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.

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

So you are going to ignore the examples I have given of where I readily admit that there are anti-science theists before I made a generalization? Gotcha.

Also, feel free to highlight where I said "all theists" in that post.

The word theist implies all theists. You know theist:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

so you using the word theists implies all christians, muslims, indians, japanese, and anyone else who believes in a god or gods.

But you were generalizing, I fixed some of it for you, then you start specifying there are different groups of christians. Ifs funny, you thinks its fine to stereotype all atheists, yet get pissy when I start using all theists specifically christians. Bit hypocritical of you isn't it? and we know what jesus thinks of hypocrites.

If you christians would stop playing these word games and trying to redefine word to meet your agendas we could probably have a rational conversation on the matter.

What are you even trying to say anymore?

You educate me that theists mean everybody that believes in a god (which is the way I have been using it) while you have been using theists as "all theists hate science and think the earth is flat and want to teach a 6000 young earth creation theory" aka a very specific subset of Christians.

I think you are getting caught up in your own arguments and falling over the points you are trying to make while I have been pretty consistent in saying that the majority of theists (with the exception of the specirfic anti-science subsets which really only consists of a small subgroup of protestant Christians while Christians as a whole only is a small subset of all religions that have a deity) don't have a problem with science.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Why make them capable of falling short in the first place?

It makes life more interesting.

Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. So he does all this for his own twisted pleasure.

Disgusting.

No, that's not what I'm saying. It makes it more interesting for us. And didn't you read what Relapse wrote? What good would it do to be coddled?

I was coddled, silver-spoon fed, and treated like a child-prince. Overall, I turned out to be a fine human being, maybe a bit arrogant and lazy, admittedly, but otherwise I have no real big sins...

And this doesn't take in account all the situations were evil befall human beings that are incapable of learning from the tragic events, like kids and stuff.

Why would God make viruses?

I guess he would make viruses to fill the role of a virus. Why would he make people who could become doctors and treat the sick? Why would he do anything? I'm not sure that "Why would God do this or that" is an argument that goes anywhere particularly useful.

Well then you refuse to use rationality when discussing God. Fine and all for you, but when people make a claim, other people try and work out the implications of the claim. Maybe you'd see how your position is precarious if you bothered to ask those questions?

No, I don't refuse to use rationality when discussing God. Tell me then, what would be the implication of God creating viruses? There are many things in the universe that are harmful and deadly to humans. Death is a part of life and I don't see it as something inherently negative. Because of that, I don't think that the existence of something like a virus is evidence of an evil or uncaring God. What I don't think is useful is one side coming up with a list of everything that is harmful in the world, and the other side coming up with a list of everything that is helpful, but if you have something other than that, I'm all ears.

Maybe atheists should start identifying themselves more specifically, be it Utilitarian, or Pluralist, or Marxist or whatever. Seems a lot of the issues religious people have is with anti-theists, and as atheists are just one giant amalgamated blob atm, they could stop accusing all of us of the actions of the few, Christianity does that by segregating off its fundamentalists, why don't we?

Hordini wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

So you are going to ignore the examples I have given of where I readily admit that there are anti-science theists before I made a generalization? Gotcha.

Also, feel free to highlight where I said "all theists" in that post.

The word theist implies all theists. You know theist:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

so you using the word theists implies all christians, muslims, indians, japanese, and anyone else who believes in a god or gods.

But you were generalizing, I fixed some of it for you, then you start specifying there are different groups of christians. Ifs funny, you thinks its fine to stereotype all atheists, yet get pissy when I start using all theists specifically christians. Bit hypocritical of you isn't it? and we know what jesus thinks of hypocrites.

If you christians would stop playing these word games and trying to redefine word to meet your agendas we could probably have a rational conversation on the matter.

I've forgotten, what does Jesus think of hypocrites again? Please provide the name of the book, and chapter and verse numbers in your citation.

