| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/21/2007 01:59:52 PM · #826 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yup, many people believed he was dead. Many people were wrong and made bad decisions in the interim period, based on their belief.
and I read what you wrote on the Hollaway posts. You keep confirming it. You'd prefer to convict them on the circumstantial evidence, until they can prove it isn't true. Guilty until proven innocent. Like I said before, I prefer the higher standard. It is up to you if you prefer rumor and innuendo to truth, but you shouldn't expect everyone else to buy in to it. Particularly if you choose to believe things that are by their very nature unprovable or disprovable. |
You keep posting that I have concluded that they are guilty. That is not true. I have posted that the circumstantial evidence, including their admitted knowledge (via wiretap) that they claim she is dead. based on this, I would closely monitor them, scrutinize their movements etc, as the other detectives/investigators will do in this case. The reason they will do this, is because of the circumstantial evidence. In time, they will either be innocent or guilty.
To maintain that you ONLY have beliefs based upon hard concrete "in hand" evidence is a stretch for me to accept. The concept of innocent until proven guilty, if it is the higher authority, should be exercised a bit more right here in Rant. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:03:28 PM · #827 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You keep posting that I have concluded that they are guilty. That is not true.
|
Which bit of this am I misunderstanding then ?
Originally posted by Flash:
The apparent difference bewteen us, is that you think they should be free, while I do not. |
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 14:03:55. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:05:10 PM · #828 |
Originally posted by Flash:
To maintain that you ONLY have beliefs based upon hard concrete "in hand" evidence is a stretch for me to accept. The concept of innocent until proven guilty, if it is the higher authority, should be exercised a bit more right here in Rant. |
I'm not asking you to accept it. You are asking us to accept your beliefs based on circumstantial evidence. I haven't asked you to believe anything. Its back to that same belief/ non-belief thing.
My only offering on that front is that the only intellectually honest position to take is 'I don't know' as a starting point.
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 14:09:52. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:08:25 PM · #829 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am going to quote from one of these long threads from almost exactly a year ago. This is my reasoning for why I am a theist and Christian. |
It's interesting that your post reflects some of the reasons why I am not Christian or theist, or at least, I find corollaries in your sentiments for being atheist (for example, though I am not a scientist, natural law and empirical data would tend to lead me away from belief in gods).
To address fully only one point that you make, the "hole in the heart". It is deliciously filled for me by people. I certainly mean, yes, that my spouse is the love of my life and fills me with endless joy, and the wealth of history and common experience we share has made my life beautiful; but more than that, I am fulfilled by the mere presence of humanity with all its beauty and ugliness, and taking joy in the course of human events is deeply fulfilling for me. I am complete as an individual within the organism of humankind. Also, I didn't go to bed with a lot of harlots and I was never a big drinker, so maybe that has helped. ;-) |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:12:04 PM · #830 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
No. I may or may not have any knowledge/understanding of "other" god(s). You have now changed your point presentation to include the term believer. Before we were just discussing atheist vs theist. Now you add believer. Please define believer as you intend it. The atheist is also a "believer". A believer in the non-existance of any god(s). |
Flash - the point is that you do not believe in Thor, Wotan, Zeus, Mercury, Bel, Baal, or any of thousands of ancient gods. You do not believe in Gaanesh, Shiiva or a host of modern gods, save for one: Yahweh, and in particular you belong to a specific branch of believers who believe that one of hundreds of people claiming to be so was in fact the messiah.
You do not believe in those thousands of gods. In the unlikely event that one of those gods exists, your non-belief would be to them exactly the same as that of an atheist. Luckily for you, the odds of those gods existing is exactly the same as the odds of your god existing - almost zero - meaning that you will almost certainly die a peaceful death and almost certainly won't need to suffer eternal damnation (do you see how attractive that concept might be?). |
No. This is only true if all gods are listed and I deny belief in All of them. That is atheism. As long as I believe in at least one of them, then I, by definition are a theist. |
I did not suggest that you were an atheist. I said that, as a Christian, your non-belief in the god Baal may be an issue if in fact the god Baal is the only god that exists - exactly the same as it will be for me, because I as an atheist don't believe in him either.
Do you agree?
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:18:38 PM · #831 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Almost zero?
Lloyd: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?
Mary: Well, that's pretty difficult to say.
Lloyd: Hit me with it! I've come a long way to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance. |
Ha ha - v good. You have to believe rather than be rational to say that there is definitely no god other than [x].
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:26:58 PM · #832 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am going to quote from one of these long threads from almost exactly a year ago. |
Interesting - I remember it at the time. Have your views changed at all in a year?
I always think that the complexity of the universe is a strong argument for the lack of a watchmaker. It is so complex that it has to be the gradual accumulation of a series of reasonably probable events over unimaginable expanses of time - but a series so long that the odds of that particular sequence having occurred would be almost infinitely unlikely.
