It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)
Pages:
1
25
50
64
65
66
67
68
100
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: Which "god" purposely set up for humans to fail, then punished them.
If you give someone free will, then it's obvious they are going to use it to make mistakes. However, people are still responsible for the choices they make.
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
CarrionCrow: Your comments definitely link back to the whole "made in their image" bit. If we're all made in a god's image? With all our collective mental problems, physical problems, inevitable deterioration and decay? Kinda makes for one freaky entity behind the big cosmic wheel if that's the case. Just some tragic figure riddled with madness and rot, self-destructive as all hell and wanting it to all end.
avatar
flashpulse: You guys speak with no knowledge. Everything changed when Adam and eve sinned and were banished from the garden. Seriously people, go study before you open your mouths.
Sin is a bit of a silly word. It's a word that carries with it the image of wild-eyed lunatics burning innocent people at the stake. "Hey, Bob, why'd you set Mrs. Windham on fire?"

"Because she SINNED!"

More than anything, it's a blanket term for "they did things we don't like". Don't go to church? Sinner! Have sex before marriage? Sinner! Say something we don't like, do something we don't like, dare to question our beliefs that we need to feel like something actually gives a crap even though logically it looks like our invisible buddy is a frigging sadist that created us to have creatures to screw with like an imbecilic child pulling the wings off of bugs to see how they react, assumed they exist at all? SINNER! SHUT THEM UP, BURN THEM, KILL THEM, WE CAN'T HANDLE SOMEONE WITH CRITICAL THINKING PICKING AWAY AT OUR SECURITY BLANKETS! REALITY IS SCARY!
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: You're talking about direct evidence, but there is also indirect evidence where the truth of something can be inferred from other facts. The size of the universe is indirect evidence for the existence of aliens because you are inferring from that that aliens exist.
That is neither direct nor indirect evidence for anything. Baseless assumption would be the correct term.

avatar
Fenixp: 13 000 years, man.
That was a different guy. Flashpulse just said that two pages ago and then I proceeded to tell him about amazing trees, which probably went right over his head, since he ignored that fascinating tale.
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: I'm not sure what general relativity or helicentricity has to do with anything, but there are people who think that evolution contradicts Genesis. According to them, if evolution were shown to be false, then there would no longer be a mainstream interpretation of biology that indicates Genesis to be false. You are absolutely correct that it wouldn't mean that Christianity is correct, but it would dismantle one of the reasons for rejecting Christianity.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: No because there would still be no hard verifiable proof in christianity.
It's nice that you think so, but I'm still waiting for you to come up with an example of how someone could form a belief without anything indicating to them that it is true. There is evidence that indicates Christianity is true, and I think the evidence is sufficiently strong to prove to me that it is true. You can deny reality all you like, but it won't do you any good.
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
jamotide: That was a different guy. Flashpulse just said that two pages ago and then I proceeded to tell him about amazing trees, which probably went right over his head, since he ignored that fascinating tale.
Definitely flashpulse

avatar
Soyeong: It's nice that you think so, but I'm still waiting for you to come up with an example of how someone could form a belief without anything indicating to them that it is true. There is evidence that indicates Christianity is true, and I think the evidence is sufficiently strong to prove to me that it is true. You can deny reality all you like, but it won't do you any good.
I will again pull out the widespread cult which believes that we will be remedied by 50 000 invisible ships in the earth's orbit. Basis for a belief can quite simply be someone very persuasive, rich or just lucky.

Problem is that people are curious creatures and want answers. How do things work, how did we come to be, what is the purpose of life. Religion happens to offer answers comprehensible to an average joe, therefore it's not difficult to spread.
Post edited January 31, 2014 by Fenixp
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: It's nice that you think so, but I'm still waiting for you to come up with an example of how someone could form a belief without anything indicating to them that it is true
"Because daddy frowns when people say otherwise."
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: Also says the guy that catholics aren't christian.
avatar
Shaolin_sKunk: But of course, no true Scotsman yadda-yadda-yadda *continue to rationalize*
Not really, at some point a person is no longer a Scotsman because they're actually an Englishman.Which is the case here. Mormons have an additional entire volume to the Bible that was written in the 19th century and with all the extra stuff in there, they are about as Christian as your average Christian is Jewish.

