|
|
Post by Nimras on Nov 20, 2007 0:16:12 GMT -5
Humans use all of their brain. Just usually only 10% at any given nanosecond because if all your neurons fired at the same time you'd die.  |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Nov 20, 2007 11:18:41 GMT -5
This post is directed at the entire issue in general, and is not directed at anyone on a personal level. ----------------------------------------------------------- I like how this whole debacle goes both ways. Religious people are outraged at mockery symbols, like a Darwin tag that is made in the image of the Christian peace fish, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And atheists, or believers in science and philosophy get flustered, when people start quoting Bible passages, or whatnot. I think this whole issue is driving everyone mad, and until the day both sides wise up and realize there's no way to control other people's will, and beliefs (never was, *hopefully* never will be) then there's only us sitting there letting ourselves look like fools and hypocrites over something that can only be resolved within. Sorry to say, but from where I sit, NEITHER side has gained ground on this matter. Let's stop treating this like a winner-take-all contest. Actually, I find the Flying Spaghetti Monster hilarious. XD I don't like what the people on the FSM forums say though. No one likes it when other people make fun of them. In my personal opinion, we can all say we're as tolerant to other religions as possible, but that doesn't stop us from vehemently agreeing with people who believe the same way as we do and crushing people who don't. *shrugs* I, for one, will not deny that I've enjoyed staying here over Thanksgiving with Kiddo and missing out on the lovely MWF lunch sessions where there are six athiests at the table laughing at religion and I'm the only Christian there. Lunch is good, and they're all my friends, but I just wish... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2007 11:51:51 GMT -5
This post is directed at the entire issue in general, and is not directed at anyone on a personal level. ----------------------------------------------------------- I like how this whole debacle goes both ways. Religious people are outraged at mockery symbols, like a Darwin tag that is made in the image of the Christian peace fish, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And atheists, or believers in science and philosophy get flustered, when people start quoting Bible passages, or whatnot. I think this whole issue is driving everyone mad, and until the day both sides wise up and realize there's no way to control other people's will, and beliefs (never was, *hopefully* never will be) then there's only us sitting there letting ourselves look like fools and hypocrites over something that can only be resolved within. Sorry to say, but from where I sit, NEITHER side has gained ground on this matter. Let's stop treating this like a winner-take-all contest. Actually, I find the Flying Spaghetti Monster hilarious. XD I don't like what the people on the FSM forums say though. No one likes it when other people make fun of them. In my personal opinion, we can all say we're as tolerant to other religions as possible, but that doesn't stop us from vehemently agreeing with people who believe the same way as we do and crushing people who don't. *shrugs* I, for one, will not deny that I've enjoyed staying here over Thanksgiving with Kiddo and missing out on the lovely MWF lunch sessions where there are six athiests at the table laughing at religion and I'm the only Christian there. Lunch is good, and they're all my friends, but I just wish... Aw, that's mean. I don't have a problem with religion. I only have an issue if i'm told that I'm going to suffer for all of eternity for thinking what it is I think. But I would never laugh at someone else's beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by Jacob on Nov 22, 2007 18:56:35 GMT -5
Actually, I find the Flying Spaghetti Monster hilarious. XD I don't like what the people on the FSM forums say though. No one likes it when other people make fun of them. In my personal opinion, we can all say we're as tolerant to other religions as possible, but that doesn't stop us from vehemently agreeing with people who believe the same way as we do and crushing people who don't. *shrugs* I, for one, will not deny that I've enjoyed staying here over Thanksgiving with Kiddo and missing out on the lovely MWF lunch sessions where there are six athiests at the table laughing at religion and I'm the only Christian there. Lunch is good, and they're all my friends, but I just wish... Aw, that's mean. I don't have a problem with religion. I only have an issue if i'm told that I'm going to suffer for all of eternity for thinking what it is I think. But I would never laugh at someone else's beliefs. I think it usually depends on the belief. Most adults usually nod their heads and smile when they see a child believing in Santa, and shake their heads when they see another adult who does. Even if the belief someone has is bogus and has no basis in reality, I guess there would be difference to mocking someone for what they believe and how they live than trying to be helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by zarikrahia on Nov 22, 2007 19:30:28 GMT -5
I am an atheist, raised a sceptic, so naturally my beliefs reflect that. I don't put down Religion in public, I just quietly don't believe. I mean, seriously, I am annoyed, like the rest of the atheist population, when someone says that we will go to hell for not believing. That's silly. If God is real, why would he stick someone downstairs for their beliefs?
