word 'useful' obviously meant 'useful', as in 'useful in real world applications'. For instance, forumlas were created that predicted black holes, and then we went and found them. We have no use for these black holes, they're really far away for one thing, but they are still real, and the formulas predicting them are true.
It was a lot less obvious that you meant that then you think it was.
What you mean is that the truth of science is not dependent on the purposes that technological applications of the theory are put to.
What I meant is exactly what I said. The only thing that stopped you understanding it was the ridiculous interpretation you put onto the word 'useful', an interpretation you contrived seemingly just to find disagreement.
Oh yes, I totally contrived the standard definition of useful. That was all me. I did that.
Dictionary! wrote:useful
–adjective
1.
being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect: a useful member of society.
Oh wait, no I didn't.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 11:16:53
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
Gailbraithe wrote:And now we're getting into why this crap actually matters. Because to the guy who wants to persecute the homosexuals because God hates homosexuals, it doesn't matter that you believe very strongly that people have the right to find love however they can if it doesn't harm anyone else, because all that means is that you disagree with God. God, creator of the universe and definer of good, says you're wrong. And looky here, you've gone and laid the groundwork to make it impossible to refute his claim that God exists.
We're still free to debate what God might want, whether he'd actually care if two dudes got it on. And more importantly, whether personal faith is enough to force one's beliefs onto another person.
You've helped create a situation that must apparently end with someone getting his head caved in.
Of course, because you're jumping up and down telling him there's no God he'd never try to persecute homosexuals. Come on.
It was a lot less obvious that you meant that then you think it was.
No, it was completely clear. We were talking about the practical effects of scientific concepts, and the relationship of those practical effect to the truthfulness of the science. In that concept, the word 'usefulness' can be easily intuited to refer to it's usefulness in terms of practical effects.
It's very basic stuff.
Oh yes, I totally contrived the standard definition of useful. That was all me. I did that.
Dictionary! wrote:useful
–adjective
1.
being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect: a useful member of society.
Oh wait, no I didn't.
Umm, that definition perfectly matches the term as I used it. It could be expanded out to a broader definition that would include your take on my term, but why would anyone expand it out to that point?
I don't mean to be rude but most people are capable of reading a word and applying common sense context to it's meaning. Human communication relies on people being able to apply that context. Look at the sentence "a boy saw a bike in the shop window, and decided he wanted it"... by the strict rules of grammar we should assume that the boy wanted the shop window, but common sense tells us that he wanted the bike.
Common sense would equally tell us that if two people were talking about the practical uses of a technology then the word 'useful' would apply to whether or not it had practical uses.
Now, it may just be that you're here to win and so you don't care - you're going to keep on insisting your take was reasonable no matter how clearly it wasn't. But it might be that you're hear to talk, maybe share some idea, in which case I think it might be best for you to think about how you go about reading other people's posts - do you really stop to consider the context? Do you look to understand their point, or skim looking for something to prove them wrong on?
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 11:32:37
Subject: Re:Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Enigmatic Sorcerer of Chaos
|
10/10 for an Iron Hippy.
I always look at 'Religion' as the absence of a one-to-one meaningful relationship with God. I do not have a 'Religion', but as a spiritual person I have a personal relationship with the big guy upstairs. I can understand where atheists come from. But for me, their strictly material and objective view of the world ignores too much of what is, to me at least, obviously out there in our everyday lives. On the flipside of that coin, the people who follow organized religions are missing the point by following dogma, not truth. As an aside, the only 'universal truth' that exists for all of is that we all die physically. Other truths are out there. What they are, well, I guess that's 'why' we're all here.
