[quote]pushharder wrote:
My “motivations” have been called into question numerous times. Why are yours exempt?[/quote]
I don’t believe I’ve done that, but if so I apologize. How about we both agree to respect one another’s motivations as sincere, and keep the discussion to the actual points being debated?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Come to Kansas City, For Life. We are gathering there soon for an arm-wrestling match to settle all this. You are officially invited. Like I said in the other thread, the winner gets the girl. (Don’t let that keep you from coming though)[/quote]
Can I send Prof X in my place? He would probably enjoy the prize more than me anyway.
[quote]anonym wrote:
novocaine wrote:
pookie, forlife, respect for the patience 0_o
x2[/quote]
x3
D
[quote]pookie wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Well Pookie - thanks for sharing all of your wonderful opinions with me . . . it was so refreshing to hear a new perspective from someone who does not believe in Christianity . . .oh, wait- you just regurgiated all the same crap we hear all the time in threads like this from people well indoctrinated with the theory of the day - tons and tons of derogatory BS mixed in with piles of steaming opinions worth about as much as the time it took for you to barf them up . . . Glad you have your dogma so well memorized that real discussion are pointless - you are a true believer in your doctrines and extreme fundamentalist agnostic . . . Have fun with that . . . when you really want to discuss some issues feel free to let me know . . .
Need I point out the dodge and run tactic here? Along with the usual ad hominems seen when your amoral bunch gets frustrated.
You claim you arrive at your faith through reason and science. When your points are addressed one by one and shown to be either incorrect, incomplete or unscientific, you then cry “dogma”, “indoctrination”, “fundamentalism” etc. I see your God values integrity and intellectual honesty.
As for dogma, show me a theory that better explains the biosphere than Evolution and I’ll change my mind. Show me a theory that better explains the infinitesimal than our current Standard Model with Quantum Mechanics and I’ll change my mind. Show me a cosmological model that explains more observational data than the Big Bang and does away with many of that theory’s problems and I’ll change my mind. I have no personal stake in any of those theories. I’m interested in what’s true and fascinated by the quest to understand our universe.
What could be told or shown to you so that you’d change your mind? Nothing. Your so-called “reasoned” faith is nothing of the sort; on the contrary, you spend vast amount of energy defending it against reason and evidence of it being false.
Your cries about dogma, indoctrination and fundamentalism are a reflection of your situation; not mine. But I’m sure you’ll go on claiming that you want to openly discuss issues and ascribing your own failings to others whenever you find yourself backed into a corner.
[/quote]
No dodge and run - you haven’t thrown anything I need to dodge and you are much too little to run from . . .
You haven’t addressed any of my points - you’ve only reiterated your originals objections to religion . . . not too much of a strain for you I hope
You tell me what caused the Big Bang or where matter/energy came from and we will have something to discuss - all you have is a mechanism that you cannot even find a consensus on its operation within the community that purports it to be the solution . . . .
You’re fascinated by the sound of your own fingers typing . . . . little else . . .
Backed into a corner? Hardly . . . you’re not worth the time to respond too except to point out how ludicrous, obnoxious, self-deluded and arrogant of an asshole you are . . .
This is a thread about Christianity - you’ve made your opinions very clear - glad you had the chance to vent your estrogen laden complaints . … now do you really have anything of value to add?
[quote]forlife wrote:
How do you know the same chemical response isn’t occurring in the brain, but is driven by different causes? Meditation can produce a feeling of peace, but that doesn’t mean meditation doesn’t alter the chemistry of the brain.[/quote]
If meditation can affect the brain - where is the meditation occurring?
[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
How many times have I expressed my happiness with people who express a different set of beliefs than mine?
You may genuinely respect the beliefs of others that differ from your own, rather than trying to legislate your beliefs on others. If so, that is great, but unfortunately many of the religious are not so equanimous. I’ve noticed a correlation between fundamentalism and civil zealotry in that regard. The more literalist people are about their religious beliefs, the more justified they feel in voting for laws that reflect those beliefs, and in holding others accountable to those laws, despite those people not sharing their beliefs.[/quote]
Everyone legislates their beliefs onto other people - to claim anything different is ludicrous . . .
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
You are mistaken, theology is not interested in explaining anything about the world.
It sure it interested in controlling how we interact with said world, though. Who can marry who and how many, what can be taught in school, what days should be holidays, when can work be done, what can be eaten, what research is acceptable, whether abortions should be performed, who should pray, where and when etc.
For something you claim is so uninterested in the world, it sure meddles a lot.
[/quote]
So you are fine with people telling other people what can or cannot be taught in schools, what days should be holidays, when work can be done, what can be eaten, what research is acceptable, whether abortions should be performed, etc etc - as long as it is not Christians influencing the decision? You’re just a Bigot! Because all of those same things get done by non-christians every day - that makes you a bigot - enjoy you’re new title!
[quote]pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Pookie, you are one long-winded preacher. Some of us would like to go home for Sunday afternoon dinner.
What happened to your limitless endurance?
[/quote]
it’s right there with your tolerance, rationality, open-mindedness . . . .
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
I have already pulled this apart for you, how does it not work? Show me.
Find our old thread and read. Wikipedia has a fair summary of the whole thing. Or just google “Kalam Cosmological Argument” and you’ll have reams of sites “for” and “against” you can peruse. Having read enough of both to be bored to tears by that approach, I have found most of the against much more convincing and generally thorough in their analysis.
You’re free to disagree, but nothing is proven one way or another.