In the case of Catholics, they do a fair amount of things that are expressly forbidden in the Bible. Idolatry is rampant and there's all sorts of Church sanctioned cleansing of sins that aren't in an of the Christian sects.

One can certainly declare them to be Christian or not, but it's foolish to pretend like the rather major doctrinal choices made by the hierarchy don't lead to a certain degree of ambiguity. I mean Limbo, thankfully they've finally done away with that foolishness, but it's hardly the only example of the hierarchy writing its own rules.
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: It's nice that you think so, but I'm still waiting for you to come up with an example of how someone could form a belief without anything indicating to them that it is true.
Tradition.

People are still saying, in this very thread I think someone said it in fact, that we only use 10% of our brains.
Actually, he said scientists said that, but that wasn't true either.

You hear something from your parents. You accept it. You hear something from your friend. You accept it. Then you repeat it to someone who trusts your credibility and then passes it on. No one does their homework because they assume someone else already did it.

Unless you're asking how someone can form a belief without even a source of information of any kind, since your dad telling you something combined with your trust in him still indicates to you something is true, then I don't have an answer for you because you're basically asking how someone can form a belief in a total vacuum.
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
Shaolin_sKunk: But of course, no true Scotsman yadda-yadda-yadda *continue to rationalize*
avatar
hedwards: Not really, at some point a person is no longer a Scotsman because they're actually an Englishman.Which is the case here. Mormons have an additional entire volume to the Bible that was written in the 19th century and with all the extra stuff in there, they are about as Christian as your average Christian is Jewish.

In the case of Catholics, they do a fair amount of things that are expressly forbidden in the Bible. Idolatry is rampant and there's all sorts of Church sanctioned cleansing of sins that aren't in an of the Christian sects.

One can certainly declare them to be Christian or not, but it's foolish to pretend like the rather major doctrinal choices made by the hierarchy don't lead to a certain degree of ambiguity. I mean Limbo, thankfully they've finally done away with that foolishness, but it's hardly the only example of the hierarchy writing its own rules.
The problem here, is everyone thinks their specific form is true and all others false, thus it is the no true scotsman ordeal.
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
Fenixp: Why would evolution be used to reject christianity tho? As I said, claiming that evolution is actually a creation of God would make God seem wise, as opposed to ... Well, not really. I feel that, if incorporated correctly, christians were given one hell of a reason for most issues with organic life.
I completely agree that evolution could have been part of how God created life on the planet. The Bible doesn't actually say how old the Earth is, but some people have interpreted it to say that it's around 6000 years old, so evolution doesn't contradict the Bible, it contradicts their particular interpretation of it. However, there are people that insist that their interpretation is correct and that evolution does contradict Genesis, and if Genesis is wrong, then that calls the rest of the Bible into question. Personally, I base my belief that Christianity is true on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. I'm fine with the possibility that I've misinterpreted something in Genesis, but if Jesus did rise, then my faith is in vain.