If this has already been stated somewhere in the guts of the thread, sorry. I've jumped in a bit late I'm afraid.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 11:36:33
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Noble of the Alter Kindred
United Kingdom
|
Well I managed finally to get four hours sleep and boy are you guys going some Serioulsy this has been hammered out by far sharper minds than ours with the same results. Thanks for the entertainment through the night was fun and well spirited. For the record in case I may have been misunderstood. It was never my intent to prosletyse and have no problems with others believing. As the comedian Dave Allen used to say when signing off,: May your God go with you!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/30 11:37:14
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 12:26:55
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Gailbraithe wrote:Most Christians I know fall into two camps: hate-filled, judgmental bigots who latch onto some parts of the bible in order to justify hating someone else (usually gays), and generally nice, caring, decent people who think Jesus is a giant fluffy bunny that grants wishes and makes sure good things happen to good people. Neither group is particularly interested in knowing anything about religion.
.
You really don't have a fething clue do you? I guess this links well with your statement that 18 month old humans don't have rights.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 13:16:26
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Manchester UK
|
Frazzled wrote:Gailbraithe wrote:Most Christians I know fall into two camps: hate-filled, judgmental bigots who latch onto some parts of the bible in order to justify hating someone else (usually gays), and generally nice, caring, decent people who think Jesus is a giant fluffy bunny that grants wishes and makes sure good things happen to good people. Neither group is particularly interested in knowing anything about religion.
.
You really don't have a fething clue do you? I guess this links well with your statement that 18 month old humans don't have rights.
Except that's not what he actually SAID, Captain Strawman.
|
Cheesecat wrote:
I almost always agree with Albatross, I can't see why anyone wouldn't.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 13:19:04
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Albatross wrote:Frazzled wrote:Gailbraithe wrote:Most Christians I know fall into two camps: hate-filled, judgmental bigots who latch onto some parts of the bible in order to justify hating someone else (usually gays), and generally nice, caring, decent people who think Jesus is a giant fluffy bunny that grants wishes and makes sure good things happen to good people. Neither group is particularly interested in knowing anything about religion.
.
You really don't have a fething clue do you? I guess this links well with your statement that 18 month old humans don't have rights.
Except that's not what he actually SAID, Captain Strawman.
I'm afraid it is.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 15:15:05
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.
|
Unless he edited it it should still be in the other thread, as it was definitely said. There was an attempt to weasel out of it when he was told how crazy it was, and was likely a mistake to bring up because it will only serve to cast all other statements he makes in an unfavorable light. To even think that killing 18 month olds is a reasonable thing to say smacks of asperger's.
Also, has there been a rash of Gay Stonings that I am unaware of? Someone that would indicate that that mainstream Christianity would advocate such a thing has so little concept of what they are talking about I should think it wouldn't even be worth refuting.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/09/30 15:28:54
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 15:21:00
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought
|
Hey this has gone on a while! Im impressed!
|
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 16:23:40
Subject: Re:Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Gailbraithe wrote:rubiksnoob wrote:You keep attacking theism and saying how ridiculous and preposterous it is, but there are different types of theism, depending on the varying definitions of god that are out there.
Well aware of that fact.
You seem to be criticizing monotheism and polytheism, especially the Judeo-Christian concept of a monotheistic creator god.
I've been criticizing every possible form of theism, and if you go back and read what I've written, I think you'll find my criticism is mostly directed at modern theism and the modern concept of God -- a concept of God that is vague, indeterminate, and ultimately rather pointless. But mostly I simply take issue with the ridiculous arguments used by theists.
There isn't a single argument that AF, for example, has presented in favor of God that challenges my contention that God is a girl named Eris. Which I think raises a real question as to what the heck theists are getting at, and what it means to say that "God exists."
Well, I'm pantheist, which basically in the simplest terms is the belief that everything that exists is god.
I don't believe in a thinking, sentient being. I believe in the universe.
Would you say that this is ridiculous? That the universe doesn't exist? Because pantheism is technically a form of theism and since you are criticisng all possible forms of theism you are criticisng pantheism and other forms of theism that you may not be intentionally criticisng.
I would enjoy hearing what you have to say about pantheism, as it doesn't really fall into the same bracket as other forms of theism.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 17:27:36
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought
|
not necessarily in the sense of building an engine or a bomb or whatever, but in the sense of consistently yielding predictive results. of saying something useful and reliable about the phenomena under examination.
