Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

#52 Apr 23 2011 at 3:02 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
DSD wrote:
Im frankly sick and tired of hearing about "those **** atheists/agnostics" and "those **** Christians".

Not deny that people don't often generalize, but I'm also tired of hearing every criticism be dismissed with "that's just one person" as if there are no systemic flaws in a particular belief system.
#53 Apr 23 2011 at 3:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,346 posts
Right, but for the most part the problem is with the belief system, not the people.

It is very, very difficult to reject lifelong indoctrination.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#54Almalieque, Posted: Apr 23 2011 at 3:15 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) What you have done was to read too much into a response and somehow integrating it into your argument. I was agreeing with you....
#55 Apr 23 2011 at 3:19 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Allegory wrote:
DSD wrote:
Im frankly sick and tired of hearing about "those **** atheists/agnostics" and "those **** Christians".

Not deny that people don't often generalize, but I'm also tired of hearing every criticism be dismissed with "that's just one person" as if there are no systemic flaws in a particular belief system.


The problem with that is that particular belief systems actually change with denominations within a religion. So, it becomes more difficult to attack an entire belief system on one topic if it could be different in another denomination.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#56 Apr 23 2011 at 3:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
Almalieque wrote:

The problem with that is that particular belief systems actually change with denominations within a religion. So, it becomes more difficult to attack an entire belief system on one topic if it could be different in another denomination.


Which is similar to the problem I presented in the OP. I asked what my belief could be classified as, and a lot of people said "Why does it matter?" It's because people interpret things differently depending upon labels (myself included).

I always remember the first time I asked what religion my college roommate followed. He said he was a Christian. I asked him again: what religion? He said again, less certainly, Christian. A third time, he said Lutheran. There's a huge difference between, say, Lutheran and Southern Baptist (or Catholic, like I was raised). "Christian" is not a sufficient answer to anyone seeking more than a superficial answer. Hence my original question. Now it seems the answer is "agnostic atheist" for myself. If I had said "agnostic" before, I would not be fulfilling the question I was asked. If I said "atheist" I would have been accidentally lying.

Thanks to everyone, by the way.

Except the ones who said "Probably ***" Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#57 Apr 23 2011 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The problem with that is that particular belief systems actually change with denominations within a religion. So, it becomes more difficult to attack an entire belief system on one topic if it could be different in another denomination.

It does, but I still believe that certain generalizations are valid, because they apply to a wide enough spectrum and because being fully technically accurate and fair is a practical impossibility.

I think one core flaw that is ingrained within most if not every religion is the how acceptable it to believe any idea without basis or despite basis to the contrary. Many Christians will quite candidly state that faith in god is about believing without having evidence, that they require nothing of the sort. I think that when you concede that it is ok to accept beliefs that suit your arbitrarily in one instance, that it permeates to other beliefs. You start accepting other ideas based on gut and how good you feel about them rather than truth, and that carryover creates many problems.
#58 Apr 23 2011 at 4:20 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Quote:
I think one core flaw that is ingrained within most if not every religion is the how acceptable it to believe any idea without basis or despite basis to the contrary. Many Christians will quite candidly state that faith in god is about believing without having evidence, that they require nothing of the sort. I think that when you concede that it is ok to accept beliefs that suit your arbitrarily in one instance, that it permeates to other beliefs. You start accepting other ideas based on gut and how good you feel about them rather than truth, and that carryover creates many problems.


I don't deny that there are people as such, but your over all concern is no different from my original statement either. That's a personal preference to ignore "evidence to the contrary". What you have is people who believe in something calling other people who refuse to accept their "proof" as "ignoring the facts".

The bottom line is, we ALL have faith in something. Faith isn't restricted to religion. There isn't enough time in a day or days in our lifetime to prove everything that we accept as truth. There are many things that we accept as truth just because someone else said so. Time has proven to us that many scientific concepts have been wrong before, but we just have faith in our researchers that they are providing the truth.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#59 Apr 23 2011 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts
Am, Im sorry but you're wrong. I simply pointed out the words you chose to use when referring to your personal experiences within the Asylum implied overgeneralization, whether that was your intent or not. I merely pointed out that type of gross generalization is harmful on either side of the fence. It doesnt matter if it was your intent of you did not post what you meant. It was how it was written. Acting out in childish anger when confronted by this pointed observation by trying to turn the tables on me for jumping to conclusions and calling me an idiot is laughable but also sad. Im sorry you cant take constructive criticism.



