[quote]conservativedog wrote:
smh fun fact…what was the first liquid and food consumed on the moon?[/quote]
Yes, I know.
I have always found great irony in this.
Space, which gives us some of the simplest and best reasons to conclude that the Genesis account of creation is fiction, playing host–get it?–to the Sacrament of Communion.[/quote]
It’s allegorical, not a literal account. There are after all 2 creation stories in Genesis. [/quote]
This is a subject of intense disagreement within Christianity itself. And I side with the literalists, insofar as they argue that once the first chapters are called allegory, the rest cannot be defended against the very same criticism: “Well, this is just an allegory invented by people who lived long ago.” Jesus’ resurrection, for example. Or that he was the son of God at all.
That is, of course, a fight for another thread.[/quote]
Indeed. When the book of beginnings, Genesis, is sacrificed on the altar of (seeming) expediency you might as well be ready to do the same with the rest of Scripture.
Jesus himself vouched for the authenticity of Genesis. When you can’t trust the words of the very one who you worship and who created you when it comes to the Beginning you have some serious problems to overcome in other areas.[/quote]
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
smh fun fact…what was the first liquid and food consumed on the moon?[/quote]
Yes, I know.
I have always found great irony in this.
Space, which gives us some of the simplest and best reasons to conclude that the Genesis account of creation is fiction…[/quote]
I think not. In fact several of those who have actually visited space feel the way I do. It’s true. You can look it up.[/quote]
Sure, but that doesn’t really mean much.
[/quote]
Sure it does. You initially brought it up as relevant. You can’t now dismiss it as being irrelevant. That’s illogical.[/quote]
Huh? I said that I found it ironic that communion was taken in a place, and during a mission which was part of a great widening of knowledge, that has done great damage to the credibility of religion. That some astronauts were religious has no bearing on this, just as Einstein’s opinion of Christianity does not prove my own.
[quote]
I was referring to the starlight problem, first and foremost. I know the answers to it, and I think they’re nonsense. Twists and turns and acrobacy to try to fit something that isn’t into something that is.[/quote]
Which religion are you referring to here? The religion of Judaism and Christianity, or the religion of scientism?[/quote]
Call it a religion, that’s fine. Science is buttressed by the better collection of evidence. The astronomically better collection of evidence.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Call it a religion, that’s fine. Science is buttressed by the better collection of evidence. The astronomically better collection of evidence.[/quote]
One of the more hilarious things I find with some religious folks is when they say regarding a scientific claim, something along that lines of “That evidence is invalid/insufficient/etc”, yet have no problem doing the mental gymnastics to accept their beliefs, that lack for more in evidence and aren’t subject to as intense scrutiny and investigation but instead are accepted as truth at face value, make sense to them.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Science’s buttresses have been torn down and rebuilt many times. The prudent man suggests that it will probably continue to be so.[/quote]
Yep, have to change with new information/understanding.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Here’s a challenge to believers, analyze your beliefs with as much scrutiny and criticism as you do to the evidence that your opponents put forth.
Like AC said, you ain’t got no better reasons to believe your fairy tale any more than the next one.[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
I do not believe this is true. First, theists have fulfilled the burden of proof with many logical arguments for the existence of God.
Second, atheists have just as much burden to prove why anything exists, rather than nothing.
This burden of proof shift is false. Removing God from the equation doesn’t make the equation disappear.[/quote]
Okay, so the topic was discussed, like a thousand times. There’s probably closer to 30 threads on the existence of God. Did somebody prove God doesn’t exist? If so I missed it. [/quote]
No, it’s that you had half the PWI forum explain to you the inconsistency (that word again) of your logic, and yet you’re trumpeting about the strength of your arguments again. Thanks, but no thanks.[/quote]
I was arguing for something completely different, not God, first. And that was my argument and I admit it was poor. But I was not arguing the existence of God.
Second, the arguments for God’s existence are not mine, I didn’t invent them. Much smarter people than I did that. I don’t trumpet the strength of my arguments, I argue the strength of other people’s arguments.
So unless you had the drop dead proof that the arguments for God’s existence are wrong, then I don’t get your point.