A theory that says 'if A, then B' and people test it again and again, we aren't looking at a useful thing, we're looking at a true thing, because we know now that when A happens, then B will happen shortly afterwards.
This thing may or may not be useful, it could be 'if you throw a rock at Ms Gardiner's window she'll call you a prat'. That it happens everytime makes it true, but it doesn't make it very useful to know.
well we're just using different words to describe the same thing.
We don't know that a scientist's theory is true by any means other than watching how his theory plays out in the physical world. Did what he said would happen actually happen? Well I would argue that we can look for results in the field of religion and make similar inferrences. If followers of XYZ religion consistently commit suicide, then for gods sake lets all avoid that religion. If followers of ABC religion live happy and prosperous lives, then let's investigate the cause of that. (protestants have a higher rate of suicide than catholics btw. did you know that? I think thats fascinating. anyway...) It's not a scientific experiment, but in both cases I'm making inferrences about the theory based on the outcome I observe. In a field where methodology and experimentation are impossible, in the rigorous sense of science, I think its fair. Unless there's a better way available.....?
sure I can provide examples..... I'm talking about the elite and middle classes here, when I say religious or secular. the lower class is always religious.
Your methodology is very loose. There's no definition of secular or religious. I'm very curious on the grounds on which Russia is considered a reigious state now, there is formal seperation of church and state, and a wide range of religions are freely practiced.
I consider russia a secular state now. But undoubtedly a religious one prior to, say, 1850.
That's where I'm talking about self-selection bias. You have your theory, and you've gone looking for examples to prove it. I could make the argument that a secular state is more successful, and I could point out the US formally seperating church and state - they seem to be doing pretty well. I could point out that faith is much lower in the wealthier, more stable developed nations.
you could..... but we dont know whether that is a permanent or a temporary condition, since the story of those states hasnt come to an end yet. I think that wealth has alot to do with creating secularism, not the other way around. Its possible that the industrial revolution will make a secular society stable and long lasting for the first time in history. I dont know. No one does.
But all of that would be me going out to pick examples to prove my theory, it wouldn't mean anything. There are too many things involved in the rise and fall of civilisations to isolate faith, it's an essentially unknowable point.
maybe. I just couldnt help but notice that societies with a secular set of values are nowhere on earth long lasting, stable societies. Nowhere at all. I think thats remarkable. It could be coincidence that none of these societies seems to last very long, but to me it suggests that there's something fundamentally unworkable about that set of values. Historical observation is the closest thing we have or can get to an experiment dealing with really large groups of people and really long time frames. Unforunately history is all argument, so the really fundamental stuff can never be resolved.
I cant think of any thing that is plainly, profoundly, psychologically false, that is at the same time useful. Someone who persists in holding onto beliefs that do not serve, but in fact hinder their life, in the face of overwhelming factual evidence to the contrary, is unstable at best, insane at worse. That would not adaptive at all so I think it fails the utility test. Can you think of an instance where someone would believe something that is false both factually and metaphorically, that would at the same time be useful for him to believe? that might help to clarify things a bit...
Santa Claus?
well lets talk about adults here. kids believe in santa clause because they dont know any better, they stop when they do. I'm not sure that its useful for them to believe in santa clause. (seems a shame to tell them some stranger did it, rather than their own mom and dad.)
yeah I agree with that. no group has a monopoly on arrogance. I guess my real gripe is against the kind of militant, fundamentalist atheism that I see play out on the internet all the time.... just as I'm sure what irks alot of atheists is the fire and brimstone bible thumping believe and be saved variety of christianity that you all get to deal with.
Oh yeah, there's militant jerks on both sides. Thing is, I get it to an extent, I was never raised with religion forced down my throat so I never had any reason to be hostile. But lots of people were and they're bitter, so they take the opportunity to sound off about and tell off religious people when the topic comes up. Then you get religious people who keep having these atheists yell at them over something that's very personal to them, so I can see why they build resentment towards atheists. So on that level I get what's going on.