Though, laughing at religious people is just not nice. My folks dun do it, I dun do it. Because you can't blame someone for being raised the way they were and thinking the way they do.
|
|
|
|
Post by puffydude on Dec 16, 2007 11:04:41 GMT -5
Note: this is a reply the a post on "The Philosophy Thread", which I was told would better fit in here. Please take a look at that thread if you want to get a better view of the background of this post.Define miracle. What are you looking for? Something tremendous like the burning bush and a parting of the red sea? Or something small, such as a blanket of wool remaining completely dry on dewey grass (Judges 6:36-40). Healings? What is it you mean by miracles? I'm going to go with the widely publicized ones, the great and the momentous as what you mean. The other two, the smaller and more personal ones? Seen those happen. Oh, but that can't be, right? Can only merely be anecdotal evidence or self-deception or attributing things to a higher power when they aren't (that's how most people react when you start to present talk of miracles because they just got done saying there aren't any and don't want to have to back-track on that or admit the possibility that those could've been miracles). Miracles cannot be defined, I suppose, because none have been properly documented. With respect, though, I hardly consider your shoes being in a different position than they had been the previous night anything approaching a miracle. Strange it may be, but I could near guarantee if you looked at it long and hard, and considered all your options, you'd find a perfectly logical conclusion to it all; maybe your toddler brother was playing with your shoes the night before, I don't know. I grant, it can't be proven that these coincidences don't happen, but neither can a lot of things. People didn't want God. Even the Israelites (His chosen people) had quite a few tendencies to scorn and despise Him. So He backed off, let people have their way. And God pretty much said He was going to do just that--sit back and watch His creation destroy themselves because that's the way they wanted and didn't want to have to listen to Him and His laws. It also says He'll intervene in the end, but that it's going to get bad. Why? To show man that going at it their own way ain't working. Well, that's all very well and good, but how do we know? That far back in history, everything is very, very muddied indeed. The who world could have been populated by super-intelligent chickens for all we know. I ask you: were you there at the time? Did you witness these events? Again, all very open to debate, but hardly conclusive. Just because you don't see the reason yourself (or don't agree with it, if you do), doesn't mean there isn't a reason. What makes you so wise that you would do things differently and see another course of events as sheer idiocy? In the meantime, He'll work with a smaller group of people who actually do want to follow His way of life, and then use them in the future to help set everything back up properly. Nothing. I'm just another foolish human, one of approximately 6 billion on this planet. If He does exist, undoubtedly he is wise, but I feel wisdom alone is a pretty thin facade for blind faith. I could believe in anything, even Harry Potter, but it doesn't mean it's true. Sorry if anyone's insulted by my opinions, but there is no hard evidence to prove that there is such thing as a deity, nor is there any to prove that Harry Potter exists. Now the part about Heaven/Hell, I have to differ from the mainstream of Christianity on. My branch of Christianity does not believe in Heaven and Hell in the traditional senses. What we do believe and understand from the Bible is that God calls some people in the world now. These are the people he works with, etc. The people that God calls now have an opportunity to get to know God and His way of life and everything in this life. Those that accept it as truth will be saved, of course, and God will continue to work with. Those that would reject that calling (after understanding that there is truth to it), they'd be sent to the Lake of Fire--which is reserved only for those that God has called and they've outright rejected Him. Everyone else, the people God hasn't called and isn't giving a chance to now will be granted that chance at a later time, after Christ's return. That's what we believe in a nutshell about that area. And as far as forgiveness goes, God grants forgiveness of our sins when we repent of them...and repentance is not simply a "Oh, I feel sorry." it's an actual 180-degrees turning from one's actions and life-changing kind of deal. If someone won't repent of their actions, then God will not forgive them their sins. So I hope that answers your question in that area, coming from my church's POV. That's great; probably what I'd like to believe if I wasn't so skeptical. But you must ask yourself: since there are so many religions out there, thousands of them, are they all necessarily wrong, and yours right? Maybe the beliefs of the Wicca religion will come true some day? Hm? Seems a little funny to me, though, that all these billions of other people could be wrong, while one organisation is right. Believe it or not, I believed in God until just a couple of years ago, when I heard that the Catholic Church had withdrawn one of their most controversial beliefs (I cannot remember which) because it had all been a giant mistake, apparently. That was just the final straw for me. I couldn't take it seriously after that. And we have other things to lend to His presence. I look at the world and I see a pretty clear indicator of a designer. I look at history and I see clear indications that the Bible is historically accurate. The New Testament is pretty clear and fairly well documented throughout history. Even the apostles have been in the historical records. In fact, here's something to ask yourself. If the apostles, people that personally knew and witnessed the resurrection of Christ, were all just lying...why would they die for it? A lot of them died terrible, excruciating deaths. You would think that if it was all just a lie, they would have given it up to save their lives, don't you? The fact that they held onto these beliefs, firmly until death, what does that say to you? Then of course, there's the signs and personal miracles He's worked in my life...oh wait, they're