This thread is about what Richard Dawkins said and whether atheists agree with him that religious people should be mocked.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Here’s a challenge to believers, analyze your beliefs with as much scrutiny and criticism as you do to the evidence that your opponents put forth.
Like AC said, you ain’t got no better reasons to believe your fairy tale any more than the next one.[/quote]
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Here’s a challenge to believers, analyze your beliefs with as much scrutiny and criticism as you do to the evidence that your opponents put forth.
Like AC said, you ain’t got no better reasons to believe your fairy tale any more than the next one.[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
I do not believe this is true. First, theists have fulfilled the burden of proof with many logical arguments for the existence of God.
Second, atheists have just as much burden to prove why anything exists, rather than nothing.
This burden of proof shift is false. Removing God from the equation doesn’t make the equation disappear.[/quote]
Okay, so the topic was discussed, like a thousand times. There’s probably closer to 30 threads on the existence of God. Did somebody prove God doesn’t exist? If so I missed it.[/quote]
No, it’s that you had half the PWI forum explain to you the inconsistency (that word again) of your logic, and yet you’re trumpeting about the strength of your arguments again. Thanks, but no thanks.[/quote]
I was arguing for something completely different, not God, first. And that was my argument and I admit it was poor. But I was not arguing the existence of God.
Second, the arguments for God’s existence are not mine, I didn’t invent them. Much smarter people than I did that. I don’t trumpet the strength of my arguments, I argue the strength of other people’s arguments.
So unless you had the drop dead proof that the arguments for God’s existence are wrong, then I don’t get your point.
This thread is about what Richard Dawkins said and whether atheists agree with him that religious people should be mocked.[/quote]
Ok, pat, ignore what you write, eg about burden of proof.
Do you also group people together based on not playing baseball? not being mechanics?
I know I get together with all my non-mechanic friends to hang out and not fix cars. smh
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Here’s a challenge to believers, analyze your beliefs with as much scrutiny and criticism as you do to the evidence that your opponents put forth.
Like AC said, you ain’t got no better reasons to believe your fairy tale any more than the next one.[/quote]
Well I found this enlightening…
Is this the real atheism? Has it shown it’s true face?
“Mock them, ridicule them, in public”
“… need to be ridiculed with contempt”
How many atheists believe Richard Dawkins? We should be mocked and ridiculed for our beliefs? This isn’t non-belief, this is raw, pure hatred. I want to hear from atheists, do you practice what is preached?[/quote]
No I don’t practice this.
[quote]It seems to me, and ever more apparent that you are readily passing judgement on Christians, Christianity as a whole, etc.
Not by reading theology and dogma, but on the behavior of a few.[/quote]
It seems to me, and ever more apparent that you are readily passing judgement on Atheists, Atheists as a whole, etc. On the behavior of this guy.
*“Oh no, I’m not judging, I’m asking, asking asking! I even called him your preacher.”
Not judging. C’mon. Do better and give us a challenge at least. You’re making this too easy.
Why are you mocking and ridiculing non believers? Why are you not calling out people in your thread who call them fools? Why are you telling them to stay on meds?
If you can’t find the hypocrisy it’s because you have no desire to see it. Which seems to be the case lately when I point it out. So rock on.
[/quote]
Oh I see, you’re trying to expose me for who I really am… Whatever floats your boat. Expose me all you want. Show the world who I really am. Like it matters, I am not running for office.[/quote]
What are you talking about? Either respond to what I said or don’t post. Don’t make up stuff like I’m trying to expose you. Don’t hand wave and deflect things. You’re far smarter and better than that Pat.
I’m not TRYING to do anything. I’m pointing out that you don’t seem to be staying consistent. I don’t know who you really are or even what that means. It’s a pointless bullshit internet discussion. We’ve had a million of them before. I don’t get on here to set out and do something or have some type of agenda. I discuss what I feel about topics brought up. Plain and simple. Playing the victim isn’t necessary here. No one is doing anything you’re alleging. [/quote]
You’re trying to show what a hypocrite I am, how inconsistent I am are you not? Isn’t that what you just said, or did I misread it?
I didn’t allege anybody was doing anything.