Also, I'm pretty sure d-usa wasn't stereotyping all atheists. If you've got a post in this thread that proves otherwise though, by all means, quote it.

what you don't know the verse?
matthew 6:1
Matthew 7:5
1 John 2:9
but really all of matthew.

using the word atheist implies all atheists, just like the word theist implies all theists.

and about heaven and faith:

James 2:14-26
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:Maybe atheists should start identifying themselves more specifically, be it Utilitarian, or Pluralist, or Marxist or whatever. Seems a lot of the issues religious people have is with anti-theists, and as atheists are just one giant amalgamated blob atm, they could stop accusing all of us of the actions of the few, Christianity does that by segregating off its fundamentalists, why don't we?

most atheists do, its the christians who focus on the atheist part. I myself am a metaphysical naturalist.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Hordini wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

So you are going to ignore the examples I have given of where I readily admit that there are anti-science theists before I made a generalization? Gotcha.

Also, feel free to highlight where I said "all theists" in that post.

The word theist implies all theists. You know theist:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

so you using the word theists implies all christians, muslims, indians, japanese, and anyone else who believes in a god or gods.

But you were generalizing, I fixed some of it for you, then you start specifying there are different groups of christians. Ifs funny, you thinks its fine to stereotype all atheists, yet get pissy when I start using all theists specifically christians. Bit hypocritical of you isn't it? and we know what jesus thinks of hypocrites.

If you christians would stop playing these word games and trying to redefine word to meet your agendas we could probably have a rational conversation on the matter.

I've forgotten, what does Jesus think of hypocrites again? Please provide the name of the book, and chapter and verse numbers in your citation.

Also, I'm pretty sure d-usa wasn't stereotyping all atheists. If you've got a post in this thread that proves otherwise though, by all means, quote it.

using the word atheist implies all atheists, just like the word theist implies all theists.

I always thought saying "all atheists" implies all atheists and "all theists" implies all theists.

Especially when I preceded my generalizations with examples of how there are theists that don't believe in science.

I am going to assume that you are the only poster that is taking my words that way, since you are the only one that is so hung up on them. Maybe I am wrong, and if so I ask all the other atheists to please tell me so just to make sure of it.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Hordini wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

So you are going to ignore the examples I have given of where I readily admit that there are anti-science theists before I made a generalization? Gotcha.

Also, feel free to highlight where I said "all theists" in that post.

The word theist implies all theists. You know theist:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

so you using the word theists implies all christians, muslims, indians, japanese, and anyone else who believes in a god or gods.

But you were generalizing, I fixed some of it for you, then you start specifying there are different groups of christians. Ifs funny, you thinks its fine to stereotype all atheists, yet get pissy when I start using all theists specifically christians. Bit hypocritical of you isn't it? and we know what jesus thinks of hypocrites.

If you christians would stop playing these word games and trying to redefine word to meet your agendas we could probably have a rational conversation on the matter.

I've forgotten, what does Jesus think of hypocrites again? Please provide the name of the book, and chapter and verse numbers in your citation.

Also, I'm pretty sure d-usa wasn't stereotyping all atheists. If you've got a post in this thread that proves otherwise though, by all means, quote it.

what you don't know the verse?
matthew 6:1
Matthew 7:5
1 John 2:9
but really all of matthew.

using the word atheist implies all atheists, just like the word theist implies all theists.

and about heaven and faith:

James 2:14-26
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:Maybe atheists should start identifying themselves more specifically, be it Utilitarian, or Pluralist, or Marxist or whatever. Seems a lot of the issues religious people have is with anti-theists, and as atheists are just one giant amalgamated blob atm, they could stop accusing all of us of the actions of the few, Christianity does that by segregating off its fundamentalists, why don't we?

most atheists do, its the christians who focus on the atheist part. I myself am a metaphysical naturalist.

That's a good verse, thanks for posting it.

d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

So you are going to ignore the examples I have given of where I readily admit that there are anti-science theists before I made a generalization? Gotcha.

Also, feel free to highlight where I said "all theists" in that post.