just coincidence, I forgot. :/ I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you man by that. A designer? Do you mean the way the cliffs are shaped, the mountains are formed? I've had the processes of weathering and erosions, the movements of the earths crust, hammered into my head for the past two years, in my Geograpy class. They don't seem all that untrue to me. As for the apostles, I rference my earlier point. How many of those guys have you actually met? I accept, they probably exist, but history, again, is muddy and inconclusive. Just look at King Arthur, the heroic character of many fantastic tales. It's been shown that he probably existed in some shape or for, though with a far less glamorous tale. He is said to have been a skilled English general, not a king, and certainly never encountered any warlocks or magical swords. As far as the Dawkins comment goes, there's many reasons people get involved with religion--just as I'm sure there's many reasons people have for atheism and not all just the opinion of wanting to do their own thing and not be bound by certain rules of morality and held to a higher standard/judged for their actions. Well, I certainly didn't get involved in atheism for any of those reasons. Mainly because of that taken-back Catholic belief, because of the clear evidence of evolution, and the refusal of many religions to believe it, and the belief that animals are just tools put here on this planet for us to do whatever the hell we want with them. And yes, I'll grant, that is a rather insulting cliché. I apologise for mentioning it. Getting back to the beginning, your entire post can be summed up in two sentences: "If I were God, I would do things differently. Since I am not God, and any deity that exists does not do things as I would, then they don't exist." That's the message that's in your post, more or less. Which as I said, doesn't prove anything, except to maybe yourself. And further, as you said about people having their own opinions, God probably has His own on how to do things...everyone's entitled to their own opinions, right? Right. I did go a bit overboard there. I'm sorry. I didn't intend to write my post on that note, but I did  Please, don't take any of it to heart. What I'm really trying to get at is the sheer refusal of the Catholic Church (the main faction I have a problem with) to accept that there may be some (extremely) grey areas in their beliefs, and their repeated slandering of atheists and reiki, homeopathy and other altenative treatments. They have no right to do that. They have as much concrete evidence of their own religion as alternative medicines have of theirs. Which brings up another topic, Puff. Everyone may be entitled to their opinions, but you could go about a much better way of presenting them. You may've not meant any offense in what you said, but the way you said it was rather insulting, demeaning, and offensive. And you can't hide behind opinion on that. In the future, please be more respectful of presenting your views and not bashing those of others. Opinion is fine; presentation matters. That kind of post is typically not looked highly upon by anyone presenting any kind of opinion. Which brings up another topic, Puff. Everyone may be entitled to their opinions, but you could go about a much better way of presenting them. You may've not meant any offense in what you said, but the way you said it was rather insulting, demeaning, and offensive. And you can't hide behind opinion on that. In the future, please be more respectful of presenting your views and not bashing those of others. Opinion is fine; presentation matters. That kind of post is typically not looked highly upon by anyone presenting any kind of opinion. I'm sorry, it's just that this is a topic that brings up a lot of anger in me. Where I live, in Ireland, the school system was run by paedophile priests, who, dusgustingly, took out their frustration on little children. They point their fingers at others, and are too narrow-minded to look at themselves. Then they're all those pointless, pointless religious wars, in which millions upon millions of people have died. And for what? The bible had some very good messages, to its credit, but people have taken it all wrong, and used it as a tool for their own greed. I do not believe in a God, but I'd have no problem with it if religion doesn't cause as mcuh badness as it does. There are a lot of very good religious men and women, but I have to say, the evil vastly ouweights the good. Look, I'll try to treat it with more respect, but I hate it with a passion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2007 19:58:00 GMT -5
Well, apparently, if you even had one ounce of respect, you'd at least try not to be offensive, but apparently you can't do that. There are some atheists who are respectful enough to not bother with the topic, but it's your kind of person, the kind who does nothing more than denies every single claim in the Bible, that causes the faithful to hate atheism.
You say miracles were never well documented. Look at the Bible. It's there, the old testament has been around for thousands of years, the new testament has been around as well. That slipper example has no bearing against what is defined as a miracle. Take the parting of the Red Sea. Take the curing of the man with leprosy. Did Moses simply look for a part of the sea at low tide? Did Jesus somehow come up with a medication to cure it without research? No. Present day miracles are extremely few and far between because of the way humanity acts like God is no longer needed. God was present during a time of hardship for His followers, but when they crucified Christ, it was evident that the people no longer needed His help.
You think everything in the past isn't documented well enough to determine what happened? There ARE witnesses to these events and there IS documentation on it. the Egyptians were very talented at documentation. The Bible IS a source of documentation. If you spent the time to actually read the Bible, then you can easily trace the lineage of the people from Adam and Eve to Jesus. You actually think that if the people didn't document every last detail that it can't be true? Then show me the skeleton of a super intelligent chicken that you said was possible to have ruled over humanity at that time. Show me exactly how something like that could even be possible.