And then of course, some people are just jerks.
sure. I did have religion crammed down my throat and I had a period of violent reaction to it too.... it took alot of reflection to disentangle my personal anger from my world view. whatever I understand where they're coming from. I just get tired of the aggression. And I deeply resent the assumption that theists are a bunch of idiot zombies. Alot of these guys arent anything like as smart or as well read as they think they are, and I find it difficult to resist getting into it with them.
And to be frank I dont find many of the theistic arguments being advanced particularly helpful or illuminating either. I wish christians would understand their own tradition better. The whole project of trying to prove that god exists because the universe needs an intelligent designer or a first cause etc is IMO ridiculous. That's not what the founders of christian theology said - what they said was, in essence, that sometimes the heart is wiser than the mind, and that its ok to take leaps of faith based on what you feel.
Good point. It always surprises how small, how narrowly defined the God of the creationists is. Your version is cool.
lol. thanks.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/09/30 17:31:48
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 17:28:55
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Frazzled wrote:Albatross wrote:Frazzled wrote:Gailbraithe wrote:Most Christians I know fall into two camps: hate-filled, judgmental bigots who latch onto some parts of the bible in order to justify hating someone else (usually gays), and generally nice, caring, decent people who think Jesus is a giant fluffy bunny that grants wishes and makes sure good things happen to good people. Neither group is particularly interested in knowing anything about religion.
.
You really don't have a fething clue do you? I guess this links well with your statement that 18 month old humans don't have rights.
Except that's not what he actually SAID, Captain Strawman.
I'm afraid it is.
from here:
Frazzled wrote:Gailbraithe wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:So...when, in your opinion, should a baby/fetus have a right to life? Becuase by demanding a 'no questions asked' abortion policy you are going to make it available for everyone who can't be bothered to take the correct precuations or close their legs.
18 months after birth. It's when humans are capable of demonstrating self-awareness via the mirror test.
Wait did you just say it should be ok to murder children up to 18 months old? I've known kids who could talk at that point.
I am not going to say that statement is insane. I will say that that qualifies the doctor for the needle.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 17:32:07
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Confessor Of Sins
|
AbaddonFidelis wrote:not necessarily in the sense of building an engine or a bomb or whatever, but in the sense of consistently yielding predictive results. of saying something useful and reliable about the phenomena under examination.
A theory that says 'if A, then B' and people test it again and again, we aren't looking at a useful thing, we're looking at a true thing, because we know now that when A happens, then B will happen shortly afterwards.
This thing may or may not be useful, it could be 'if you throw a rock at Ms Gardiner's window she'll call you a prat'. That it happens everytime makes it true, but it doesn't make it very useful to know.
well we're just using different words to describe the same thing.
We don't know that a scientist's theory is true by any means other than watching how his theory plays out in the physical world. Did what he said would happen actually happen? Well I would argue that we can look for results in the field of religion and make similar inferrences. If followers of XYZ religion consistently commit suicide, then for gods sake lets all avoid that religion. If followers of ABC religion live happy and prosperous lives, then let's investigate the cause of that. (protestants have a higher rate of suicide than catholics btw. did you know that? I think thats fascinating. anyway...) It's not a scientific experiment, but in both cases I'm making inferrences about the theory based on the outcome I observe. In a field where methodology and experimentation are impossible, in the rigorous sense of science, I think its fair. Unless there's a better way available.....?
Lets try your statement...
If it is true and a rigorous belief in Jesus live happy and prosperous lives then... We should see all prosperous Christians in this world...
turns out this isn't true...
I'll address your understanding of the scientific method when Im not super busy later... it seems you know what it is... but you're confusing the ideas of predictions and explanations a little...
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 17:35:04
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.
|
frgsinwntr wrote:If it is true and a rigorous belief in Jesus live happy and prosperous lives then... We should see all prosperous Christians in this world...
Unfortunately, someone who knows a bit about Christian Theology wouldn't ever make this statement.