Please provide your other explanations for “things”, existence, life, etc. Where does it come from, why is it here? Why does everything follow the laws and principals we discover about their behavior, why are they bound to it?
The true answer is: We don’t know. We might know someday, or we might never know. Maybe we can’t know.
That answer, as unsatisfying as it may be, is truer than any imaginary answer you make up to satisfy the question.
If you prefer a fantasy answer, fine, I don’t mind. I do mind when large group of people start trying to force their fantasy answer on everyone; or try to limit the freedoms of others by invoking God-given unchangeable dogma. I’ll take my laws secular, reasoned and amendable, thank you very much.
[/quote]
wow - wikipedia - no wonder you’re so smart . . . .
[quote]pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Indubitably now he will trundle up with his catapult and hurl the boulder of “ad hominem” at me, shrieking in French beneath his breath, blaming America for leaking its spiritual values into his beloved homeland. Ho hum.
Ah, the Flat-Earther will now join up with the Deadhead. Oh, what a might duo those two will be!
Say, flushy, have you asked pat’s opinion of your Flood fable? Is he a true-believer worthy of sucking up to?
[/quote]
says the omni-ass . . . .
For someone who says I’m not worth the time to respond too, you’re sure driving the point home.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And you cheerleaders who pop in with a just a “X2” are wienies. [/quote]
I am a Navajo.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Push,
However, most Bible prophecy scholars would interpret the Jeremiah passage you mentioned, “a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,” as applying to the Jews during the Millennial Kingdom.
Yeah, so what do you mean by, “So what you are saying is that all of the modern day Christians are wasting their time because Jesus wasn’t talking to them anyway?”[/quote]
well, unless you are a Jew of the Millennial Kingdom then the covenant is not for you.
One observation. These discussions always assume that Christianity is solely bible based. Indeed, as if the faith was founded on the bible to the exclusion of the church and it’s clergy/apostles. So when the teaching role of clergy, the theology and/or doctrines of the church (whichever, to avoid getting into denominations), are raised about how, where, when, and to who verses and covenants are targted, it’s dismissed as waffling.
[quote]pat wrote:
Creating gods to suit your own purpose is one thing. Discovering via the exercise of pure reason as Aristotle did, is a whole other. The cosmological argument was not an exercise in creating a god to suit a need.
[/quote]
Aristotle also reasoned that the universe was made up of five elements, that the Earth was the centre point of this universe and that the five elements had a natural place and tended towards it (explaining why bubbles of air rise in water, flames rise in the air and stones sink in water.)
He was wrong about those things not because he was stupid but because he didn’t have all of the information. We now have far more information available and can see that the cosmological argument is fallactious.
[quote]pat wrote:
[bold]
How about the possibility that this law is simply the way the universe operates, and has always been in effect? You can’t dismiss this as a logical possibility.
[/bold]
That may be true, but there is a reason it is that way. I want to know why. That’s just the way it is, is not sufficient to me. If we don’t question we don’t learn. If somebody did not ask why, we would not be where we are today.
[/quote]
Or you could be looking at that the wrong way round. Why does there have to be a reason? Why could their not be a continuum of dimensions with different rules that govern them and we are obviously in the one that has the rules set up just so because this is where we are.
It’s like the people who say there must be a God because our world is so perfectly designed for life. What they are missing is that there is a whole universe of worlds that are not condusive to our type of life so of course we are on the one that is. If God did it, why such a huge fucking waste of space in the Universe? Why not build one solar system that works perfectly and not bother with all the rest?
[Wall of text ahead]
I think most religions have a core of rock solid self help ideas which by virtue of their popularity attract and become padded with a lot of cultural stuff.
Hell, heaven and sin make sense analogically (and why not if parables and religion go together like PB&J?).
If we discount the cultural bits like mixing wool and linen and touching pigs skin then Sin seems to be associated with activities which can promote self harm. Don’t touch the hot stove basically.
If you spend your life touching hot stoves you’ve got Hell. If otherwise you’ve got Heaven. Similar format for most self help books.
…
Summary of religious texts in general (proportions may vary): Some profound philosophical realization, Cultural quirks interpretations and additions, a part where it says “believe what you read in this book”
It seems it has to contain something which evidently says a lot about the human condition in order for the “believe what you read in this book” clause to take effect. In response to “how do you know it comes from the source you think it does” I usually get “the book or someone said so” full stop.
I am thinking right now that there is something very profound to be learned that can elevate the human condition. I also think that it comes from thinking. I think people have written it down, but it has to be thought by each of us and it has nothing to do with any specific culture. Douglas Adams was right that the answer 42 is irrelevant without the equation.
…
Three scientific principles or to be aware of. They are assumptions often taken as givens.
Unprovable. Though in that same sense, nothing is proven. The same applies to the principles of other systems of belief.
There is also something I’ll call the reductionist wall. Either the universe reduces for-ever to infinitely small parts, or there is a level of irreducible wholes we will someday reach. If the universe is an infinitely complex machine with infinitely small parts and infinitely many rules then it’s complexity is indistinguishable from randomness or acausality. If the universe does not reduce past a certain point then that irreducible whole is made to operate based on it’s own accord (by definition of being irreducible). Either case is indistinguishable because both operate in a way that is ultimately undeterminable even without relying on the truth that nothing is provable.
I’m convinced these kernels have something about them that relate to how to elevate the human condition.
…
Just as our capacity to know can be developed, so can we cultivate the practice of not-knowing.
[/wall of text]