The word theist implies all theists. You know theist:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

so you using the word theists implies all christians, muslims, indians, japanese, and anyone else who believes in a god or gods.

But you were generalizing, I fixed some of it for you, then you start specifying there are different groups of christians. Ifs funny, you thinks its fine to stereotype all atheists, yet get pissy when I start using all theists specifically christians. Bit hypocritical of you isn't it? and we know what jesus thinks of hypocrites.

If you christians would stop playing these word games and trying to redefine word to meet your agendas we could probably have a rational conversation on the matter.

What are you even trying to say anymore?

You educate me that theists mean everybody that believes in a god (which is the way I have been using it) while you have been using theists as "all theists hate science and think the earth is flat and want to teach a 6000 young earth creation theory" aka a very specific subset of Christians.

I think you are getting caught up in your own arguments and falling over the points you are trying to make while I have been pretty consistent in saying that the majority of theists (with the exception of the specirfic anti-science subsets which really only consists of a small subgroup of protestant Christians while Christians as a whole only is a small subset of all religions that have a deity) don't have a problem with science.

If you were using theist properly, then why did you ask me to show you where you said all theists? you keep changing your argument with every post, please pick one and stick with it. show me any post you've made that said majority of theists?

Christians as a whole only is a small subset of all religions that have a deity

Define small. There are 2 billion + people in the world who identify as Chrisitans. That's 1/3 the world's population (assuming the figures are accurate).

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

So you are going to ignore the examples I have given of where I readily admit that there are anti-science theists before I made a generalization? Gotcha.

Also, feel free to highlight where I said "all theists" in that post.

The word theist implies all theists. You know theist:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

so you using the word theists implies all christians, muslims, indians, japanese, and anyone else who believes in a god or gods.

But you were generalizing, I fixed some of it for you, then you start specifying there are different groups of christians. Ifs funny, you thinks its fine to stereotype all atheists, yet get pissy when I start using all theists specifically christians. Bit hypocritical of you isn't it? and we know what jesus thinks of hypocrites.

If you christians would stop playing these word games and trying to redefine word to meet your agendas we could probably have a rational conversation on the matter.

What are you even trying to say anymore?

You educate me that theists mean everybody that believes in a god (which is the way I have been using it) while you have been using theists as "all theists hate science and think the earth is flat and want to teach a 6000 young earth creation theory" aka a very specific subset of Christians.

I think you are getting caught up in your own arguments and falling over the points you are trying to make while I have been pretty consistent in saying that the majority of theists (with the exception of the specirfic anti-science subsets which really only consists of a small subgroup of protestant Christians while Christians as a whole only is a small subset of all religions that have a deity) don't have a problem with science.

If you were using theist properly, then why did you ask me to show you where you said all theists? you keep changing your argument with every post, please pick one and stick with it. show me any post you've made that said majority of theists?

Because "theists" =/= "all theists"?
Fine, I will repeat myself again:

From page 10:

don't think religion should be used to explain science, and science cannot be used to explain religion. Yet fundamentalist religious groups want to fight science and fundamentalist anti-theist groups want to use science as a weapon against God. To me science is amazing and I believe that it can be used to explain how God created things and how He made the universe happen.

Really, other than the way religious groups have misused God to get their way and to oppress opposing thoughts there is only one major difference between atheists and theists:

Atheists: Everything is the way it is and it just happened by change.
Theists: Everything is the way it is and a deity had a hand in it.

I made it clear that there are fundamentalist religioius groups that want to fight science (a subgroup of theists) and fundamentalist anti-theist groups (a sub group of atheists).

You then proceeded to only quote the Atheist/Theist argument to change it to what you think it should say so I quoted the portion that you changed. Nothing changed in my position during the mean time.

And I said the exact same thing again in page 11:

d-usa wrote:Decided to go back and try to find where I said what you claim I said, here is what I found:

Same as fundamentalist religious folks and science. Once some people make the choice to reject the concept of science, no evidence is ever enough to make them change their mind. There is no simple "here is the definitive proof that evolution exists", but there is plenty of pieces of evidence that together let you make a fairly informed decision that evolution is a valid theory.

