| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/21/2007 03:32:40 PM · #851 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Ahem... it is you who jumped in to argue. Read the topic. ^ |
I trust you mean the Christian portion of the topic. |
The topic was about what it's like for an atheist to live in a Christian society. Unless your goal was to demonstrate that intolerance (admirable job, BTW), there shouldn't have been any argument. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 03:36:40 PM · #852 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Clearly Lewis is more qualified than Dawkins to write about philosophy ... |
Since Lewis has been dead for 44 years I don't think he's "qualified" to write about anything ... |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 03:37:40 PM · #853 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. :-/ |
And folks wonder why I am so adamant about clear definitions.
You misrepresent again. A Theist is one who believes in at leaast one God. An atheist does not believe in ANY god(s). I am a theist - by definition, as long as I believe in at least one god.
I am done discussing this. Please move on. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 03:43:27 PM · #854 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Ahem... it is you who jumped in to argue. Read the topic. ^ |
I trust you mean the Christian portion of the topic. |
The topic was about what it's like for an atheist to live in a Christian society. Unless your goal was to demonstrate that intolerance (admirable job, BTW), there shouldn't have been any argument. |
If by intolerence you are referring to the ridicule and acidic commentary coming from the "moral" atheists, who can define moral action via their enviornment, and morph it to the norms of a changing society, then you might have a point. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 04:13:46 PM · #855 |
Originally posted by Flash:
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. |
You left out the other part of my post that immediately followed the quote above that you cherry-picked as supporting your claim that homosexuality was aberrant behavior:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
However, the reproductive requirement to sustain a population is only that enough births are required to offset the number of deaths. As it is, the human species is growing far faster and is at little risk of dying off. |
What I meant to suggest is that, perhaps, some percentage of homosexuality in a population is indeed normal and poses no risk to the survival of the species.
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 16:21:50. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 04:45:09 PM · #856 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Clearly Lewis is more qualified than Dawkins to write about philosophy ... |
Since Lewis has been dead for 44 years I don't think he's "qualified" to write about anything ... |
Well, luckily the only thing keeping Dawkins going is his seething malcontent. That will run out soon enough... |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 05:04:43 PM · #857 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Clearly Lewis is more qualified than Dawkins to write about philosophy ... |
Since Lewis has been dead for 44 years I don't think he's "qualified" to write about anything ... |
Well, luckily the only thing keeping Dawkins going is his seething malcontent. That will run out soon enough... |
Gee, you're not too shy about showing naked enmity for certain people. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 06:11:10 PM · #858 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You misrepresent again. A Theist is one who believes in at leaast one God. An atheist does not believe in ANY god(s). I am a theist - by definition, as long as I believe in at least one god. |
An atheist disbelieves in all gods while you disbelieve in all except one. If you happened to pick the wrong one out of hundreds or thousands ever claimed to exist (very likely given the odds) then, from the point of view of that god, you are an atheist since you don't believe in the only 'real' god that matters. Whether you call yourself a theist becomes just as irrelevant as if I considered myself a theist for believing in an all-seeing horseradish.
What difference does the title make in practice anyway? You don't believe in 2,344 gods (or however many), and I don't believe in 2,345. You obviously have no problem with the idea of dismissing a god or even multiple gods as fiction, since you do it yourself and so does everyone on the planet. Therefore, you can only quibble over someone not believing in YOUR god, not disbelief in general. That doesn't change whether you're labeled a theist, atheist or ichthyologist . I see no misrepresentation. That's what I've been saying all along. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 06:49:45 PM · #859 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Atheism" is not the same as "believes in no god"; atheism is the denial that any god exists. There is a difference.
R. |
Believe
a conviction or certainty, often regarding God or a supreme being
The atheist has a "conviction regarding a god or supreme being". |
The point is, to say "I believe in no god" is to say, in effect, I have never "seen" a god I believe in. The atheist says "I believe no god exists."
R. |
Actually, Bear, what you are describing is not a rational atheistic position. You are describing someone who would be better described as an anti-theist.
ONE more try to see if the distinction becomes clear:
When a religious believer says, "I believe in God," he or she is saying "I have faith that God exists." Faith is (to crib from better writers than I) the substance of things hoped for, the belief in things unseen. It is "proof" through proclamation, not reason or evidence.
When an atheist says "I believe no god exists," he or she is not saying "I have faith that no god exists." The true atheist position is closer to Bear's "I have never seen a god I believe in." The atheist may be quite sure of his or her conviction that the evidence does not support the existence of a deity, but if presented with testable evidence that God (or a god or gods) existed, a rational atheist would have to reexamine his or her non-belief.
My point, again, is that the word "believe" is being used differently (that is colloquially) by atheists, but specifically (that is to mean "to have faith in") by religious believers. These are not equivalent, no matter how much theists would like it to be so, since it would make it easier to attack the arguments of atheists.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 06:53:37 PM · #860 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If by intolerence you are referring to the ridicule and acidic commentary coming from the "moral" atheists, who can define moral action via their enviornment, and morph it to the norms of a changing society, then you might have a point. |
As opposed to the "moral" believers who selectively interpret their sacred texts so that they can define moral action via their environment, and morph it to the norms of a changing society...?
