[quote]pat wrote:
You have no better reason to believe anything about Pluto. Everything you know about Pluto is hearsay and you can’t prove you weren’t lied to. You can’t even really know it exists, muchless know anything about it.
[/quote]
To clarify, you generally reject facts accepted in the scientific world if that cannot be confirmed with absolute certainty? And you liken believing pluto’s orbital period being 248 years to having faith in god?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Oh no, athiesm isn’t a lack of belief it’s a belief that nothing rather than something is ‘responsible’ for existence.
And if atheism was a lack of belief literally, you couldn’t even discuss it because you cannot discuss that which does not exist. The second you start discussing ‘it’ you start assigning properties and said ‘nothing’ suddenly becomes something.
[/quote]
Huh?
I’ve never discussed what I think is ‘responsible’ for existence.
to the second part: So wait, I can’t discuss the fact I do not believe in any supernatural claims?
I haven’t assigned any properties just what I wrote above. [/quote]
I think you missed the point. Basically, you can have only one of two stances on ‘existence’ itself. That ‘existence’ is dependent on something for it’s existence, or nothing. You cannot say ‘neither’ because that becomes circular reasoning. A ‘thing’ cannot be the reason for it’s own existence.
It hearkens back to the cosmological form and the priciple of causation on which it is based.
If you take the literal definition of ‘nothing’, a complete absence of everything, then you can’t comment on it, because there is nothing to comment on.
All I was saying really is that ‘atheism’ itself is a belief, not a non-belief. It’s a belief based on a lack of expected conditions.[/quote]
My answer is: I don’t know.
But I’m not going to insert a god simply because I don’t know.
I don’t buy the cosmological based on the standard arguments I’ve read. I’ve seen you discuss it with BG, not going to bother to rehash it.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
…like the ass needs another hole.
I’m sorry. Continue.[/quote]
I seem to notice Christine, you’ll drop some vitriol and hatred, but when the conversation gets serious, you run away. Why are you afraid to stand up for your beliefs?[/quote]
Ha! Sorry, I just meant that this argument had been done to death and never goes anywhere.
I didn’t think that was hating.
Whatever ya’ll believe is cool with me. Faith requires no proof, so what is the point of arguing it?
[/quote]
Yeah, it does, otherwise it wouldn’t have a manual. You really think we believe something that has no proof whatsoever? If it didn’t work, it would have no followers. I am afraid you really don’t know anything about it it this is what you think. Faith in God does indeed require proof as much as it requires faith. You need both. If there were no proof at all, it wouldn’t have many followers, only nuts.
If you take a stance on an issue, I think you should know about your stance, why it’s your stance and have stuff that defends that stance otherwise how do you know if you’re right? I am not satisfied with a guess are you?
If that’s the worst thing you have to fear, your life is awesome.[/quote]
One of the definitions of faith is the belief in something without any proof. I’m not attempting to insult anyone with this statement.
[/quote]
That is one definition, but there is many more definitions are available too. More generically and more accurately describing religious faith is trust in someone or something. For instance, I look I the scriptures, I take it on faith that God does or will do what he says he does. It’s less applied to existence and more applied to the man-God relationship.
I didn’t think I was being defensive, I merely asked why you ridiculed the belief system. I have read the other things you have said to. You cannot claim to have been neutral or benign in your statements.
My main point is why do you mock, but never really carry the argument out to the end and defend it. You’ve done this several times, I think is a fair thing to ask. Do you believe in God and just hate religion or are you an atheist and hate religion too?[/quote]
You have trust in it. No problem. Proof is not a necessary part of faith. You may think that you have some proof, but I am simply skeptical of your proof.
[/quote]
At some point, what you have faith in has to bear some kind of fruit or your faith will cease. It’s simple opperant conditioning. There has to be a basis or foundation for faith to be maintained. You can believe in anything for a little while, but on going faith or trust is built on the basis of things.
I sense that non-believers have this notion that religion particularly Christianity is full of ‘abracadabra’ and ‘hocus pocus’, I see none of that and no need for that. It’s a very natural, not super natural thing.
I would figure you’d be skeptical of religion otherwise you’d be religious.
But you’re ridiculing things you don’t understand.