I think fundamentalist Christians rejecting science are just as wrong as Atheists rejecting any notion of a God because science can "explain everything".

Which seems to be the exact opposite of what you claimed I said.

Really, other than the way religious groups have misused God to get their way and to oppress opposing thoughts there is only one major difference between atheists and theists:

Atheists: Everything is the way it is and it just happened by change.
Theists: Everything is the way it is and a deity had a hand in it.

Again, I make it clear that there are religious groups that have oppressed thoughts.

If you keep on trying to twist what I am saying, or if consistency is too confusing, then I guess there is no further point to this back and forth.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

Christians as a whole only is a small subset of all religions that have a deity

Define small. There are 2 billion + people in the world who identify as Chrisitans. That's 1/3 the world's population (assuming the figures are accurate).

Christian 33.35% (of which Roman Catholic 16.83%, Protestant 6.08%, Orthodox 4.03%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.43%, Hindu 13.78%, Buddhist 7.13%, Sikh 0.36%, Jewish 0.21%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 11.17%, non-religious 9.42%, atheists 2.04% (2009 est.)

So maybe not small, but "not a majority" would have been a better description.

Squigsquasher wrote:
Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. So he does all this for his own twisted pleasure.

Disgusting.

If God made men in his own image, why should it be such a surprise that he's a bit twisted?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

Christians as a whole only is a small subset of all religions that have a deity

Define small. There are 2 billion + people in the world who identify as Chrisitans. That's 1/3 the world's population (assuming the figures are accurate).

Then if you throw in the other Abrahamics it works out to be around 50% of the global population.

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Christians as a whole only is a small subset of all religions that have a deity

Define small. There are 2 billion + people in the world who identify as Chrisitans. That's 1/3 the world's population (assuming the figures are accurate).

Then if you throw in the other Abrahamics it works out to be around 50% of the global population.

And then there are the non-abrahamic faiths, although with some of them you might still get arguments about if they are theists or not. Would we count Wicca (nature gods maybe) and such?

Hordini wrote:
No, I don't refuse to use rationality when discussing God.

Indeed, one might argue that the only rational answer is to not ask the question.

How does one understand the motivations of the one theoretically doing the motivating?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
And then there are the non-abrahamic faiths, although with some of them you might still get arguments about if they are theists or not. Would we count Wicca (nature gods maybe) and such?

Its a messy issue because the way "atheist" is understood colloquially isn't much like what the word actually means.

dogma wrote:

d-usa wrote:
And then there are the non-abrahamic faiths, although with some of them you might still get arguments about if they are theists or not. Would we count Wicca (nature gods maybe) and such?

Its a messy issue because the way "atheist" is understood colloquially isn't much like what the word actually means.

True.

I think that some use the word atheist in the same matter that the word "heathen" was used, so more of a 'not one of us' kind of way. So for some people atheists may not mean "no belief in a god" but instead "no belief in a Christian (or Abrahamic) God", so even if you believe in a deity they may still classify you as an atheist.

dogma wrote:

d-usa wrote:
And then there are the non-abrahamic faiths, although with some of them you might still get arguments about if they are theists or not. Would we count Wicca (nature gods maybe) and such?

Its a messy issue because the way "atheist" is understood colloquially isn't much like what the word actually means.

So what do you think the word atheist means?

theist = someone who believes in a god or gods.
atheist = someone who lacks a belief in god or gods.
Dictionaries are good. implying all dictionaries.

When you say atheists, you are referring to all atheists. and theist = all theists.
If you don't want to address all of them, then you use quantitative words with it, few, little, lots, many, most, etc
a few atheists have formed a atheistic religion. most theists have never read the bible. etc.

atheism is not a religion, its a label used to indicate your answer to one question was no. that's it.

sirlynchmob wrote:

dogma wrote:

d-usa wrote:
And then there are the non-abrahamic faiths, although with some of them you might still get arguments about if they are theists or not. Would we count Wicca (nature gods maybe) and such?