The alternative - that there might be a single guiding hand to cause an almost infinitely complex thing to come into being - that requires a lot more explanation than complexity arising through the gradual accumulation of many probable events.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:36:19 PM · #833 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The alternative - that there might be a single guiding hand to cause an almost infinitely complex thing to come into being - that requires a lot more explanation than complexity arising through the gradual accumulation of many probable events. |
That's roughly my thinking too. If everything so complex requires a creator, that creator must surely be more complex. So where did that creator come from ? If the creator just is - why can't the universe just be, too ? |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:40:05 PM · #834 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
To maintain that you ONLY have beliefs based upon hard concrete "in hand" evidence is a stretch for me to accept. The concept of innocent until proven guilty, if it is the higher authority, should be exercised a bit more right here in Rant. |
I'm not asking you to accept it. You are asking us to accept your beliefs based on circumstantial evidence. I haven't asked you to believe anything. Its back to that same belief/ non-belief thing.
My only offering on that front is that the only intellectually honest position to take is 'I don't know' as a starting point. |
We all have a choice. I am not asking you to accept my faith. I am asking you to consider it. If you have already considered it, then so be it. I have never quite understood why atheists are so eager to engage in argument with theist over something atheists don't believe in. Ignore the topic. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:40:08 PM · #835 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am going to quote from one of these long threads from almost exactly a year ago. |
Interesting - I remember it at the time. Have your views changed at all in a year?
I always think that the complexity of the universe is a strong argument for the lack of a watchmaker. It is so complex that it has to be the gradual accumulation of a series of reasonably probable events over unimaginable expanses of time - but a series so long that the odds of that particular sequence having occurred would be almost infinitely unlikely.
The alternative - that there might be a single guiding hand to cause an almost infinitely complex thing to come into being - that requires a lot more explanation than complexity arising through the gradual accumulation of many probable events. |
No, they haven't. It's not that I haven't reflected on them, my faith is my life (gasp, not photography?), but I am inextricably cast down my path, which is fine by me. I've made my choice. I'll lie in the bed.
The rest of your post reminds me of someone I met while talking daily on alt.atheism.moderated for over a year. He was an atheist, but on the scale of -10 to 10 (-10 being, um, Louis and 10 being Billy Graham) he was maybe a -3. I was maybe a +3 and we really had a lot in common. We just chose to see the same set of principles and evidence in different ways. He knew he was making some leaps and I knew I was as well. I think we could have gotten along well.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:51:37 PM · #836 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I have never quite understood why atheists are so eager to engage in argument with theist over something atheists don't believe in. Ignore the topic. |
Why does anyone want to talk about where we are from, or where we are going ? It isn't an us vs. them thing, there's just us. If you don't want to talk about it, you don't have to - but don't complain when others want to. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:55:30 PM · #837 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
No. This is only true if all gods are listed and I deny belief in All of them. That is atheism. As long as I believe in at least one of them, then I, by definition are a theist. |
I did not suggest that you were an atheist. I said that, as a Christian, your non-belief in the god Baal may be an issue if in fact the god Baal is the only god that exists - exactly the same as it will be for me, because I as an atheist don't believe in him either.
Do you agree? |
"This is only true if all gods are listed and I deny belief in All of them."
The operative phrase of your question is; if in fact the god Baal is the only god that exists and I do not beleieve in him, then we would agree that in that instant case I would be an atheist. That is not the case, I do believ in at least one God, therefore I am a theist.
This argument is very similar for me, to the one I posed in the "other" thread whereby much effort by yourself and others was expended to counter my claims, only to be agreed to by Spazmo and yourself when I refused to argue it any longer. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 02:58:08 PM · #838 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My experience on these posts (with you in particular), has taught me, that without CLEAR definitions, you twist and manipulate to suit your point. My forthcoming and openess in these threads has been met with ridicule and acidic commentary. To prevent that, I will hold you to clear definitions. Ones, that either you can or cannot provide. But a "pass" out of discourse politness is gone. Your colors are too evident. |
If indeed you are adamant on having your counterparts provide definitions that meet your pre-defined criteria, then I fear you will soon be left out of the loop and left talking to yourself.
No one derives any pleasure from talking into a vacuum.
