(May 17, 2011 at 8:58 am)tackattack Wrote:

(May 16, 2011 at 11:55 am)Eudaimonia Wrote:

---

(May 16, 2011 at 11:47 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: The same goes for the word "skeptic" there is no word that atheists use that is exclusive to thier position. So any idea that can be crafted like this, "If only theists would just ask skeptic/intelligent/atheistic/green/deep/open-minded/well seasoned questions, they would see that God probably does not exist." Can be crafted by theists to impugn the idiocy of atheism. For me, I've realized that I am an atheist because my life experiences leave me with an inability to believe in God. I think it would be great to believe and I've spent most of my life earnestly seeking reasons to believe, and yet I don't.

On a different note, I wonder when Ashendent is going to post a link to the overwhelming evidence to support the idea that sexuality is so loose weave that people will pretty much just fuck whomever is nearest them... I doubt very much that it will be forthcoming and imagine that his "source" is http://www.imagination.com/intuition.his ass

Now, I'm not sure I understand your point...

My point was that a skeptical or critical question.. - the kind which challenges one's faith -are not usually asked by the faithful.. I don't see how one can draw from that that any skeptical, critical question means one MUST be atheist..

I used the word atheistic to suggest the naturalness of such a query from that position.. not to equate skepticism/critical analysis solely with atheists.. or to suggest that believers are not capable of critical analysis of their faith.. only that it is less likely.. the nature of faith usually requires suspension of critical analysis.. hence why it is called "faith"..

---

Having faith does not prevent critical analysis, it just prevents objective analysis.
I'm not sure what flavor or theism you're referencing, But in every chuch I've been in and spoken with the pastor, except 2 southern baptist churches, do allow questioning and critical thinking. Some more apologetic (read evangelical) denominations actually outwardly promote it.

If you know of some that don't feel free show them Luke 2:46-47 as a good example to follow, 1 Thes 5:20-21 as a clear command to test prophecies and prophets or Pr 14:15 for a good word of wisdom about it. If the denomination cherry picks the Bible, they're obviously making up the rules as they go. Most modern denominations (including non-denominational) have an all bible approach though, in my experience.

I understand critical analysis as a process that includes objectivity and reliance upon evidence .... Otherwise.. I understand non critical analysis as literary analysis where objectivity is not required and one’s subjective opinion is warranted ....

Irrespective of our disagreement on the terms.. my point is that faith by definition does not require any analysis and in my experience when analysis is attempted the goal is to rectify and/or justify one's belief.. It is a circular endeavor.. or an inductive analysis before deductive investigation...

In other words how many of the churches which you are familiar ask questions along the lines of why should the theophanies of distant tribal/desert dwellers loom heavily over my moral sensibilities.. This removes romantic and biased notions of their chosen status.. divine favor status etc.. or to seriously evaluate whether Jesus was a real person.. for instance.. Unless they are seeking ammunition to combat a disbeliever.. I have not known such thinking (similar that is..) to be prevalent among any religious group as a natural course of inquiry..

(May 17, 2011 at 10:31 am)tackattack Wrote: Since you claim such a strong statement. I'm a memberof a non denominational evangelical church. I'm very farmiliar with the doctine of the First Church of God (Anderson, IN) movement. Please cite proof where any cherry picking was done by me or anyone claiming either label. It's actually one of the first things I teach not to do in my adult and children classes.

Does your congregation teach parents to stone their disobedient children to death? If not you are cherry picking the Bible. Does your congregation teach parents to bear false testimony against their children? If not you are cherry picking the Bible.

Quote:Deuteronomy

21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Peace....

Quote:Moat... You are on this board because you believe you have a strong case to make for a creator.. I've yet to see you make a strong argument...

I am consistently kneading..preparing...what you expect is forthcoming.

Quote:Because once you start with the goddidit shit then the church murders people who say "maybe not."

This is laughable Eudaimonia,..."Goddidit" is still in full regalia today..I don't see the remains of atheists smouldering upon yonder fields..

Quote:No, you do not choose to empower the poor and uneducated. You want to give them the tools to deal with being poor and uneducated. How is that empowering? That is merely ensuring they stay poor and uneducated. And saying a universal education bill would be neccessary is a strawman argument. We just need to fix the state of the existing education system and stop the attack on teacher's rights and benefits.

My statements are intended to wed the Blissful atheist to the consequences of what must be considered a wreckless form of activism. Atheists consider it noble to dislodge the faithful from their beliefs..They offer nothing more than dark revelation which is intended to dismount the faithful from their steed of fantsay..."Better to be miserable in truth than to enjoy the anesthetics of religious belief"..They have a right to know the truth..they say..Hear hear...However should not the IRS know the truth, and the mother in law in regards to quality of her meals, and the young child offering disjointed scribbles upon an imagined love note? "Here mommy, it says I love you so much" "No honey this doesn't say anything at all.."

Must the truth be known? Emphatically Yes...However the truth should rise like the Sun..Easy on the eyes which have not yet adjusted to its brilliance. People must have time to adjust...They must also have the opportunity to adjust...Which goes to my original point.