Why exactly are all the other religions wrong? Because they were all written down by a small number of people at the same time, then morphed around and twisted from what the true intentions of the religion are. Confucianism? One writer. The Wiccan religion? Written by the founders of the tribe. Christianity? Written by several people, at several different times, DOCUMENTING the events either as they happened, or right after. Where the heck did the year 2007 come from if there wasn't something that happened at year 1? Why exactly was the calendar a countdown before? The Jews misinterpreted it as the end of the world, when in reality, it was the coming of the Savior.
Yeah, It pretty darn obvious that you're one of the foolish people of this planet. His existence and our belief isn't supposed to be blind faith and strict accordance to the rules. What the Bible, what ANY religion lays down is a GUIDELINE for how to lead a full life, along with what happens to your soul after your death. Go ahead and believe in Harry Potter. Because something that was written in current times just HAS to be true. You're putting way too much faith in the present, and denying the past just because you don't believe it was advanced enough is just plain stupid.
Yes, thoughts of erosion and continental plates have been hammered into your head because that stuff is true. The first chapter of the Bible is one of the most vague, and most open to interpretation. The seven days God created the universe could easily be billions of years, bot there was never a word for a number that high when theBible was written. You're only shooting down the extremists who deny all thoughts of evolution, when in fact, you can't deny anything that the people who take a middle ground to all of this believe. Humanity was created last. Dinosaurs, erosion, evolution, all of that stuff DID happen, but there was no one around to document it. The Bible started at the beginning of the human era. Who knows? When He created man, He could have just given our ancestors the power of rational thinking. Right at the point instinct in our primate forms gave way to learning.
Yes, I'll agree with you that the Catholic church is full of itself. That's what happens when ANYTHING gets powerful. Look at the U.S. Our country is an organization run by idiots. It's nearly the same with the leaders of Catholicism. There's too much emphasis on pride and tradition for them to admit that some things they believe are wrong. But you can't say eyewitnesses aren't concrete evidence. Unlike people today, trust and truth was held in the highest regard in that society. Anyone who was a liar was never trusted again. Judas' betrayal is proof of that. There was no honor in backstabbing. Unlike today, where people constantly cheat and lie to get ahead, the word of even an honorable person is taken lightly. You can't judge the word of a person in the past by today's standards.
If that's the kind of background you've been raised up to hate religion for, then I can understand where you're coming from, but like I said, people in power WILL abuse it. Your teachers had power over you, then they did what they wanted. I've said before, religious wars only happen because of the leaders, and because misinterpretation of the message it gives us leads to conflict. If two regular people of different beliefs truly lived the way their religion taught them to behave, with respect, tolerance, and love, then there would be no conflict.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Luthor on Dec 16, 2007 22:58:14 GMT -5
You say miracles were never well documented. Look at the Bible. It's there, the old testament has been around for thousands of years, the new testament has been around as well. That slipper example has no bearing against what is defined as a miracle. Take the parting of the Red Sea. Take the curing of the man with leprosy. Did Moses simply look for a part of the sea at low tide? Did Jesus somehow come up with a medication to cure it without research? No. Present day miracles are extremely few and far between because of the way humanity acts like God is no longer needed. God was present during a time of hardship for His followers, but when they crucified Christ, it was evident that the people no longer needed His help. I'll beat Puff to this, because I know it's coming. Part in bold is begging the question, ergo any argument stemming from that sentence, ie, the paragraph that continues, is unsound. This follows for the next paragraph. Why exactly are all the other religions wrong? Because they were all written down by a small number of people at the same time, then morphed around and twisted from what the true intentions of the religion are. Confucianism? One writer. The Wiccan religion? Written by the founders of the tribe. Christianity? Written by several people, at several different times, DOCUMENTING the events either as they happened, or right after. Where the heck did the year 2007 come from if there wasn't something that happened at year 1? Why exactly was the calendar a countdown before? The Jews misinterpreted it as the end of the world, when in reality, it was the coming of the Savior. The Jewish calendar is actually on year 5767. It's a lunar calendar, so unless the moon was rotating backwards, it was never counting down. Yeah, It pretty darn obvious that you're one of the foolish people of this planet. His existence and our belief isn't supposed to be blind faith and strict accordance to the rules. What the Bible, what ANY religion lays down is a GUIDELINE for how to lead a full life, along with what happens to your soul after your death. Go ahead and believe in Harry Potter. Because something that was written in current times just HAS to be true. You're putting way too much faith in the present, and denying the past just because you don't believe it was advanced enough is just plain stupid. Sounds a lot like ad antiquitatem. X is true because it's older, therefore Z is untrue because it's newer, etc. Not going to touch the last two paragraphs. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2007 1:43:09 GMT -5
First of all, looking for holes in an argument doesn't do much more than insult the person. I replied to Puffin's post with an argument. You replied to my post by saying nothing more than "that's bull." You could at least have an ounce of respect.