They do lead to some interesting places at times. It’s not futility, it’s about discourse. Perhaps if understood my positions, you would not find them ridiculous.
That’s a curious statement, what do you find interesting about them?[/quote]
I think that all religions, including Christianity have lots of elements of supernatural. Let’s start with Jesus rising from the dead.
Of course I will never understand it. I would have to be a Christian (insert any other religion) to fully understand it. It doesn’t matter how much I know or don’t know about Christianity, I will always be observing it from an outsider’s point of view.
I find the overall mythology and ceremonies surrounding religions to be fun to learn about. For instance, Semana Santa in Antigua, Guatemala in an interesting event to observe. I spent several months there living with a family (even went to church with them… and didn’t spontaneously combust). I also learned quite a bit about Mayans and their religion.
Why not be interested in learning a bit about religions?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I am not so clever as to have made up the word ‘faith’ and give it, it’s meaning. The word faith is what it is, and means what it means, this fact allows me to use it they way I did. The point is that what you understand what faith really means, you realize that everybody lives on faith because nobody can know very much with certainty. Especially physical matter.
I don’t believe in ‘religions’ therefore, certainly don’t have a reason to believe in them. I don’t believe in ‘religion’. Religion is means, not an end. Think about it like this.
Personal faith is like a cell phone and religion is like a cell phone provider. I make my connections to God through my provider, but the faith is mine and the relationship I have on the other side is personal. The religion is a vehicle to make that connection. If you count on religion to do shit for you, your faith is shit.
[/quote]
There are several definitions of faith, check your dictionary. The one you used makes it seem like believing in something with a scientific basis is equally as rationale as believing in supernatural claims. They really aren’t the same thing
[/quote]
It is. That’s the point. If you can’t experience it for yourself, you cannot ‘know’ it.[/quote]
I’m not interested in absolute certainty. I care about the relative world, things relative to us.
To the Christians in here:
You cannot tell a blind man to see simply by asking him to open his eyes.
Apart from God intervening, that mans remains that way.
Pray, Be informed via scripture, Evangelize
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< You’ve done a wonderful job in misrepresenting what I wrote. You are an intellectual powerhouse! >>>[/quote]My mistake. I mistook you for Raw Finn. Was in a hurry. I apologize.
[/quote]
I said what I said because many of you think that things can be proven. I know they can’t and that is why I was asking for something that doesn’t exist just to see what you guys would answer. I’m done here. Thanks people.
[quote]pat wrote:
For some reason God chose to reveal himself to Man vs. all his other creatures. This ‘creator’ decided to have a relationship with us. Where as all other life, all other things he was content to set in motion.
If you look historically God has been very consistent with the fact that he revealed him self to the lowliest of low creatures. So he chose the Hebrews. These people didn’t have the good sense to know that fucking your sheep or goats isn’t to be done. He had to tell them several times in the OT to knock that shit off. He could have chosen the Egyptains, they were smart, educated, and civilized…Nope he picked the Hebrews. Then later He decided to step in to the world as a poor ass carpenter. This lowly carpender changed the entire world and the way it works. And how did he do it? By being humiliated in death by dying a criminal’s death.
Why Christianity? Because it’s the best way I know to communicate and relate to God himself.
St. Paul stated God has dealt with those with whom he didn’t reveal themselves accordingly to their own measure and that indeed, knowledge of God cane come from simply observing the world around you and in nature. To whom he has showed Christianity, are those who are to have the most intimate and compelling relationship.
Why Christianity? Because it works. If you put the sayings and tenets expressed in the NT to practice, they work exactly as the book says they do. I mean exactly. And whether you know it or not as a non-believer, you act according to the script as it is written in the scriptures, particularly the NT. It really is uncanny.
The way unbelievers act and interact with Christians is exactly as Jesus and the apostles said they would…
I could actually write a dissertation on this question, but I tried to keep it as taut as possible.
[/quote]
Ok. So you feel the biggest connection to God through Christianity. Thanks. I’m done.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
FTR, I do believe:
Evolution should be taught in schools as well as creation.
DA/DT should not have been repealed.
But again that is beside the point.[/quote]
I am fine with creation being taught in schools as either history, religion or literature. The creation account is not scientific.[/quote]
And that is your opinion. I have mine. The next guy has his.