If it’s such a pointless discussion then why are you participating? That’s contradictory. For such a pointless discussion, you sure have a lot to say about it. Well it actually seems you have more to say about me, than the topic. And if you read my responses, I don’t think you can reasonably say I am accusing anyone of anything, except you. I am accusing you of ad hominem attacks without justification.
It appears to me, you are interested in pointing out what I hypocrite I am. Maybe I am too self absorbed, but you said it several times. You pointed out how contradictory I am, what a hypocrite I am, did you not?
So go on tell everybody what a hypocrite I am. Start a thread on ‘pat the Hypocrite’.[/quote]
C’mon. I was saying these discussions aren’t as big a deal as you’re making them. You’re getting really defensive for no reason. Yes, I demonstrably showed hypocrisy. I showed this with words.
[/quote]
You showed hypocrisy? Where? What is hypocritical specifically? You’re putting a bunch of words in my mouth for example:
[i]"It seems to me, and ever more apparent that you are readily passing judgement on Atheists, Atheists as a whole, etc. On the behavior of this guy.
*“Oh no, I’m not judging, I’m asking, asking asking! I even called him your preacher.” [/i]
“Back to the “ya know Atheism is a religion” stupidity arguments for the 9,000th time. More hypocrisy. You have believers already in this thread mocking and ridiculing atheists. No big deal though right?”
I didn’t say ANY of that. None. You said I said it, but I didn’t say it.
Calling me a hypocrite without justification, using your own words as my words is ad hominem. I didn’t say those things. I didn’t imply those things.
[quote]
Take it easy Pat, you’re getting really worked up for no big deal. I don’t even dislike you, I just dislike the argument you’re currently making. I think you’re intelligent and we’re all hypocrites from time to time. Nothing worth exploding about. [/quote]
I am not worked up at all. Puzzled yes. Being called a hypocrite and all that stuff isn’t very nice. What is my hypocrisy? I am curious because I don’t see it. But maybe I am blind and stupid. But I didn’t say the things you said I said. And you are calling my a hypocrite based on the things you said I said.
So what did I say that is hypocritical?
[quote]pat wrote:
I do not believe this is true. First, theists have fulfilled the burden of proof with many logical arguments for the existence of God.
Second, atheists have just as much burden to prove why anything exists, rather than nothing.
This burden of proof shift is false. Removing God from the equation doesn’t make the equation disappear.[/quote]
Okay, so the topic was discussed, like a thousand times. There’s probably closer to 30 threads on the existence of God. Did somebody prove God doesn’t exist? If so I missed it.[/quote]
No, it’s that you had half the PWI forum explain to you the inconsistency (that word again) of your logic, and yet you’re trumpeting about the strength of your arguments again. Thanks, but no thanks.[/quote]
I was arguing for something completely different, not God, first. And that was my argument and I admit it was poor. But I was not arguing the existence of God.
Second, the arguments for God’s existence are not mine, I didn’t invent them. Much smarter people than I did that. I don’t trumpet the strength of my arguments, I argue the strength of other people’s arguments.
So unless you had the drop dead proof that the arguments for God’s existence are wrong, then I don’t get your point.
This thread is about what Richard Dawkins said and whether atheists agree with him that religious people should be mocked.[/quote]
Ok, pat, ignore what you write, eg about burden of proof.
Do you also group people together based on not playing baseball? not being mechanics?
I know I get together with all my non-mechanic friends to hang out and not fix cars. smh
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Here’s a challenge to believers, analyze your beliefs with as much scrutiny and criticism as you do to the evidence that your opponents put forth.
Like AC said, you ain’t got no better reasons to believe your fairy tale any more than the next one.[/quote]
Ok, I did.
Now what?
[/quote]
Are you also a Hindu now?[/quote]
No.
[/quote]
Why not? Are they wrong?[/quote]
Yes. I’ve only felt the presence/had personal revelation of/with the God of Christianity.
Seems people are angrier with Pat (anon guy on PWI) than Dawkins ( a bit of a media/cultural celebrity). Well, at least more time has been spent on Pat.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Science’s buttresses have been torn down and rebuilt many times. The prudent man suggests that it will probably continue to be so.[/quote]
Yep, have to change with new information/understanding.[/quote]
Doesn’t that explain the many versions of the same essential message?