Yes, I worded my argument on the B.C./A.D. thing wrong. But then again, The Jewish did believe something was going to happen on that year. And I continue to ask, why exactly is the numbering system still in effect now? Why exactly are we at 2007? There is no reason for the calendar to be this way unless something did happen.
If you can't trust the words in the Bible happened, then you can't trust the writings of the Romans, the Greeks, or any other documentation for that matter. Why exactly do you have to deny any truth in the Bible, just because it is a religion? There are so many things documented in the past that atheists believe happened, just because those documents don't mention a God. A cave painting saying a tribe killed a mammoth can be true, but a religious story of Moses freeing the Jewish slaves can't? You can't say my argument is an ad antiquitatem, because atheists can hold true much older things than Christianity, everyone can hold new things true that are younger than Christianity, but you can't hold Christianity true just because. Once again, it's there. There is no way to disprove it 100%.
That being, this argument doesn't even belong here either. This topic is "What do you BELIEVE", not "Shoot down everyone else's beliefs but your own." Of course, it's just like an atheist to do that kind of thing. All you've done is attack my position and beliefs, while I've respected that you wish to remain atheist. Am I trying to convert you? No. I've just been saying that no matter how you put it, the events happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Dec 17, 2007 3:24:04 GMT -5
*scratches head* Okay, I haven't read all the posts yet. A little busy.
But I saw this and thought it would be best to kindly point something out to Lawrence.
...the way we number our years is in accordance to the Gregorian Calendar...put into place in the 16th century (though not fully adopted everywhere right away).
Before that it was the Julian calendar.
And the whole idea of the Anno Domini year dating system? Not until sometime in the 6th century.
In other words, the division of the years and how we number them now? All our own doing, after the fact. There was no indication for anyone that that year was going to be anything special. It was not a year 1 until much later. Oh, and there was no year 0. It goes from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. And the birth of Christ, depending on the Biblical scholar you talk to, took place probably around the years 6 to 4 B.C.
EDIT--
etc.
I've already asked Puff to be politer. And it's been asked of you already to not be so rude and offensive either. Again, please be kind and respectful, no matter how someone else avts. The next time you want to word your posts in such manners, being as insulting, rude, and offensive as you're getting upset over, you will be answering to me (or another staff member) regarding it.
Kindness and respect. If you want it, you need to show it, no matter how someone treats you.
I'd also recommend that no one go out of their way to respond to such comments, unless you wanted to respond to the intended message only and not how it was presented...
And Puff, yes, you would do well to keep in mind to be respectful. I can understand that a topic may make you angry, but there's no need to showcase it and offend others in the meantime. If it does make you as angry as being able to..."lose control" of how you sound, I'd recommend just avoiding the topic.
EDIT EDIT --
And further for the record, Fortune's not an atheist, unless my world has been turned upside down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Dec 17, 2007 5:20:38 GMT -5
Note: this is a reply the a post on "The Philosophy Thread", which I was told would better fit in here. Please take a look at that thread if you want to get a better view of the background of this post.Define miracle. What are you looking for? Something tremendous like the burning bush and a parting of the red sea? Or something small, such as a blanket of wool remaining completely dry on dewey grass (Judges 6:36-40). Healings? What is it you mean by miracles? I'm going to go with the widely publicized ones, the great and the momentous as what you mean. The other two, the smaller and more personal ones? Seen those happen. Oh, but that can't be, right? Can only merely be anecdotal evidence or self-deception or attributing things to a higher power when they aren't (that's how most people react when you start to present talk of miracles because they just got done saying there aren't any and don't want to have to back-track on that or admit the possibility that those could've been miracles). Miracles cannot be defined, I suppose, because none have been properly documented. With respect, though, I hardly consider your shoes being in a different position than they had been the previous night anything approaching a miracle. Strange it may be, but I could near guarantee if you looked at it long and hard, and considered all your options, you'd find a perfectly logical conclusion to it all; maybe your toddler brother was playing with your shoes the night before, I don't know. I grant, it can't be proven that these coincidences don't happen, but neither can a lot of things. What I meant was...define what you were looking for. Now, I'm not saying every small thing that happens is a miracle. Somethings are coincidence. But there's also been smaller miracles that just aren't widely publicized. Things from my own life, lives of other people I know. Things that do defy logical explanation. They're good enough for me--maybe not for others, but for me they're fine. I stated early, I was approaching it from the point-of-view of a Christian God. Ergo, that history is fairly well documented. You were asking why God wasn't involved today as He was back then, using that history as a valid backdrop, were you not? You acknowledged in that discussion that God was active and highly involved within the world and no longer today. Well, if you've already granted that backdrop as something to consider and compare, then