Its a messy issue because the way "atheist" is understood colloquially isn't much like what the word actually means.

So what do you think the word atheist means?

theist = someone who believes in a god or gods.
atheist = someone who lacks a belief in god or gods.
Dictionaries are good. implying all dictionaries.

When you say atheists, you are referring to all atheists. and theist = all theists.

So just a few lines apart you used theist to talk about "one person aka someone who believes in a god or gods" and then you jump to the definition of theist "all people that believe in a god or gods".

This is so confusing...

How about I use the quantitative word "all" if I want to talk about "all atheists" or "all theists".

sirlynchmob wrote:
Dictionaries are good. implying all dictionaries.

No, that statement doesn't imply that all dictionaries are good. The phrase "Dictionaries are good." might refer to all dictionaries, or only some of them. Its nonspecific.

sirlynchmob wrote:
atheism is not a religion, its a label used to indicate your answer to one question was no. that's it.

I'm well aware of what the word means, I've had this argument on this site dozens of times, and dozens more on others. But the simple fact that I've had this argument dozens of times, in many different places, should show that the word, as used by the general public, is not much like the word as used by people in the know. Sort of like how "agnostic" is treated as a half-way point between atheism and theism.

d-usa wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

dogma wrote:

d-usa wrote:
And then there are the non-abrahamic faiths, although with some of them you might still get arguments about if they are theists or not. Would we count Wicca (nature gods maybe) and such?

Its a messy issue because the way "atheist" is understood colloquially isn't much like what the word actually means.

So what do you think the word atheist means?

theist = someone who believes in a god or gods.
atheist = someone who lacks a belief in god or gods.
Dictionaries are good. implying all dictionaries.

When you say atheists, you are referring to all atheists. and theist = all theists.

So just a few lines apart you used theist to talk about "one person aka someone who believes in a god or gods" and then you jump to the definition of theist "all people that believe in a god or gods".

This is so confusing...

How about I use the quantitative word "all" if I want to talk about "all atheists" or "all theists".

Stay in school.

Its obvious you don't get it as you've been wrong in every post you've made.

Everyone needs to be sorted into their labels right? so you ask someone do you believe in a god? if yes, your a theists, if no your an atheists.
a theist is one theist, an atheist is one atheist.
When you use them in a sentence as just theists you are referring to all theists (everyone who answered yes). when you say atheists you are referring to all atheists (everyone who answered no). With another sub group in atheists which include anyone who hasn't answered yet. ie babies, because if they haven't answered yes, then they are not a theists, ergo babies are atheists.
'all theists' is redundant.

Hordini wrote:No, I don't refuse to use rationality when discussing God. Tell me then, what would be the implication of God creating viruses? There are many things in the universe that are harmful and deadly to humans. Death is a part of life and I don't see it as something inherently negative. Because of that, I don't think that the existence of something like a virus is evidence of an evil or uncaring God. What I don't think is useful is one side coming up with a list of everything that is harmful in the world, and the other side coming up with a list of everything that is helpful, but if you have something other than that, I'm all ears.

The implications would be many. Viruses have no 'natural virtues', in the sense that they don't have any redeeming factors to them. They exists solely to destroy other beings and multiply themselves, thus creating more destruction. If life is a gift from God, why would he create something that has no embellishing value to it, and is only a destructive force? (and one that improves on itself on top of things).

You are the one coming up with a universal explanation for the World as it is. You have to make sense of all the empirical data we know about the World in accordance with your universal theory. The burden of proof is with the one that make a position assertion, so if you don't like us nitpicking at your thesis with a list of problematic implications, then fine, admit that you prefer to keep your belief as they are, unchallenged, and we'll keep calling them 'delusions'.

dogma wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Dictionaries are good. implying all dictionaries.