Quote:
Not deny that people don't often generalize, but I'm also tired of hearing every criticism be dismissed with "that's just one person" as if there are no systemic flaws in a particular belief system.



I dont deny that there are major flaws in all sides. Thats a huge reason why I refuse to claim any type of religion as my own (that and the fact that I dont personally believe in any religion that I have researched into so far). It's why I say Spirituality is divine while religion is man made. Every religion out there today has been muddied by mans power struggles with politics over the course of history, and is therefore more "Man made" than "God made". That allows too many flaws to be adhered to blindly when many people do not tend to actually study not only the religious work itself, but the history of their religion. ANYTHING taken blindly without personal research can cause more harm than good, no matter what the original teaching is supposed to be.


And Locke, glad you were able to figure out a label to slap on yourself when it comes to where you stand.

____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#60 Apr 23 2011 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The bottom line is, we ALL have faith in something. Faith isn't restricted to religion. There isn't enough time in a day or days in our lifetime to prove everything that we accept as truth. There are many things that we accept as truth just because someone else said so. Time has proven to us that many scientific concepts have been wrong before, but we just have faith in our researchers that they are providing the truth.

It's not faith, and it's not the same. Accepting something as the most likely case isn't the same as believing in it or trusting it.

Religious faith is the fundamental belief that "I know at least one thing," that there are some deities. Tea kettle agnosticism is "I don't know anything with certainty."
#61 Apr 23 2011 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
DSD wrote:
It's why I say Spirituality is divine while religion is man made. Every religion out there today has been muddied by mans power struggles with politics over the course of history, and is therefore more "Man made" than "God made".

In my opinion, that sounds more like more of the same. That people are doing it wrong, and that the core ideology itself is untainted. I assert that it is possible for any belief system, when interpreted and executed true to intent, to be flawed.
#62 Apr 23 2011 at 6:17 PM Rating: Good
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts
Allegory wrote:
DSD wrote:
It's why I say Spirituality is divine while religion is man made. Every religion out there today has been muddied by mans power struggles with politics over the course of history, and is therefore more "Man made" than "God made".

In my opinion, that sounds more like more of the same. That people are doing it wrong, and that the core ideology itself is untainted. I assert that it is possible for any belief system, when interpreted and executed true to intent, to be flawed.


I think we agree on that. However I will assert that not everyone follows their belief system blindly. There are many people out there who follow their religion for their own reasons, but take the time to question or disagree with why their church says they must do XYZ to get into whatever Nirvana they believe in. Again, not every Christian feels that all gays choose to sin or that all pagans are devil worshipers, or that you must "come to God to have morals. Not all agnostics and atheists hate Christians. Not all agnostics and atheists are **** bent on removing holidays from the calendar. Not everyone who chooses to label themselves one way or another has to perfectly fit into the round hole. Hence why I get ***** with gross overgeneralizations regarding this topic. Where I live is a lot more religious than my native MA and while its still not the deep south, talk of religion is more noticable. I've heard it implied from a few folk down here that to not be religious means you cannot have morals. And from the other side, I've heard that anyone following a religion is a prolife, anti condem, *** bashing moron.


It's not a black and white topic
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#63 Apr 23 2011 at 6:26 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
DSD wrote:
Am, Im sorry but you're wrong. I simply pointed out the words you chose to use when referring to your personal experiences within the Asylum implied overgeneralization, whether that was your intent or not. I merely pointed out that type of gross generalization is harmful on either side of the fence. It doesnt matter if it was your intent of you did not post what you meant. It was how it was written. Acting out in childish anger when confronted by this pointed observation by trying to turn the tables on me for jumping to conclusions and calling me an idiot is laughable but also sad. Im sorry you cant take constructive criticism.


So, what if i were to say, " I see a lot of hunters in the South. I've met hunters in other areas before, but most of them were all from the South?" Would you equate that to "All Southerners are hunters?"

