Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(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"..
BTW: The bisexual thing posited by Ashendent is weird and so ludicrous I just didn't think anyone would address it..
(May 16, 2011 at 11:55 am)Eudaimonia Wrote: My point was that a skeptical or critical question.. - the kind which challenges one's faith -are not usually asked by the faithful..
This is an untrue statement. Being human means to question the ideas that we hold. The problem lies with the methodology used when questioning ones beliefs. For example, I used to find great revelations within my dreams and considered them to be more important than rational waking thought because they came from what I imagined was my "true self". I now see that to be a kooky idea.
I disagree. In most religious societies, questions which are critical or skeptical of religious doctrine are very much frowned upon, and if they are persistent then ad hoc explanations are hastily formed to answer them. But for the most part it's considered dangerous by the religious to question religious beliefs. This is why you hear of kids getting kicked out of Sunday school for asking the wrong questions.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
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...
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..
For instance:
You present yourself as embodying one of the worst characteristics of the religious mind.. A condescending ultimately inhumane approach to humanity.. The poor and uneducated are not worth elevating.. They are only worth placating.. You lack faith in humanity and place more faith in an invisible creator..
And when your invisible creator is shown to be faulty you display tones of violence..
Because that's what happens when you can't MAKE some one believe you FORCE them to do so..
The thought that your belief is faulty never crosses your mind..
So to that end:
Please address these points..
(May 15, 2011 at 4:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:How is it wrong?
Because once you start with the goddidit shit then the church murders people who say "maybe not."
Quote:Giordano Bruno (1548 – February 17, 1600), born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician and astronomer. His cosmological theories went beyond the Copernican model in proposing that the Sun was essentially a star, and moreover, that the universe was in fact infinite. He was burned at the stake by civil authorities in 1600 after the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy for his pantheism and turned him over to the state, which at that time considered heresy illegal.
(May 15, 2011 at 6:07 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote: 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.
...... Plus, you seem to be arguing that we need uneducated people around to keep religion around and make the sky daddy happy.
(May 15, 2011 at 7:36 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: I think that a poor, uneducated, and unintelligent person that believed there was a God there to forgive their trespasses and grant them access to the great orgasm in the sky, no matter how much time they spent in prison, is much more dangerous than a poor, uneducated, and unintelligent person that believes that this life is the only one they will ever experience. The former wouldn't see any real reason to value thier decisions here because it is the eternal afterlife that matters most. The latter would be more apt to be risk averse and treasure what little time they had to experience the universe with their one small life.
*We don't need to educate the poor we need to placate them because what? They are incapable of higher reasoning? BTW Are you subtly implying that you believe an educated atheist is better than an uneducated believer?
* Are you a person that sees hope in humanity? And if not, why not?
* Why does any cosmological model have to break down to goddidit?
*You ignored that your response re: worshipping the "ONE" GOd still means you worship One God just in many forms and thus the point that someone worships one less God than you do still remains.. And my point was comical but still relevant.. I am to assume that you do not include the gods Zeus.. and oh umm Satan in that do you?
(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.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(May 17, 2011 at 8:58 am)tackattack Wrote: 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’ve got news for you Tack. All denominations cherry pick the Bible in some form or another. It’s the only way to get around some of the obvious contradictions. Then there is the necessity of reconciling the morality of the ancient goat herders with that of a more modern society that is less accepting of things like slavery and stoning of women and children.
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.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
![[Image: akasha.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.starcentralmagazine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F06%2Fakasha.jpg)
![[Image: X2757z.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=images.wikia.com%2Flotr%2Fimages%2F0%2F0e%2FX2757z.jpg)
![[Image: JUkLw58.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/JUkLw58.gif)