why not use the same source to give you your answer? You can't give something a contextual credibility and then revoke it when someone else attempts to answer your question using that source. Unless you want to disregard your question, and then subsequent conclusions you've drawn from your own answer of it. Blind faith is a tricky subject. It's not always blind. But the people who don't have it, can't see it. I get accused of blind faith all the time. I wouldn't say it is a matter of blind faith...it's just a matter of how concrete you want something to be, and how much you're willing to trust some things. Like I said, how concrete? To me? I have some pretty solid evidence of a deity in my life. Things some people would just disregard as coincidence or not at all. I don't, though. It's all up to how you want to interpret the matters. *shrugs* Look throughout history and you'll see examples of a small minority of people being proven as right when so many others were wrong. Majority has never been any true indication of rightness or truth. And yeah, I believe my beliefs are right above all others. Just as you believe yours are right above mine, etc. And based on how I've evaluated these beliefs, the study I've put into it, etc, I do believe it to be true. And then there's the fact that my way seems to be working out pretty well for me. Answered prayers, blessings, etc. The kind of things I'd normally associate with "Hey, you've got it right." To me, that's plenty to show one thing or another. Maybe not to everyone, though. *shrugs* That's your choice. I'm not Catholic. I don't think that Catholicism based beliefs are the right way. So if the papacy decrees or decides something about their own church, it doesn't really effect me. And I have to wonder how it is that something like that shook your belief so much that a change in a doctrinal statement from an organization could make you stop believing. It's...puzzling, I suppose. But then again, I've grown up in a system where religion is a very personal one-on-one with God kind of thing, and not putting your trust in the organization itself. So maybe that's just my view of the world tinting my outlook a bit. The atom. The cell. The galaxies and the universe. Suns, moons, planets. The forces of the universe. Energy. Matter. I didn't say anything about certain natural forces not taking effect--what I said was I look around and I see things that point to a designer. Why? Why do you think it's so inconclusive? Last I heard, the existence of the apostles and the writers of the new testament, their lives and their fates...not much to contested there. At least not that I'm aware of. And if you want to contest them, just how much of history do you hold to be true and verifiable? Are you assuming my only source to have been Biblical, then? Like I just referenced, as far as I remember (and I do admit, it's been awhile since I looked at the historical context, the controversies, etc), there's not much contested there. The apostles were people that wrote what they wrote, and lived and died. And again, put to death for their religion and beliefs. So I ask, IF what they believed was a lie, or a fabrication, or not at all like it says in the Bible and what they were preaching...why die for it? That was my point for mentioning it. You obviously didn't fit the common cliche for atheists, so be careful in your stereotyping of any group there. If they have no right to do it...why do you have the right to criticize them so much and treat religious people with the scorn you seem to? I don't see how you can not allow one group to do it, and then do it yourself. As anybody that has a believe would point out...they (in reference to themselves) have pretty concrete evidence. I'd say you have just as much evidence as the Catholic church did. Maybe less. Maybe more. But roughly, the same. Oh, you may think and say you have more...but so does the Catholic church. So does any church. YOU may not evaluate it as being concrete, but then, I don't evaluate your evidence as being very concrete either, no matter how you try to defend it. And you can shake your head and say those who don't see it or recognize it may be fools, may be blind, may be deluding themselves, but everyone else seems to be doing the same thing. So be careful how you point the fingers there. That's one thing I really hate. People say religion has been the cause of wars. To some extent, MAYBE it's true. I won't deny that people have gone to war over religious reasons. But that isn't to say that religion was the cause of it. PEOPLE were the cause of it. Religion was there reasoning behind it. There's been more good done in the world under the name and banners of religion than there's been violence and war done in the world under the same name and banner. I know you would never say that religion was the cause of all that good--just some people's reasoning and rationale behind it. Which is what I'm pointing out here about the violence. It goes both ways. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Dec 17, 2007 5:38:53 GMT -5
You say miracles were never well documented. Look at the Bible. It's there, the old testament has been around for thousands of years, the new testament has been around as well. That slipper example has no bearing against what is defined as a miracle. Take the parting of the Red Sea. Take the curing of the man with leprosy. Did Moses simply look for a part of the sea at low tide? Did Jesus somehow come up with a medication to cure it without research? No. Present day miracles are extremely few and far between because of the way humanity acts like God is no longer needed. God was present during a time of hardship for His followers, but when they crucified Christ, it was evident that the people no longer needed His help. Actually, the Crucifixion was, if you read the Bible, planned for and supposed to happen. God began to take less of a direct influence before Christ showed up and the Israelites were in captivity. After the Crucifixion, some of the need for God's direct intervention was