The bolded part is one that you should repeat loudly whilst standing directly in front of a full size mirror.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 03:00:11 PM · #839 |
Originally posted by Flash:
[quote=Matthew] This argument is very similar for me, to the one I posed in the "other" thread whereby much effort by yourself and others was expended to counter my claims, only to be agreed to by Spazmo and yourself when I refused to argue it any longer. |
I would love to see where Spazmo agreed with you... I must have missed that milestone.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 03:04:18 PM · #840 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
I have never quite understood why atheists are so eager to engage in argument with theist over something atheists don't believe in. Ignore the topic. |
Why does anyone want to talk about where we are from, or where we are going ? It isn't an us vs. them thing, there's just us. If you don't want to talk about it, you don't have to - but don't complain when others want to. |
one article on why atheists debate theists |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 03:05:23 PM · #841 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Flash:
[quote=Matthew] This argument is very similar for me, to the one I posed in the "other" thread whereby much effort by yourself and others was expended to counter my claims, only to be agreed to by Spazmo and yourself when I refused to argue it any longer. |
I would love to see where Spazmo agreed with you... I must have missed that milestone.
Ray |
Go to the last page of the "other" thread. I even qouted it.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
________________________________________
You are correct in that if all sexual activity were homosexual, a species would eventually die off since there would be no new members to offset the dying members.
Originally posted by Matthew:
Well I don't think that anyone would disagree with you: if a whole species were suddenly to become homosexual, that would be problematic.
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 15:19:47. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 03:05:26 PM · #842 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yet no band that I can find call atheist. |
Plenty of "Satan's Bile" and "Lucifer's Loins" and such though, just to add grease to the theist's contention that all atheists are either godless, devilful, or both. ;-) |
I'll disagree with this one -- I think you have to be a theist -- indeed a christian-type one -- to believe in Satan, who was created by God. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 03:08:38 PM · #843 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yet no band that I can find call atheist. |
Plenty of "Satan's Bile" and "Lucifer's Loins" and such though, just to add grease to the theist's contention that all atheists are either godless, devilful, or both. ;-) |
I'll disagree with this one -- I think you have to be a theist -- indeed a christian-type one -- to believe in Satan, who was created by God. |
Yeah - I just really wanted to say "Lucifer's Loins". |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 03:15:34 PM · #844 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
I have never quite understood why atheists are so eager to engage in argument with theist over something atheists don't believe in. Ignore the topic. |
Why does anyone want to talk about where we are from, or where we are going ? It isn't an us vs. them thing, there's just us. If you don't want to talk about it, you don't have to - but don't complain when others want to. |
one article on why atheists debate theists |
There is a common perception that there must be “something more” to atheism than simply disbelief in gods because atheists so often debate theists. What’s the point of debating if not to convert someone to some other philosophy or religion? It is, then, fair to ask why atheists get involved in such debates and what they hope to achieve. Does this show that atheism is some sort of philosophy or even a religion?
First, many of these debates wouldn’t occur if theists weren’t trying to convert atheists. Some atheists seek out debate, but many are content to simply discuss things amongst themselves. The fact that an atheist responds to prompting from a theist does not suggest there is anything “more“ to atheism. Second, there is a legitimate interest in educating people about atheism, agnosticism, and freethought.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 03:17:14 PM · #845 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'll disagree with this one -- I think you have to be a theist -- indeed a christian-type one -- to believe in Satan, who was created by God. |
Does that then mean that Satanism is a somewhat confused branch of Christianity ? That doesn't seem right, somehow. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 03:19:39 PM · #846 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I have never quite understood why atheists are so eager to engage in argument with theist over something atheists don't believe in. Ignore the topic. |
Ahem... it is you who jumped in to argue. Read the topic. ^ |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 03:22:38 PM · #847 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
I have never quite understood why atheists are so eager to engage in argument with theist over something atheists don't believe in. Ignore the topic. |
Ahem... it is you who jumped in to argue. Read the topic. ^ |
I trust you mean the Christian portion of the topic. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 03:24:13 PM · #848 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'll disagree with this one -- I think you have to be a theist -- indeed a christian-type one -- to believe in Satan, who was created by God. |
Does that then mean that Satanism is a somewhat confused branch of Christianity ? That doesn't seem right, somehow. |
You could say that, yeah. Satanists worship Lucifer, the "fallen angel" of Christianity, so that sort of makes sense. Strictly speaking, Satanists acknowledge the divinity of Christ, but they oppose Him and the Father, God. But I sort of think the term "satanist" has a broader application now, I'm not sure.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 03:27:44 PM · #849 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The operative phrase of your question is; if in fact the god Baal is the only god that exists and I do not beleieve in him, then we would agree that in that instant case I would be an atheist. |
Baal wouldn't agree. To him, you would be an atheist, no different than anyone else who doesn't believe in him. You don't believe Baal, Zeus, Thor, Odin, Buddha, and every other non-Yahweh deity claimed to exist, and under no obligation to prove their non-existence. In that, you are in total agreement with any athiest. They just add one more to your list, and you can't accept that. :-/ |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 03:32:04 PM · #850 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I have never quite understood why atheists are so eager to engage in argument with theist over something atheists don't believe in. |
Perhaps it has to do with that annoying tendency of theists to form "religions" which then seek to impose their way of life on everyone else. |
|