No, that statement doesn't imply that all dictionaries are good. The phrase "Dictionaries are good." might refer to all dictionaries, or only some of them. Its nonspecific.

sirlynchmob wrote:
atheism is not a religion, its a label used to indicate your answer to one question was no. that's it.

I'm well aware of what the word means, I've had this argument on this site dozens of times, and dozens more on others. But the simple fact that I've had this argument dozens of times, in many different places, should show that the word, as used by the general public, is not much like the word as used by people in the know. Sort of like how "agnostic" is treated as a half-way point between atheism and theism.

by the general public I'm assuming christians. quite a few christians just like assigning their own meaning to the word to suit their own agendas. Its why dictionary terms should be used whenever possible.

agnostic is its own can of worms. because you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist as well. its complicated.

So you didn't just use theist both ast "one theist" and "all theists" just sentences apart?

And you didn't just advocate to use a quantitative words (some, few, little) if you want to indicate a quality? So what makes you think that not using one (including not using "all") automaticall means all of them?

Heck, even the theist (me) and atheist (dogma) agree here, or would that mean all theists and atheists agree since I didn't say "the one theist and the one atheist" agree?

I do think the argument with you is over. I will be sure to enroll back in school, maybe they will even teach me the error of my religious views by forcing me to take science...

d-usa wrote:So you didn't just use theist both ast "one theist" and "all theists" just sentences apart?

And you didn't just advocate to use a quantitative words (some, few, little) if you want to indicate a quality? So what makes you think that not using one (including not using "all") automaticall means all of them?

Heck, even the theist (me) and an atheist (dogma) agree here, or would that mean all theists and atheists agree since I didn't say "the one theist and the one atheist" agree?

I do think the argument with you is over. I will be sure to enroll back in school, maybe they will even teach me the error of my religious views by forcing me to take science...

Fixed.
ya you go take a bunch of science classes to learn some english.

d-usa wrote:I do think the argument with you is over. I will be sure to enroll back in school, maybe they will even teach me the error of my religious views by forcing me to take science...

The one thing I don't understand is why this is even still a point of contention. The history of knowledge for the last 3000 years as been a gradual separation of metaphysical explanations and scientific explanations. And still people think they are exclusive? Why is it so hard to realize that all religions are 90% myth, 9% morality, and 1% factual questioning (the existence of God), and so cannot contradict science in any way shape or form?

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:So you didn't just use theist both ast "one theist" and "all theists" just sentences apart?

And you didn't just advocate to use a quantitative words (some, few, little) if you want to indicate a quality? So what makes you think that not using one (including not using "all") automaticall means all of them?

Heck, even the theist (me) and an atheist (dogma) agree here, or would that mean all theists and atheists agree since I didn't say "the one theist and the one atheist" agree?

I do think the argument with you is over. I will be sure to enroll back in school, maybe they will even teach me the error of my religious views by forcing me to take science...

Fixed.
ya you go take a bunch of science classes to learn some english.

Here is what I said:

With the exeptions that I have given (religious groups that are anti-science) theists don't have a problem with science.

Which you quickly turned into:

You said that all theists don't have a problem with science because you didn't use a quantifier before the word theists and it doesn't matter that there is an exeption in your post because you didn't say some/most/few/whatever.

And then you keep on repeating the "theists = all theists" like it is some sort of gospel.

Heck, even Dogma pointed out to you that dictonaries =/= all dictionaries. But keep on clinging to that mantra if it makes you feel better about calling me out for saying "all theists" even though I didn't.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

d-usa wrote:I do think the argument with you is over. I will be sure to enroll back in school, maybe they will even teach me the error of my religious views by forcing me to take science...

The one thing I don't understand is why this is even still a point of contention. The history of knowledge for the last 3000 years as been a gradual separation of metaphysical explanations and scientific explanations. And still people think they are exclusive? Why is it so hard to realize that all religions are 90% myth, 9% morality, and 1% factual questioning (the existence of God), and so cannot contradict science in any way shape or form?