DSD wrote:
I dont deny that there are major flaws in all sides. Thats a huge reason why I refuse to claim any type of religion as my own (that and the fact that I dont personally believe in any religion that I have researched into so far). It's why I say Spirituality is divine while religion is man made. Every religion out there today has been muddied by mans power struggles with politics over the course of history, and is therefore more "Man made" than "God made". That allows too many flaws to be adhered to blindly when many people do not tend to actually study not only the religious work itself, but the history of their religion. ANYTHING taken blindly without personal research can cause more harm than good, no matter what the original teaching is supposed to be.


That's a difference that many religious people don't understand. That's why I argued that it's hard to argue one specific subject, because now a days things are more "man made" than "God made". Churches have developed TRADITIONS that aren't necessarily supported/demanded by Jesus or God.

Allegory wrote:
In my opinion, that sounds more like more of the same. That people are doing it wrong, and that the core ideology itself is untainted. I assert that it is possible for any belief system, when interpreted and executed true to intent, to be flawed.


They are completely different. Take the concept of education. There are so many ways that you can teach, but if you have a problem with educations, chances are it isn't any concept of education, but the chosen processes to educate.

Allegory wrote:
It's not faith, and it's not the same. Accepting something as the most likely case isn't the same as believing in it or trusting it.

Religious faith is the fundamental belief that "I know at least one thing," that there are some deities. Tea kettle agnosticism is "I don't know anything with certainty."



1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom

9.in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.


We've been down this road before. It's the EXACT SAME thing.. It's just that nonbelievers like to separate themselves from that word because it's more closely affiliated with religion.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#64 Apr 23 2011 at 6:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts
Quote:
So, what if i were to say, " I see a lot of hunters in the South. I've met hunters in other areas before, but most of them were all from the South?" Would you equate that to "All Southerners are hunters?"


This was a god awful analogy the first time you used it which is why I purposely ignored it. Im not blind, nor do I need you to repeat yourself to drive a point home, baseless as it might be, unlike others around here
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#65 Apr 23 2011 at 9:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
Alma wrote:
We've been down this road before. It's the EXACT SAME thing.. It's just that nonbelievers like to separate themselves from that word because it's more closely affiliated with religion.

And you're still wrong, and you look silly quoting a definition that definitely says you're wrong.

1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
Applies to the bulk of religion, not to teakettle agnosticism. Check 1 for teakettle agnosticism (hereafter abbreviated TA) not being faith.

2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
Again, applies to the bulk of religion and not TA. Check 2.

3.belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
It doesn't get more explicit than that. Check 3.

4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
A sense that doesn't apply to either one/

5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
Pretty much "you're wrong" spelt out again. Check 4.

6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
Another sense that doesn't apply to either one.

7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
N/A again.

8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom

Not sure how you think this is helping your case. Check 5.

9.in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
And finally a sense that doesn't apply to either one.
#66Almalieque, Posted: Apr 23 2011 at 9:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Man, you're in some serious denial.
#67 Apr 23 2011 at 10:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
Alma wrote:
False: Since when does the word "hypothesis" being followed with "substantiated by fact" have anything to do with religion? Sounds a whole lot like SCIENCE.

Do you not understand the difference between a definition and example sentence or just not care because it's an inconvenient difference to the point you want to make? The definition is "belief that is not based on proof," which pretty much any person on the street would agree to as applying to religion and not science/reason.
Quote:
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
A sense that doesn't apply to either one/

So in other words you don't have a counter.

If you don't understand that every definition doesn't apply to the same sense of a word, then we're done. You do not understand language well enough to hold a meaningful semantic argument.

Edited, Apr 23rd 2011 11:18pm by Allegory
#68 Apr 23 2011 at 10:27 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Allegory wrote:
Do you not understand the difference between a definition and example sentence or just not care because it's an inconvenient difference to the point you want to make? The definition is "belief that is not based on proof," which pretty much any person on the street would agree to as applying to religion and not science/reason.



1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

2.a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.

3.the antecedent of a conditional proposition.

4.a mere assumption or guess.


You just love making up definitions don't you? Example sentences in dictionaries are typically relevant to the actual meaning of the word. It only makes sense as the reader probably doesn't fully understand the meaning of the word, hence the dictionary.

Allegory wrote:
If you don't understand that every definition doesn't apply to the same sense of a word, then we're done. You do not understand language well enough to hold a meaningful semantic argument.


Except my argument was just that. The word "faith" isn't bound to religion. It has other definitions with other applications.