My point should be clear..I am not suggesting that people be left alone to gleefully meander in fantasy forevermore..I am saying that very clearly that until the condition which creates the need for the fantasy is addressed with justice and equity and the proper preparations are underway... the meandering must continue.

Is the atheist crowd prepared to take on this responsibility? Or are they content to keep shaking people out of slumber for the fun of it..

Quote:Seriously, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.. but I need you to stop cherry picking .. and focus on the salient responses to you..

There is no benefit which you could bestow upon me which I could not simply seize after wrestling you to the ground and taking it along with some of your wardrobe..I will settle for the doubt for now....

Whirling Moat

(May 17, 2011 at 7:29 pm)Whirling Moat Wrote:

Quote:Because once you start with the goddidit shit then the church murders people who say "maybe not."

This is laughable Eudaimonia,..."Goddidit" is still in full regalia today..I don't see the remains of atheists smouldering upon yonder fields..

Had theists had their way .. you would see atheists on stakes...

Quote:My point should be clear..I am not suggesting that people be left alone to gleefully meander in fantasy forevermore..I am saying that very clearly that until the condition which creates the need for the fantasy is addressed with justice and equity and the proper preparations are underway...

So you support a slow rise to an atheist future... Okay... Well, I'm glad to see you're coming around.. We both agree on the method by which the public should be invited to reject theism..

Quote:There is no benefit which you could bestow upon me which I could not simply seize after wrestling you to the ground and taking it along with some of your wardrobe..I will settle for the doubt for now....

So you're a rapist... ?

(May 17, 2011 at 7:29 pm)Whirling Moat Wrote: My statements are intended to wed the Blissful atheist to the consequences of what must be considered a wreckless form of activism. Atheists consider it noble to dislodge the faithful from their beliefs..They offer nothing more than dark revelation which is intended to dismount the faithful from their steed of fantsay..."Better to be miserable in truth than to enjoy the anesthetics of religious belief"..They have a right to know the truth..they say..Hear hear...However should not the IRS know the truth, and the mother in law in regards to quality of her meals, and the young child offering disjointed scribbles upon an imagined love note? "Here mommy, it says I love you so much" "No honey this doesn't say anything at all.."

There is nothing wreckless about trying to further the human race beyond its delusions it uses to keep itself happy. Once society realizes happiness and meaning do not have to stem from religion we can find true purpose in life. As long as religion persists, people will see atheism as a depressing world view and not the abillity to determine one's own purpose that it truly is.

Whirling Moat Wrote:Must the truth be known? Emphatically Yes...However the truth should rise like the Sun..Easy on the eyes which have not yet adjusted to its brilliance. People must have time to adjust...They must also have the opportunity to adjust...Which goes to my original point.

The transition would no doubt be difficult and people would need time, but that is no reason not to undertake the task.

Whirling Moat Wrote:My point should be clear..I am not suggesting that people be left alone to gleefully meander in fantasy forever more..I am saying that very clearly that until the condition which creates the need for the fantasy is addressed with justice and equity and the proper preparations are underway... the meandering must continue.

Is the atheist crowd prepared to take on this responsibility? Or are they content to keep shaking people out of slumber for the fun of it..

No one wants to rid the world of religion just for the fun of it. Atheists see the human race as an ever progressing species and religion as the largest obsticle for such progress. I agree that the core issues of why religion is needed are what truly need to be addressed and teaching people they don't need to use religion as a crutch is the first step.

Please... I beg of you! This is an atheist forum!

(May 17, 2011 at 3:28 pm)Eudaimonia Wrote:

---

I understand critical analysis as a process that includes objectivity and reliance upon evidence .... Otherwise.. I understand non critical analysis as literary analysis where objectivity is not required and one’s subjective opinion is warranted ....

Irrespective of our disagreement on the terms.. my point is that faith by definition does not require any analysis and in my experience when analysis is attempted the goal is to rectify and/or justify one's belief.. It is a circular endeavor.. or an inductive analysis before deductive investigation...

In other words how many of the churches which you are familiar ask questions along the lines of why should the theophanies of distant tribal/desert dwellers loom heavily over my moral sensibilities.. This removes romantic and biased notions of their chosen status.. divine favor status etc.. or to seriously evaluate whether Jesus was a real person.. for instance.. Unless they are seeking ammunition to combat a disbeliever.. I have not known such thinking (similar that is..) to be prevalent among any religious group as a natural course of inquiry..

---

No, Faith doesn't necessitate analysis, nor does knowledge, belief, thousands of other things. You're biased that all theist analysis is circular, unreliable and unjustified by nature. Critical analysis is simply by definition is an appraisal based on reasoning or acting from a perception of the parts and interrelations of a subject that necessarily follow, precluded by experience.
Judging deductive reasoning as connotatively better than inductive reasoning isn't helping anyone. Just because it would be impossible to completely justify inductive reasoning, does not negate the useful practical application of it. It's a far cry from proving inductive reasoning illogical, circular or unreliable as you're half atempting.