Flash, your straw man is showing.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 06:54:21 PM · #861 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Clearly Lewis is more qualified than Dawkins to write about philosophy ... |
Since Lewis has been dead for 44 years I don't think he's "qualified" to write about anything ... |
Well, luckily the only thing keeping Dawkins going is his seething malcontent. That will run out soon enough... |
Gee, you're not too shy about showing naked enmity for certain people. |
The list isn't long...but it's there. ;) I actually think he's a brilliant evolutionist.
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 18:54:51. |
|
|
|
12/22/2007 07:41:52 AM · #862 |
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. That is not the case, I do believ in at least one God, therefore I am a theist. |
I don't deny that you are a theist.
Do you agree that if Baal exists as the only god, that you (christian) and I (atheist) are in exactly the same boat? I would like you to answer this.
In fact, if one of Baal's commandments is not to worship false gods, you might be in more trouble than me.
Originally posted by Flash:
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 was mocking your non-sensical argument - you were arguing that if everyone was homosexual, then the race would die out. This is true, but of course not everyone is homosexual, so your argument is nonsense.
Message edited by author 2007-12-23 07:33:08.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2007 10:38:41 PM · #863 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Flash:
If by intolerence you are referring to the ridicule and acidic commentary coming from the "moral" atheists, who can define moral action via their enviornment, and morph it to the norms of a changing society, then you might have a point. |
As opposed to the "moral" believers who selectively interpret their sacred texts so that they can define moral action via their environment, and morph it to the norms of a changing society...?
Flash, your straw man is showing. |
^^^ lol that is well said^^^ |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 02:24:41 AM · #864 |
Sweet, I found this thread, and read quite a bit and would like to comment.
Its funny how often I see Christianity forced upon children without a word of History associated.
Like Christmas historically being a celebration of the sun god, or the returning of light at the winter solstice on or around the 22nd where as Christianity has adopted the 25th, and strayed from an original Paegan belief. Anybody who studies history knows there was no distinguishable date of Christs birth, and if narrowed down would certainly not be in the winter.
Or Easter, which is historically a celebration of the God of Fertility, and again goes according to a solstice, and again a Pagaen holiday.
Its was simply manipulation by the Christian movement that sucked up the holidays, and now is ironically again manipulation by the stock market to maintain the holidays. I'm a believer of many things, but manipulation, killing in the name of...and corruption are not my cup of tea, which I will incidently pass on to my children, and let them decide.
I worship the Sun, the trees, the breeze, the sky, and the rivers, only because to me its the only pure thing left, but I do remain convinced of prophets, and worship being a very strong part of human health. I don't know what religion that is, but I'm starting to think there is alot more of us out there. |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 03:02:50 AM · #865 |
It has always been interesting to me that people can believe in Nature (i.e "I worship the Sun, the trees, the breeze, the sky, and the rivers..."), but refuse to believe the Nature has a God Who created Nature!
If we extend the same logic to photographers, may start praising your cameras for the photos you capture?
Or for THAT matter, if we must begin to believe that this is an atheist world that needs no God to create & maintain it, may we also believe that cameras "move about" denying the existence of the photographer?
Here is my all-time favorite stand-up comedy joke! "Teenagers are God's curse on Mankind! It's as though He's saying to us, 'Alright! You create somebody in YOUR IMAGE who denies your VERY EXISTENCE!'" :} |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 08:14:31 AM · #866 |
Originally posted by 777STAN:
It has always been interesting to me that people can believe in Nature (i.e "I worship the Sun, the trees, the breeze, the sky, and the rivers..."), but refuse to believe the Nature has a God Who created Nature! |
I do believe that you would find that most of the people you allude do indeed have a belief in a "Supreme Being".
The unfortunate part is that their beliefs are summarily dismissed by the "Structured Religions" and they are effectively viewed as being "Godless" ...and therein lies the problem.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 09:07:42 AM · #867 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by 777STAN:
It has always been interesting to me that people can believe in Nature (i.e "I worship the Sun, the trees, the breeze, the sky, and the rivers..."), but refuse to believe the Nature has a God Who created Nature! |
I do believe that you would find that most of the people you allude do indeed have a belief in a "Supreme Being".
The unfortunate part is that their beliefs are summarily dismissed by the "Structured Religions" and they are effectively viewed as being "Godless" ...and therein lies the problem.
Ray |
Sorry that I inadvertently misled you, Ray! My thoughts are almost always in the macro, therefore one must NEVER assume exclusion of an option when it's specific statement is absent!
I believe that the vast majority of the world's populus IS religious, and DO believe in a Supreme Being, including atheists who by their own admission refer to the Supreme Being of Self (at least the ones of my personal knowledge.)
I confess to being Narrow-Minded with Great Joy & Eternal Satisfaction because there is only One Name under Heaven whereby men, women, and children may be saved. His Name is Jesus Christ! (Romans, Chapter 1)
Religion is universal! Salvation is specific! Any Supreme Being that helps in this life alone...is useless!