Edit: going to sleep. Will respond in the morning

Edited, Apr 24th 2011 6:28am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#69 Apr 23 2011 at 10:31 PM Rating: Good
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts
Ama, you're way outclassed in this topic. By continuing to try so hard to save face despite the fact you've been corrected multiple times by multiple people (on multiple points), instead of bowing out gracefully and acknowledging where you screwed up only makes you look worse. Im not going to answer immature questions with asinine metaphores just to make you feel validated. It's god awful and while I wish I could say Im surprised that you cant figure out why, Im really not after watching your responses not only to me in this thread, but to others. Any response I laid before you would be ignored anyways while you try in vain to make a comeback, so why waste my time?
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#70Almalieque, Posted: Apr 23 2011 at 10:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) oh, I'll just get this last one.. THEN hit the hay sack.
#71 Apr 24 2011 at 1:29 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
Quote:
Alma, you're way outclassed in this topic.


You are in fact, so outclassed, you don't possess the capacity to see the severe gulf between your skill levels.

Quote:
You do not understand language well enough to hold a meaningful semantic argument.


I would go further and offer the hypothesis that you do not understand language well enough to hold any meaningful argument, semantic or otherwise.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#72 Apr 24 2011 at 8:57 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
I would go further and offer the hypothesis that you do not understand language well enough to hold any meaningful argument, semantic or otherwise.

That would be hyperbole. What I said was not intended to be simply insulting, but rather an accurate assessment.
#73 Apr 24 2011 at 9:49 AM Rating: Good
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts

I never argued the fact you agreed with my second statement on extremity. I merely pointed out that the way you chose to phrase your comment was broad, and just as harmful in topics like this as extremism is: broad generalization:

Quote:
This is what I noticed from this forum. If you mention that you are religious, then you're instantly criticized. It's one thing to not believe in God, but when you start ridiculing others who believe in something that isn't any more believable than what you believe in, then you are crossing that line which you are referencing to.


Each sentence is a broad generalization geared to imply anyone who is a regular here and is NOT religious criticizes people who are. Which is absolutely untrue. As pointed out by PPs many of the regulars here are religious yet they are not criticized for it. I have not criticized people for their choice in religion. I *WILL*, as will others, criticize those who come in with a judgemental attitude and use their religion to justify their gross misconduct, but that is different.

But to imply that anytime you come into this forum and mention you are religious you are ridiculed just for being religious is wholly and utterly false. And to continue that implication by your choice of words, refusing to be more specific but instead to keep your comments general enough that anyone would read it as meaning that anyone who holds to a religion will be ridiculed in here by anyone who does not hold to a religion is worse. You throw folks like me under the bus, becoming the evil faithless one who relishes in tearing you and your fellow Christians down anytime you make a peep.

And I hate that in this particular topic, because I see people like you do it all the time. You have no issues making false generalizations instead of taking the time to more accurately explain your stance, which in the end hurt others in the crossfire. Fortunately this is just a gaming forum, but out in the real world when you start to use broad statements, or don't clarify, these are the types of things that can cause a lot of damage. I've watched it happen on a local board and what started off as one broad generalization became a huge war that turned friends against each other. All over a few poor choices of wording and too many broad generalizations. NO ONE can work on a good dialogue when each side throws broad accusations towards the entire entity hitting every person within that idealogy instead of the ones who deserve it.

So I clearly said:
Quote:
Its comments like this that create the feeling of Us vs. Them in any sensitive topic, and makes it harder to actually have a mature conversation. Don't take your observations from a few people and broadly color the entire population the same


Why can't you understand that and just say "Oops! That's not what I meant. Here, let me clarify..." instead of getting your panties so much in a twist you feel the need to defend a paragraph that could have taken you 3 minutes to change? I mean, really? If you cant even acknowledge something tiny as this, Im pretty sure I could see why some people WOULD attack you when you discuss religion. It has nothing to do with the religious aspect at all. Its because you refuse to back down even when you're wrong. And thats just good fodder for us folk who like to mind fuck when we're bored and have time!


As for your god awful analogy,k lets break it down a bit, shall we?

Below is your original statement and your analogy:

Quote:
This is what I noticed from this forum. If you mention that you are religious, then you're instantly criticized. It's one thing to not believe in God, but when you start ridiculing others who believe in something that isn't any more believable than what you believe in, then you are crossing that line which you are referencing to.