I would cite the Book of Job as an example. Bad things happen to everyone.
|
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 17:36:12
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought
|
Gailbraithe wrote:AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm going to suggest that atheism is not merely the lack of belief in god, as atheists of gailbraithe's stamp are constantly saying, but the positive belief that there is no such thing as god, which they are also always saying but seem reluctant to own up to. you cant positively assert that something doesnt exist if you dont have any idea what it is; therefore babies cannot be atheists.
In other words, you're going to commit a strawman fallacy and ignore what I've said.
yes. I am going to ignore what you've said. you're A REALLY NICE GUY AND I ALWAYS FOLLOW DAKKA RULE 1. If other people want to waste their time poking you with a stick then god bless. I'm not interested. You will continue, however, to be my poster child for militant, fundamentalist, wack job atheism
AF
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/30 17:36:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 17:38:48
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.
|
I'd ask for explanation for how AF's statement was a strawman from a clear-thinking third party, if you please.
I don't see it, at all. It looked like a perfectly reasonable rebuttal from here. Or is every disagreement with a certain poster going to be called a strawman? If so I'll leave it alone.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Gailbraithe wrote:AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm going to suggest that atheism is not merely the lack of belief in god, as atheists of gailbraithe's stamp are constantly saying, but the positive belief that there is no such thing as god, which they are also always saying but seem reluctant to own up to. you cant positively assert that something doesnt exist if you dont have any idea what it is; therefore babies cannot be atheists.
In other words, you're going to commit a strawman fallacy and ignore what I've said.
yes. I am going to ignore what you've said. you're A REALLY NICE GUY AND I ALWAYS FOLLOW DAKKA RULE 1. If other people want to waste their time poking you with a stick then god bless. I'm not interested. You will continue, however, to be my poster child for militant, fundamentalist, wack job atheism
AF
I liked the first one better, but this is probably more prudent.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/09/30 17:40:22
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 17:40:39
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought
|
Lets try your statement...
If it is true and a rigorous belief in Jesus live happy and prosperous lives then... We should see all prosperous Christians in this world...
I think that what I said was a little more nuanced than that.....
I'll address your understanding of the scientific method when Im not super busy later... it seems you know what it is... but you're confusing the ideas of predictions and explanations a little...
by all means.... address it.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 17:41:56
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
I was going to Godwin this thread but Hitler already came up on page 7. Longest religion thread ever.
|
Worship me. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 17:42:01
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought
|
I liked the first one better, but this is probably more prudent.
lol
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 17:48:14
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Charging Dragon Prince
Chicago, IL, U.S.A.
|
Nobody can argue whether or not a GOD exists. It is an abstract word for some grander scheme of things that we silly humans can't fathom. Some call it 'luck'. Whatever pick a word.
As an irreligious heathen I see from the outside how silly the fairy tales can get. We, as humans, can only think in human terms. I am surprised more kids didn't get it in grade school mythology readings, that our sense of anthropomorphising GOD was something primitive cultures do. The Greek pantheon was flawed, because all humans could fathom was from their own perspective, in which all humans, even the best of them, are flawed in some way.
Jesus is LOVE, Jesus is the LORD, the power of PRAYER made my daddy better when he had his heart attack (actually it was the hospital staff) but conveniently Jesus forgot the Lukemia kid in the next berth over but that must just be because enough people weren't praying for that kid. What a load of gak.
It's nice to think that GOD gives a crap, but religion, or the lack of it, is not the same as having a hankering ache to wonder if there is a higher purpose and meaning in the things that we do and the struggles we suffer. The easy fix for that ache is to adopt some dogma or another, slaughter your goat on the temple steps, and sleep easy at night pretending you know that God is good and just and loving and all that crap.
Pasting unicorns/messiahs/miracles/etc on a fairy tale doesn't make it devout, it is a sophomoric attempt to pretend you know something you don't. QUoting bible verses makes you a great robot. On the other hand, atheists are just as dumb as members of any specific faith because they THINK they know just as ignorantly as a Catholic who thinks that the pope is the spokesman of God. Atheists take the "There is no God" idea all smug and full of their intellectual superiority as just another religious zeal. The flaw in the arguement for atheism is that it can only challenge the lack of proof in theism, it can't actually prove it's own point either, just shoot down the opposing view.