I don't think that science has to contradict religion and religion has to contradict science. I was being a smartypants when I mentioned religion & science with that particular poster)

And I do not think that the majority of theists (to make some other posters happy) feel that they contradict each other.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Hordini wrote:No, I don't refuse to use rationality when discussing God. Tell me then, what would be the implication of God creating viruses? There are many things in the universe that are harmful and deadly to humans. Death is a part of life and I don't see it as something inherently negative. Because of that, I don't think that the existence of something like a virus is evidence of an evil or uncaring God. What I don't think is useful is one side coming up with a list of everything that is harmful in the world, and the other side coming up with a list of everything that is helpful, but if you have something other than that, I'm all ears.

The implications would be many. Viruses have no 'natural virtues', in the sense that they don't have any redeeming factors to them. They exists solely to destroy other beings and multiply themselves, thus creating more destruction. If life is a gift from God, why would he create something that has no embellishing value to it, and is only a destructive force? (and one that improves on itself on top of things).

You are the one coming up with a universal explanation for the World as it is. You have to make sense of all the empirical data we know about the World in accordance with your universal theory. The burden of proof is with the one that make a position assertion, so if you don't like us nitpicking at your thesis with a list of problematic implications, then fine, admit that you prefer to keep your belief as they are, unchallenged, and we'll keep calling them 'delusions'.

I never said I prefer to keep my beliefs unchallenged, on the contrary, I enjoy having my beliefs challenged and considering ideas from different perspectives. That said, I don't think the existence of something like a virus is that much of a challenge, because unlike you, I don't believe that they have no redeeming factors. Death is a part of life, and viruses are an important part of many ecosystems and have an effect on evolution. To say that they have no redeeming factors just because some of them are harmful to humans is false. Is there any living creature that doesn't fulfill some kind of role in an ecosystem?

Hordini wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Hordini wrote:No, I don't refuse to use rationality when discussing God. Tell me then, what would be the implication of God creating viruses? There are many things in the universe that are harmful and deadly to humans. Death is a part of life and I don't see it as something inherently negative. Because of that, I don't think that the existence of something like a virus is evidence of an evil or uncaring God. What I don't think is useful is one side coming up with a list of everything that is harmful in the world, and the other side coming up with a list of everything that is helpful, but if you have something other than that, I'm all ears.

The implications would be many. Viruses have no 'natural virtues', in the sense that they don't have any redeeming factors to them. They exists solely to destroy other beings and multiply themselves, thus creating more destruction. If life is a gift from God, why would he create something that has no embellishing value to it, and is only a destructive force? (and one that improves on itself on top of things).

You are the one coming up with a universal explanation for the World as it is. You have to make sense of all the empirical data we know about the World in accordance with your universal theory. The burden of proof is with the one that make a position assertion, so if you don't like us nitpicking at your thesis with a list of problematic implications, then fine, admit that you prefer to keep your belief as they are, unchallenged, and we'll keep calling them 'delusions'.

I never said I prefer to keep my beliefs unchallenged, on the contrary, I enjoy having my beliefs challenged and considering ideas from different perspectives. That said, I don't think the existence of something like a virus is that much of a challenge, because unlike you, I don't believe that they have no redeeming factors. Death is a part of life, and viruses are an important part of many ecosystems and have an effect on evolution. To say that they have no redeeming factors just because some of them are harmful to humans is false. Is there any living creature that doesn't fulfill some kind of role in an ecosystem?

We even use viruses to make vaccines and medications, and there is potential to use them to insert strands of genetic materials to cure cancer and whatnots.

So they are plenty useful.

Hordini wrote:I never said I prefer to keep my beliefs unchallenged, on the contrary, I enjoy having my beliefs challenged and considering ideas from different perspectives. That said, I don't think the existence of something like a virus is that much of a challenge, because unlike you, I don't believe that they have no redeeming factors. Death is a part of life, and viruses are an important part of many ecosystems and have an effect on evolution. To say that they have no redeeming factors just because some of them are harmful to humans is false. Is there any living creature that doesn't fulfill some kind of role in an ecosystem?