People WILL discredit me as long as I live this life, and they may use tongue and pen to discredit my LORD, but such words are merely the epitath that such writers do create for themselves before it is ultimately applied to their eternal tombstone! |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 09:13:31 AM · #868 |
Originally posted by 777STAN:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I do believe that you would find that most of the people you allude do indeed have a belief in a "Supreme Being".
The unfortunate part is that their beliefs are summarily dismissed by the "Structured Religions" and they are effectively viewed as being "Godless" ...and therein lies the problem. |
I confess to being Narrow-Minded with Great Joy & Eternal Satisfaction because there is only One Name under Heaven whereby men, women, and children may be saved. His Name is Jesus Christ! (Romans, Chapter 1) |
Exhibit A. :-/ |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 10:47:56 AM · #869 |
Originally posted by 777STAN:
Here is my all-time favorite stand-up comedy joke! "Teenagers are God's curse on Mankind! It's as though He's saying to us, 'Alright! You create somebody in YOUR IMAGE who denies your VERY EXISTENCE!'" :} |
Sadly, the author of this joke obviously never had teenagers.
Any parent will acknowledge the fact that teenagers can and do ignore their presence, abstain from meaningful communication, and strive to ensure that they are not seen in public with their parents... but that is a far cry from denying their very existence.
To do so would absolutely negate any possibility that they could... get an allowance or get the keys to the car.
They DO NOT DENY YOUR VERY EXISTENCE... it's just that you are now viewed as the resident ATM Machine, and little more.
Just a different view,
Ray |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 11:54:16 AM · #870 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by 777STAN:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I do believe that you would find that most of the people you allude do indeed have a belief in a "Supreme Being".
The unfortunate part is that their beliefs are summarily dismissed by the "Structured Religions" and they are effectively viewed as being "Godless" ...and therein lies the problem. |
I confess to being Narrow-Minded with Great Joy & Eternal Satisfaction because there is only One Name under Heaven whereby men, women, and children may be saved. His Name is Jesus Christ! (Romans, Chapter 1) |
Exhibit A. :-/ |
Does it make you all feel almighty and powerful and, most of all, more intelligent than Christians to be judge and jury? |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 12:23:44 PM · #871 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by 777STAN:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I do believe that you would find that most of the people you allude do indeed have a belief in a "Supreme Being".
The unfortunate part is that their beliefs are summarily dismissed by the "Structured Religions" and they are effectively viewed as being "Godless" ...and therein lies the problem. |
I confess to being Narrow-Minded with Great Joy & Eternal Satisfaction because there is only One Name under Heaven whereby men, women, and children may be saved. His Name is Jesus Christ! (Romans, Chapter 1) |
Exhibit A. :-/ |
Does it make you all feel almighty and powerful and, most of all, more intelligent than Christians to be judge and jury? |
I can't speak for  scalvert, but, no, just less narrow minded. |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 12:32:27 PM · #872 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Does it make you all feel almighty and powerful and, most of all, more intelligent than Christians to be judge and jury? |
I can't speak for scalvert, but, no, just less narrow minded. |
You can speak for me. I'm not the one claiming that everyone who doesn't agree with my particular view is damned for all eternity. :-/ |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 01:08:10 PM · #873 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by 777STAN:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I do believe that you would find that most of the people you allude do indeed have a belief in a "Supreme Being".
The unfortunate part is that their beliefs are summarily dismissed by the "Structured Religions" and they are effectively viewed as being "Godless" ...and therein lies the problem. |
I confess to being Narrow-Minded with Great Joy & Eternal Satisfaction because there is only One Name under Heaven whereby men, women, and children may be saved. His Name is Jesus Christ! (Romans, Chapter 1) |
Exhibit A. :-/ |
Does it make you all feel almighty and powerful and, most of all, more intelligent than Christians to be judge and jury? |
Sadly, it would seem that you misinterpreted the author's (Shannon's) intent.
The fact that the person readily confesses to being "narrow-minded" and earnestly believes that his GOD assumes an exclusionary role as it relates to all other faiths is exactly what the problem is.
I truly find it problematic to think that all of those poor souls that lived in this continent prior to the advent of the white man are all doomed to hell for eternity.
Rethink your statement and tell me exactly who it is that rendered a judgement in this instance? I will give you a hint... it wasn't Shannon.
Ray
Message edited by author 2008-01-02 13:09:58. |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 01:32:08 PM · #874 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I truly find it problematic to think that all of those poor souls that lived in this continent prior to the advent of the white man are all doomed to hell for eternity. |
Despite the fact that I enjoy the result of that advent by livng here, I think it would have been better if the original residents of this country had just been left alone. And for a truly despicable confluence of events, perpetrated by an evil triumvirate of Christians, government, and police, read this story about a shameful piece of Canadian history. We have genocide to answer for. |
|
|
|
01/02/2008 04:37:20 PM · #875 |
My comment was in response to "Exhibit A. :-/ "
All the other stuff you are putting thoughts that I never said or intended to mean.
Message edited by author 2008-01-02 16:39:08. |
|