It would be great if God showed up just for a second, like a TV soundbyte, and say "yeah guys I exist, just wanted to make that clear so you can all quit fighting over me, you are all cool by me... carry on"
Until that happens I think I will wallow in the idea that God is an imperative for existance, but God evidently only shows himself to schizophrenics or people on too much acid. Does God care? who knows? Lukemia kid? Does God love? such an anthropomorphic concept. Does God answer prayers?
No. God does not answer prayers. If the idea of "his will" is to be believed, then why would he be taking requests if he already has everything planned out? Stupid stupid stupid.
When someone prays fervently for something and it actually happens, it must be the power of prayer, right? When somebody prays and does not get their requested result... it's because the Lord works in mysterious ways.
Convienient.
|
Retroactively applied infallability is its own reward. I wish I knew this years ago.
 I am Red/White Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today! <small>Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.</small>I'm both chaotic and orderly. I value my own principles, and am willing to go to extreme lengths to enforce them, often trampling on the very same principles in the process. At best, I'm heroic and principled; at worst, I'm hypocritical and disorderly. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 18:04:48
Subject: Re:Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Just to add to guitardian's post, back in the day people would see lightning and couldn't explain it. Clearly Zeus was at work  I will give scripture credit for one thing in that while the majority believed that the world was flat, a scripture mentions that the earth is spherical. That's one check in the "other side's" column at least
|
Worship me. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 19:36:57
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Gailbraithe wrote:
And now we're getting into why this crap actually matters. Because to the guy who wants to persecute the homosexuals because God hates homosexuals, it doesn't matter that you believe very strongly that people have the right to find love however they can if it doesn't harm anyone else, because all that means is that you disagree with God. God, creator of the universe and definer of good, says you're wrong. And looky here, you've gone and laid the groundwork to make it impossible to refute his claim that God exists. You've helped create a situation that must apparently end with someone getting his head caved in.
Two things.
1: Do you really think that a person so deeply affected by his religion as to react with strong emotion whenever his particular holy book tells him to do so is going to care about you're refutation of his position? No, he isn't, because you aren't God, and even if you claim that God doesn't exist he's still going to go on his merry way, beating homosexuals all the while.
2: A person les affected by his religion, who does not do whatever his particular holy book tells him to do, but also wants to beat homosexuals, isn't concerned so much about God's existence, so much as what God says. You can argue that God doesn't exist, and he may even come to agree, but that still leaves him with the question "Why did I believe that God wanted me to beat homosexuals?" The inevitable answer is "Because I wanted to beat homosexuals." No progress has been made, as we're still left to contend with an irrational hatred. Arguing against the existence of God misses the point in this situation, which also seems to be the most common one, given how little attention the Bible actually pays to homosexuality (speaking to ap urely American context, of course).
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 19:37:21
Subject: Re:Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Wow... not to interrupt all the arguing over how many atheists can dance on a pins head.
But.. just to remind you what King David wrote..."The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God"( Psalm 14:1)KJV
Also, I got 10/10. Score one for the Theists!!
GG
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 19:42:27
Subject: Re:Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Calm Celestian
|
To Cannerus
Does it? I thought that was one of many mistranslations from hebrew/greek?
*edited to direct comment
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/30 19:42:54
My Sisters of Battle Thread
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/783053.page
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 20:16:15
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
@mrwhoop: A quick googling reveals it's one of those "my side has this proof, it's a mistranslation!" while the other has "nuh uh! this proof says otherwise!" so n/m :p
|
Worship me. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 20:26:27
Subject: Re:Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Calm Celestian
|
Well, noone should really take the Bible as the word of God as it's gone though so many renditions and translations. Hebrew to Greek/Latin to Middle English to King James Version to *shudder* the newest edition which takes the poetic rhythm out. But then maybe it should be taken as the literal word as one person said to me "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me"
I hate the South so very, very much. The very marrow of my bones seethes in this Bible belt.