They don't use such big words, because that would seem pompous, but we do ask why people belived, how they believed and how it applies to today. I'm not saying there are presuppositions, there are. Seperating wishful thinking and real experience is very prevelant in the congregations I've been in though. As is justification for belief and salvation. As is, also the historicity of the Bible. Apologetics, while something I cre deeply about, is actually focused on less in the general assemblies, but it does play a part in my classes respectively.

---

(May 17, 2011 at 6:53 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:

---

(May 17, 2011 at 10:31 am)tackattack Wrote: Since you claim such a strong statement. I'm a memberof a non denominational evangelical church. I'm very farmiliar with the doctine of the First Church of God (Anderson, IN) movement. Please cite proof where any cherry picking was done by me or anyone claiming either label. It's actually one of the first things I teach not to do in my adult and children classes.

Does your congregation teach parents to stone their disobedient children to death? If not you are cherry picking the Bible. Does your congregation teach parents to bear false testimony against their children? If not you are cherry picking the Bible.

Quote:Deuteronomy

21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

---

Don't you see the laughability of YOUR cherry picking. You do realize that you are I hope.
Let's see if you can do this excercise.
Take your verse above and also read Jesus' take on the law (as he believed in it and followed it)
Mark 12:28-33 (New International Version)
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” 32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
and add
John 8:7 (New International Version)
7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her

When you factor in the Bible in it's entirety with all of the lessons and parables you'll see that read together (not cherry picking) they paint a picture of a parent concerned for their child, wanting to punish them for their rebeluousness, but loving them and not stoning them, for the humbleness to acknowledge their own faults in parenting.

You can feel free to read at face value, but to read only one things at face value and make no attempt at reading comprehension would be like me saying that you would like us all to (and I quote) "teach parents to stone their disobedient children to death" Which is in fact what you said, but not in it's context or entirety.

(May 18, 2011 at 6:11 am)tackattack Wrote:

(May 17, 2011 at 6:53 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:

---

(May 17, 2011 at 10:31 am)tackattack Wrote: Since you claim such a strong statement. I'm a memberof a non denominational evangelical church. I'm very farmiliar with the doctine of the First Church of God (Anderson, IN) movement. Please cite proof where any cherry picking was done by me or anyone claiming either label. It's actually one of the first things I teach not to do in my adult and children classes.

Does your congregation teach parents to stone their disobedient children to death? If not you are cherry picking the Bible. Does your congregation teach parents to bear false testimony against their children? If not you are cherry picking the Bible.

Quote:Deuteronomy

21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

---

Don't you see the laughability of YOUR cherry picking. You do realize that you are I hope.
Let's see if you can do this excercise.
Take your verse above and also read Jesus' take on the law (as he believed in it and followed it)
Mark 12:28-33 (New International Version)
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” 32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
and add
John 8:7 (New International Version)
7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her

When you factor in the Bible in it's entirety with all of the lessons and parables you'll see that read together (not cherry picking) they paint a picture of a parent concerned for their child, wanting to punish them for their rebeluousness, but loving them and not stoning them, for the humbleness to acknowledge their own faults in parenting.

You can feel free to read at face value, but to read only one things at face value and make no attempt at reading comprehension would be like me saying that you would like us all to (and I quote) "teach parents to stone their disobedient children to death" Which is in fact what you said, but not in it's context or entirety.

No Tack, I don’t see the laughability of my argument because you are doing exactly what I said in my first post. You are choosing the passage that best fits your thoughts from among contradictory passages. Jesus also said:


"Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

You too are cherry picking. You have chosen the passages that best fit what you want the Bible to be. You ignore the things you don’t like. I won’t argue that you have chosen poorly in this extreme example because you haven't, but the fact remains that you have chosen. You have cherry picked that which suits you and disregarded that which does not. Something all Christians are forced to do.

OK, if you're not cherry picking from the bible, why don't you sell everything you own and give the money to the poor like Jesus said to? Do you have locks on the doors of your house? If so, why? Jesus said to give to all who ask of you, and don't ask for repayment in return. If someone steals your cloak, offer him your shirt as well. Putting locks on your doors seems to go against what Jesus taught, since he was pretty clear about not accumulating wealth and letting people take things from you.

If you are a true Christian and don't cherry pick from the bible, then give me $100. You can PM me for my address.

(May 18, 2011 at 10:42 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: OK, if you're not cherry picking from the bible, why don't you sell everything you own and give the money to the poor like Jesus said to? Do you have locks on the doors of your house? If so, why? Jesus said to give to all who ask of you, and don't ask for repayment in return. If someone steals your cloak, offer him your shirt as well. Putting locks on your doors seems to go against what Jesus taught, since he was pretty clear about not accumulating wealth and letting people take things from you.

If you are a true Christian and don't cherry pick from the bible, then give me $100. You can PM me for my address.

Why stop at $100? I'm asking for $1000.