Death only makes sense because we do not regularly have examples of beings that do not die. There are a few examples, like the water hydra. Saying that death is an important part of life kinda obfuscate the fact that it actually isn't. Life is an important part of life. Death isn't the state of a being, its the nonexistence of that being (which isn't a state because you don't describe anything is you say that it's entirely made up of nothing).

And yes, that's why the Viruses are taken as an example ; contrarily to bacterias, they do not fulfill any constructive role in an ecosystem. They aren't properly alive ; a better way to describe them is to say that they are incredibly complexes and harmful vitamins capable of reproductions. They do not obey ecological constraints, so animals can't 'evolve' around them the same way cockroaches 'evolve' around bacterias and toxins.

@d-usa : Vaccines against the same viruses... That's kinda defeating the purpose. And we could've built amino-acids structures to carry the same genetic strands, the production of 'artificial viruses' was mentioned a few years ago as being ready/starting (07-08?).

Kovnik Obama wrote:@d-usa : Vaccines against the same viruses... That's kinda defeating the purpose. And we could've built amino-acids structures to carry the same genetic strands, the production of 'artificial viruses' was mentioned a few years ago as being ready/starting (07-08?).

Don't we use viruses to change genetics of bacteria and then use use those bacteria to make stuff (production of insulin as one example, using rDNA)?

And the real viruses can always tease the artificial viruses and claim "nature did it first".

I didn't know that it was in application, but I know that there are research done/has been done on the subject. But since we discovered a way to construct the same structures a few years ago, it does seems to defeat the purpose of God putting viruses, making thousands of generations of animals and humans to suffer, just to teach us now that we could reprogram them to do other stuff.

They are objects, and have for only purpose to reproduce, and only by harming other creatures. That's pretty damn cruel. At least the wolf eating me 'feels' something, and eats me so that it can live more and do more.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Hordini wrote:I never said I prefer to keep my beliefs unchallenged, on the contrary, I enjoy having my beliefs challenged and considering ideas from different perspectives. That said, I don't think the existence of something like a virus is that much of a challenge, because unlike you, I don't believe that they have no redeeming factors. Death is a part of life, and viruses are an important part of many ecosystems and have an effect on evolution. To say that they have no redeeming factors just because some of them are harmful to humans is false. Is there any living creature that doesn't fulfill some kind of role in an ecosystem?

Death only makes sense because we do not regularly have examples of beings that do not die. There are a few examples, like the water hydra. Saying that death is an important part of life kinda obfuscate the fact that it actually isn't. Life is an important part of life. Death isn't the state of a being, its the nonexistence of that being (which isn't a state because you don't describe anything is you say that it's entirely made up of nothing).

And yes, that's why the Viruses are taken as an example ; contrarily to bacterias, they do not fulfill any constructive role in an ecosystem. They aren't properly alive ; a better way to describe them is to say that they are incredibly complexes and harmful vitamins capable of reproductions. They do not obey ecological constraints, so animals can't 'evolve' around them the same way cockroaches 'evolve' around bacterias and toxins.

Death is an important part of the life cycle of all living creatures. It doesn't have anything to do with death being a state of being or not, but simply that the death of some organisms allows other organisms to continue living. Also, a brief google search should illustrate that your claim that viruses "do not fulfill any constructive role in an ecosystem" is false.

No, Death is the end of the life cycle of all (actually not all, but most) living creatures. That the ecosystem has integrated that fact isn't in any way descriptive of the fact that it's what ought to be... See that's another fallacy theist (but then again, a lot of people) do, finalist causality.

It's like those that accuse the transhumanists that works on anti-senescence methods of 'having problems with accepting reproduction as the natural process of continuation of life'. That this is our current state doesn't have any moral impact.

And think about it : "Yeah, your honor, I admit killing him, but there's a good side : I fed thousands of worms and beetles".