avatar
CarrionCrow: Sin is a bit of a silly word.
It seems strange to me that no one is capable of perfectly living up to a high moral standard, even when they set the standard themselves. Why do you think that is?
Post edited January 31, 2014 by Soyeong
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: I completely agree that evolution could have been part of how God created life on the planet. The Bible doesn't actually say how old the Earth is, but some people have interpreted it to say that it's around 6000 years old, so evolution doesn't contradict the Bible, it contradicts their particular interpretation of it. However, there are people that insist that their interpretation is correct and that evolution does contradict Genesis, and if Genesis is wrong, then that calls the rest of the Bible into question. Personally, I base my belief that Christianity is true on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. I'm fine with the possibility that I've misinterpreted something in Genesis, but if Jesus did rise, then my faith is in vain.
Actually, evolution doesn't necessarily speak of age of the planet. Some bits that are considered part of a sum of theories called evolution do talk about primates, dinosaurs and whatnot, but the important one is the one which speaks of adaptability, not of history. Basically, God created Adam and Eve 6000 years ago - whatever, that's something I won't attemt to disprove. It seems silly to me given other evidence, but all right. Evolution, on the other hand - the act of adapting to your surroundings on genetic basis - let's say Adam and Eve, and all life in the world was created with this ability. Suddenly, you get self-sustaining life-forms, whose skin slowly gains in pigmentation to accomodate for more temperate climates. Admittedly, 6000 years is far too little for that to work all that well...
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
jamotide: That is neither direct nor indirect evidence for anything. Baseless assumption would be the correct term.
A baseless assumption would be to spontaneously assume that something was true without anything indicating that it was true. Rather, he based his inference on the size of the universe. Circumstantial evidence still counts as evidence.
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: A baseless assumption would be to spontaneously assume that something was true without anything indicating that it was true. Rather, he based his inference on the size of the universe. Circumstantial evidence still counts as evidence.
No, he did not infer that aliens exist because the universe is big, he said it increases the likelyhood for it. That is not evidence. His evidence for the existance of aliens is most likely our existance.



avatar
Fenixp: Definitely flashpulse
Right, I mixed up my religious admirers.
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
Fenixp: I will again pull out the widespread cult which believes that we will be remedied by 50 000 invisible ships in the earth's orbit. Basis for a belief can quite simply be someone very persuasive, rich or just lucky.
If someone is persuasive, then that means they are good at presenting evidence that indicates what they are saying is true. Dawkins is an authority on biology, so someone can believe what he said about biology to be true based only on the evidence that he's an authority. If someone perceives a cult leader as being an authority, then the same thing goes for them.
Problem is that people are curious creatures and want answers. How do things work, how did we come to be, what is the purpose of life. Religion happens to offer answers comprehensible to an average joe, therefore it's not difficult to spread.
I'm not coming against evolution, but the same thing could be said about evolution providing the answers about our origin as a species. The fact that we're seeking answers doesn't imply anything about validity of the answers we find. It just means that we need to try to be aware of our on biases and that we need to be careful about how we interpret evidence.

I'm pretty sure that there is no one on the planet that completely has their act together, where everything they believe to be true corresponds to what is objectively true. Learning is a constant process of weeding out false beliefs, taking in new true and false beliefs, and reinforcing what we consider to be true beliefs. It's important to always be willing to reexamine our beliefs, especially those that are most important to us.
Posted January 31, 2014
avatar
hedwards: Not really, at some point a person is no longer a Scotsman because they're actually an Englishman.Which is the case here. Mormons have an additional entire volume to the Bible that was written in the 19th century and with all the extra stuff in there, they are about as Christian as your average Christian is Jewish.

In the case of Catholics, they do a fair amount of things that are expressly forbidden in the Bible. Idolatry is rampant and there's all sorts of Church sanctioned cleansing of sins that aren't in an of the Christian sects.

One can certainly declare them to be Christian or not, but it's foolish to pretend like the rather major doctrinal choices made by the hierarchy don't lead to a certain degree of ambiguity. I mean Limbo, thankfully they've finally done away with that foolishness, but it's hardly the only example of the hierarchy writing its own rules.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: The problem here, is everyone thinks their specific form is true and all others false, thus it is the no true scotsman ordeal.
That's not what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. The fallacy is saying that no Christian would do such and such and then change that to no true Christian would do that when the original statement turned out to be false.

That does not however relate to the issue at hand. At some point there is a line beyond which somebody is no longer a Christian. The Book of Mormon and the associated teachings is clearly on the other side of the line. The idolatry and attempts by Catholic Clergy to convince people they have some pull on who does and doesn't get into heaven results in them being in a rather questionable spot. There's valid reasons in both directions and the practices deviate sufficiently to make it a legitimate question.

It's like Jews for Jesus. They're not Jews, once one accepts Jesus as their lord and savior one passes beyond the point of Judaism.
Pages:
1
25
50
64
65
66
67
68
100
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)