[/quote]
No.
That is the only opinion, unless you rape the definition of the word “science”.
You introduce the supernatural, in what form ever, boom, no longer science.
The very idea of scientific inquiry is moot if you can immediately say “God done it that way”.
To summarize, if you have to teach Christianity, you also have to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It’s only fair.
BTW, this letter successfully prevented the Kansas school board from incorporating intelligent design into their curriculum.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
FTR, I do believe:
Evolution should be taught in schools as well as creation.
DA/DT should not have been repealed.
But again that is beside the point.[/quote]
I am fine with creation being taught in schools as either history, religion or literature. The creation account is not scientific.[/quote]
And that is your opinion. I have mine. The next guy has his.
And THAT my friend was my original point.[/quote]
NOT to bogard this thread but you do realize that christians pray to a BASTARD son as mary and “god” where not married and chances are Mary was RAPED ! So that left Joseph an idiot for standing around and not protecting his better half. This is what you want to believe in ? On top of that christianity is for people with little cognative functioning as I am wondering what was wrong with this article of fiction called the TORAH ! /was it just a little to hardcore on your sorry asses to be followed with any certainty ?
By the way, for the record I am a BORN AGAIN PAGAN ATHEIST !
One last thing: it IS upon the person perpetuating the myth to provide the evidence : )
Go BEN !
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
2+2 is indeed 4 and there is no way we can theorize around that fact. 2+2 will never be 5 however much we would wish it to be.
[/quote]
Excellent. I use the 2+2 analogy a lot. Mathematics are fantastic abstract objects.
[quote]
You’re arguing that I cannot argue against the existence of God without him being real. That’s false, and very feeble of you. The question is not “does God exist”, the question is why do you think you know him so well?[/quote]
I think I know him ok I still have a long way to go. It does drive me bat shit crazy when poeple put words in God’s mouth. “God hates fags”. Uh no, that’s not written ANYWHERE. Their will be more fags in heaven than their will be people who hate them.
Unfortunately, Ben, a lot of people have a translucent, 2 dimensional understanding of God, not a rich flowering relationship.
I am no holy roller, nor am I holier than thou but I do love God and he knows it. That’s much better than ramming scripture down people’s throat.
You don’t have to be a religious fool. All you need to do, is to love God and love your neighbor, then let God take care of the rest. It’s really that simple.[/quote]
I really hate to do this, since you’ve obviously studied the bible harder than I have… but:
I seem to remember a passage from Romans that contains God’s Wrath for Sinful Humans or some such. It contains a passage that doesn’t speak very highly of teh homosex.
I love my neighbor sometimes, and other times I can’t stand the fucking guy. God is impossible to love because I don’t perceive him as you do. I’m not incapable of love or mercy, but I have a lot of trouble intellectually with the notion that we are COMMANDED to love, or else… I don’t recall asking to be born, and as such I feel I don’t owe anybody anything. In return, the world (or God), doesn’t owe me anything either. Tiribulus would say this means I am not only willfully ignorant, but that I hate God. And he can quote scripture that says so, I’m sure!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Why your argument is not practical:
To summarize, if you have to teach Christianity, you also have to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It’s only fair.
[/quote]
And that is your opinion. I have mine. The next guy has his.
To summarize, you have no inherent superiority to somehow be the designated arbiter of fairness. I don’t say this to be condescending, it’s just a simple fact.[/quote]
So you would be okay with schools teaching this? (you skipped that link huh?)
"Open Letter To Kansas School Board
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
It is for this reason that Iâ??m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. Iâ??m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.
Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.
What these people donâ??t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
Iâ??m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we donâ??t.
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
Sincerely Yours,
Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.
P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures."
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Why your argument is not practical:
To summarize, if you have to teach Christianity, you also have to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It’s only fair.
[/quote]
And that is your opinion. I have mine. The next guy has his.
To summarize, you have no inherent superiority to somehow be the designated arbiter of fairness. I don’t say this to be condescending, it’s just a simple fact.[/quote]
And you have to understand people will not take your opinion seriously if they are not well formed. That is a fact.
Guess how many people care about what the KKK has to say on the topic of human rights?