removed. There's plenty of reasons for it, but mostly the world's attitude towards God was one of the major reasons. So you're mostly right there, just realize that crucifixion was going to occur and God didn't remove Himself from the world because of it. But you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. Circular reasoning. Something cannot give itself its own validity. I think you're going to need a bit more than that. A lot of people feel that the Bible was written by a small people in a short time and morphed over time. Each group adding more to it to fit only their own views. It just has a longer history of it than the other groups you're mentioning. So that's not a very good logical set up there. First of all, looking for holes in an argument doesn't do much more than insult the person. I replied to Puffin's post with an argument. You replied to my post by saying nothing more than "that's bull." You could at least have an ounce of respect. Actually, Fortune was quite right in doing so. This is a folder for discussing and debating one's views. Everyone is free to reply, no matter who it is you were originally posting to. Fortune laid out the reasons that your post and statements were flawed--there was no insulting intended. He was countering it on a basis that worked for him (and worked in general). It's how a lot of debates go. Already discussed this, but I'd just like to emphasize, again, that you look into the history of our calendar system. Get the information there straight, especially if you intend to use it as a base for your statements. To be quite fair, this folder is for discussion and debating. And a board for Religious Apologetics? Usually entails defending one's beliefs and answering questions, counterpoints, and "attacks." As well...what you've done is attack Puff's beliefs. So if you don't want people countering you, then you shouldn't be countering them or entering into this arena of discussion. If you want people to listen to you and your beliefs, you need to back your statements up with evidence and be ready to defend the positions. No one is ever going to just take and accept something. It has to be tried, tested, and proven--just as any belief about anything is usually done for a person. So you're going to have to handle that kind of reaction. |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Luthor on Dec 17, 2007 11:21:26 GMT -5
First of all, looking for holes in an argument doesn't do much more than insult the person. I replied to Puffin's post with an argument. You replied to my post by saying nothing more than "that's bull." You could at least have an ounce of respect. You're appealing to pity, another fallacy, and as Stal pointed out, it's not working. You presented argument A with reasons 1, 2, and 3 for why argument A is correct. I merely pointed that a number of reasons were fallacious. Yes, I worded my argument on the B.C./A.D. thing wrong. But then again, The Jewish did believe something was going to happen on that year. And I continue to ask, why exactly is the numbering system still in effect now? Why exactly are we at 2007? There is no reason for the calendar to be this way unless something did happen. We're on year 2007 because it's the year 2007. If you can't trust the words in the Bible happened, then you can't trust the writings of the Romans, the Greeks, or any other documentation for that matter. Why exactly do you have to deny any truth in the Bible, just because it is a religion? There are so many things documented in the past that atheists believe happened, just because those documents don't mention a God. A cave painting saying a tribe killed a mammoth can be true, but a religious story of Moses freeing the Jewish slaves can't? You can't say my argument is an ad antiquitatem, because atheists can hold true much older things than Christianity, everyone can hold new things true that are younger than Christianity, but you can't hold Christianity true just because. Once again, it's there. There is no way to disprove it 100%. We are presented A, B, C and D. If A if false, then B, C, and D are false. I don't see how that follows. You're dodging the arguement in the second bolded part. I say you committed X fallacy, then you turn around and say, "Oh yea? What about those atheists, they could do X if they wanted." Point is, you're not defending your point, you're shifting the argument towards atheists. That being, this argument doesn't even belong here either. This topic is "What do you BELIEVE", not "Shoot down everyone else's beliefs but your own." Of course, it's just like an atheist to do that kind of thing. All you've done is attack my position and beliefs, while I've respected that you wish to remain atheist. Am I trying to convert you? No. I've just been saying that no matter how you put it, the events happened. I made this topic for two reasons. One to see what everyone believes, you are correct. The second was to not merely strengthen what I believe, but to allow others to strengthen their beliefs as well. And.... I'm not an atheist, if that comment was directed to me. I'm very devout in what I believe, I'm merely a philosophy major and don't allow fallacious arguments on ANYONE'S side to be posted and simply left alone. |
|
|
|
Post by puffydude on Dec 17, 2007 12:35:26 GMT -5