*edited for grammar
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/30 20:27:58
My Sisters of Battle Thread
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/783053.page
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 21:17:16
Subject: Re:Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
mrwhoop wrote:Well, noone should really take the Bible as the word of God as it's gone though so many renditions and translations. Hebrew to Greek/Latin to Middle English to King James Version to *shudder* the newest edition which takes the poetic rhythm out. But then maybe it should be taken as the literal word as one person said to me "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me"
I hate the South so very, very much. The very marrow of my bones seethes in this Bible belt.
*edited for grammar
I get the feeling that Mrwhoop is about 15 years old.
Also your notion that the "The Bible has been through so many renditions and translations" line is used over and over again, by the unstudied and uninformed. The fact of the matter is, while there are some minor transcriptions errors in the Bible(that do not effect any major orthodox doctrine), when you look at the 1,000's of manuscripts, it's quite remarkable how little was changed. Not to mention the minuscule differences(again no doctrine affected) between the dead sea scrolls and the modern Old Testament.(2,000 years between them)
When you have 300 texts say...'And he walked in the garden" and 2 say "Lo he walked in the garden" and 1 say. "He walked around in the garden". The Bible writers choose the majority text.( I.E the 300). That doesn't = "The Bible has been through so many renditions and translations". It just means that someone made a minor transcription error. Your implication is, that sweeping changes were made that make the Bible unreliable..which is patently false.
GG
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 21:22:43
Subject: Re:Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Hangin' with Gork & Mork
|
generalgrog wrote:When you have 300 texts say...'And he walked in the garden" and 2 say "Lo he walked in the garden" and 1 say. "He walked around in the garden". The Bible writers choose the majority text.( I.E the 300). That doesn't = "The Bible has been through so many renditions and translations". It just means that someone made a minor transcription error. Your implication is, that sweeping changes were made that make the Bible unreliable..which is patently false.
GG
The one to look out for is the one that says "And Lo, he wenteth to the Olvie Garden, for it was the season of the Unlimited Pasta Bowl*"
*limited time only, prices and participation may very.
|
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 21:25:02
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought
|
General
some areas of the bible have widely different versions depending on what manuscript we're using. For instance the end of the gospel of mark. apparently in some of the oldest manuscripts Jesus doesnt rise from the dead. He just dies.
AF Automatically Appended Next Post: Ahtman wrote:generalgrog wrote:When you have 300 texts say...'And he walked in the garden" and 2 say "Lo he walked in the garden" and 1 say. "He walked around in the garden". The Bible writers choose the majority text.( I.E the 300). That doesn't = "The Bible has been through so many renditions and translations". It just means that someone made a minor transcription error. Your implication is, that sweeping changes were made that make the Bible unreliable..which is patently false.
GG
The one to look out for is the one that says "And Lo, he wenteth to the Olvie Garden, for it was the season of the Unlimited Pasta Bowl*"
*limited time only, prices and participation may very.
verily
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/30 21:25:37
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/09/30 21:41:05
Subject: Athiests Know more about religion?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
AbaddonFidelis wrote:maybe. I just couldnt help but notice that societies with a secular set of values are nowhere on earth long lasting, stable societies. Nowhere at all. I think thats remarkable. It could be coincidence that none of these societies seems to last very long, but to me it suggests that there's something fundamentally unworkable about that set of values. Historical observation is the closest thing we have or can get to an experiment dealing with really large groups of people and really long time frames.
There are plenty of religious civilizations that were wiped out as well. Typically by other religious societies (See also, Aztecs, Mayans, Celts, etc) More than secular societies I would say. That certain attempts at secularism in the past weren't successful doesn't mean that it's a failed concept, especially considering the environment and lack of scientific/medical knowledge in the time. In the time we are talking about, the ability to band together (Even in the guise of us vs them) that religion fosters was more important.
|
|
 |
 |
|