Well, apparently, if you even had one ounce of respect, you'd at least try not to be offensive, but apparently you can't do that. There are some atheists who are respectful enough to not bother with the topic, but it's your kind of person, the kind who does nothing more than denies every single claim in the Bible, that causes the faithful to hate atheism. You say miracles were never well documented. Look at the Bible. It's there, the old testament has been around for thousands of years, the new testament has been around as well. That slipper example has no bearing against what is defined as a miracle. Take the parting of the Red Sea. Take the curing of the man with leprosy. Did Moses simply look for a part of the sea at low tide? Did Jesus somehow come up with a medication to cure it without research? No. Present day miracles are extremely few and far between because of the way humanity acts like God is no longer needed. God was present during a time of hardship for His followers, but when they crucified Christ, it was evident that the people no longer needed His help. You think everything in the past isn't documented well enough to determine what happened? There ARE witnesses to these events and there IS documentation on it. the Egyptians were very talented at documentation. The Bible IS a source of documentation. If you spent the time to actually read the Bible, then you can easily trace the lineage of the people from Adam and Eve to Jesus. You actually think that if the people didn't document every last detail that it can't be true? Then show me the skeleton of a super intelligent chicken that you said was possible to have ruled over humanity at that time. Show me exactly how something like that could even be possible. Why exactly are all the other religions wrong? Because they were all written down by a small number of people at the same time, then morphed around and twisted from what the true intentions of the religion are. Confucianism? One writer. The Wiccan religion? Written by the founders of the tribe. Christianity? Written by several people, at several different times, DOCUMENTING the events either as they happened, or right after. Where the heck did the year 2007 come from if there wasn't something that happened at year 1? Why exactly was the calendar a countdown before? The Jews misinterpreted it as the end of the world, when in reality, it was the coming of the Savior. Yeah, It pretty darn obvious that you're one of the foolish people of this planet. His existence and our belief isn't supposed to be blind faith and strict accordance to the rules. What the Bible, what ANY religion lays down is a GUIDELINE for how to lead a full life, along with what happens to your soul after your death. Go ahead and believe in Harry Potter. Because something that was written in current times just HAS to be true. You're putting way too much faith in the present, and denying the past just because you don't believe it was advanced enough is just plain stupid. Yes, thoughts of erosion and continental plates have been hammered into your head because that stuff is true. The first chapter of the Bible is one of the most vague, and most open to interpretation. The seven days God created the universe could easily be billions of years, bot there was never a word for a number that high when theBible was written. You're only shooting down the extremists who deny all thoughts of evolution, when in fact, you can't deny anything that the people who take a middle ground to all of this believe. Humanity was created last. Dinosaurs, erosion, evolution, all of that stuff DID happen, but there was no one around to document it. The Bible started at the beginning of the human era. Who knows? When He created man, He could have just given our ancestors the power of rational thinking. Right at the point instinct in our primate forms gave way to learning. Yes, I'll agree with you that the Catholic church is full of itself. That's what happens when ANYTHING gets powerful. Look at the U.S. Our country is an organization run by idiots. It's nearly the same with the leaders of Catholicism. There's too much emphasis on pride and tradition for them to admit that some things they believe are wrong. But you can't say eyewitnesses aren't concrete evidence. Unlike people today, trust and truth was held in the highest regard in that society. Anyone who was a liar was never trusted again. Judas' betrayal is proof of that. There was no honor in backstabbing. Unlike today, where people constantly cheat and lie to get ahead, the word of even an honorable person is taken lightly. You can't judge the word of a person in the past by today's standards. If that's the kind of background you've been raised up to hate religion for, then I can understand where you're coming from, but like I said, people in power WILL abuse it. Your teachers had power over you, then they did what they wanted. I've said before, religious wars only happen because of the leaders, and because misinterpretation of the message it gives us leads to conflict. If two regular people of different beliefs truly lived the way their religion taught them to behave, with respect, tolerance, and love, then there would be no conflict. *sighs* Look, I'm not even going to try and reply to this, but suffice to say that it hurts to be called a fool, in any circumstances, even an internet forum (and no, do not say I called myself that. I was simply referring to how god is widely accepted as a wise being, and how all humans are fools compared to Him). Also, the reference to Harry Potter was just an example, nothing at all to do with today's beliefs being more relevant that the old ones, or some similar rubbish you tried to claim as the truth. Putting words in someone else's mouth is the lowest and most intelligence-insulting was to try and win an argument. As it appears that I've just ended up insulting everyone, which was never what I set out intending to do, I am not going to continue this argument, and apologise sincerely to everyone affected. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Dec 17, 2007 13:43:33 GMT -5
Puff, the thing with Lawrence is already being handled. Don't let it get to you how he chose to respond. You should feel free to continue in the argument; your first post was problematic, as discussed, but from there, you were fine and not insulting. So, please, continue.
|
|
Please, don't take any of it to heart. What I'm really trying to get at is the sheer refusal of the Catholic Church (the main faction I have a problem with) to accept that there may be some (extremely) grey areas in their beliefs, and their repeated slandering of atheists and reiki, homeopathy and other altenative treatments. They have no right to do that. They have as much concrete evidence of their own religion as alternative medicines have of theirs.