Quote:
So, what if i were to say, " I see a lot of hunters in the South. I've met hunters in other areas before, but most of them were all from the South?" Would you equate that to "All Southerners are hunters?"



Your analogy is god awful because it in no way even comes close to your original statement, which is what I commented on. It's apples to oranges, and even if I answered "Why no Ama, I woudn't equate THAT at all!" it would have absolutely no bearing on what you originally wrote.

The major difference between your original statement and the analogy, which makes it so god awful to use in this instance, is that in the analogy you actually used adjectives, giving your sentence more of a description:

Quote:
So, what if i were to say, " I see a lot of hunters in the South. I've met hunters in other areas before, but most of them were all from the South?" Would you equate that to "All Southerners are hunters?"



Your statement lacks those, again, giving it the broad generalization I first pointed out. Your analogy is actually much more descriptive, narrowing down your thoughts and intents. So its godawful to use in this instance. Because it in no way compares to what you originally stated, therefore making it worthless.

Quote:
I didn't give you an "immature question", I asked you to explain your position.


Ive explained my position so many times that you coming back with something this inane *is* an immature question. Because I had clearly explained my stance more than once. You are having a tantrum because you dont like it when people point something out that you didnt do well. Im not your mother, I dont need to answer immature questions to a tantruming child who isnt getting her way. I dont need to do anything for you. Feel fortunate I was bored enough today to take the time to answer one more time. =)

Quote:
In the grown folk world, we call that whining.


I guess you would know since you do it so well ;)
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#74 Apr 24 2011 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
Allegory wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
I would go further and offer the hypothesis that you do not understand language well enough to hold any meaningful argument, semantic or otherwise.

That would be hyperbole. What I said was not intended to be simply insulting, but rather an accurate assessment.

No, I don't think my statement was hyperbole. Key words being "meaningful argument".
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#75Almalieque, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 11:15 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The explanation I was referring to is the "God awful analogy", not your overall opinion. Do you see now that your inference isn't flawless?
#76 Apr 24 2011 at 11:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,346 posts
This debate always makes me think, "Is this beige, ecru, eggshell or bone?"

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#77 Apr 24 2011 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts
Quote:
I'm arguing with you that my comment was not just as harmful.



Of course you are. Cause you're not the one who was harmed. Yet you're quick to call foul when it happens to you. Pot, kettle, blah blah blah.

Quote:
Yes, it maybe "vague", but by being vague I'm not pointing any fingers at anyone which means your claim that I mean everyone is false.


by being vague you may not point at anyone specifically, but by doing so you leave the impression of an overall feeling. How is that concept so hard to grasp????


Quote:
Just last week, RDD, made a claim that he reads the Bible for the fictional value ...It's hard to get Christians to read the Bible outside of Sundays and this guy claims that he reads it all the time for his entertainment value as opposed to reading something actually considered entertaining?



Actually, I have a lot of friends who are not religious who read the bible. Maybe not necessarily for entertainment value on its own, but to learn. It's actually not uncommon. In fact, many folks I am personally aquainted with left their religious teachings because they did read and research and question. I myself can be included in that category.

Quote:
It's hard to get Christians to read the Bible outside of Sundays


I have to ask, how often do you read the Bible? I mean, really read it. Just curious. And be honest.


This is a large reason why when a Christian comes in and starts spouting judgemental crap they are fed by their pastor without taking the time to research on their own (and its very noticable when this is the case) they get criticized and are called sheep. Its not because the person is religious, its because they claim religion without actually taking the time to learn about their religion and why it is that things are taught the way they are. Religion/faith/etc is a huge part of ones life, and helps a person to create life choices. To be ignorant in *why* they do what they do is harmful not only to them, but to those surrounding them. Thats utter ignorance and not to be treated with kid gloves in here.



Samira wrote:
This debate always makes me think, "Is this beige, ecru, eggshell or bone?"



Eggshell. Duh. I mean, it *is* Easter
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#78 Apr 24 2011 at 12:17 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
DSD wrote:
Of course you are. Cause you're not the one who was harmed. Yet you're quick to call foul when it happens to you. Pot, kettle, blah blah blah.


I said the following: It's one thing to not believe in God, but when you start ridiculing others who believe in something that isn't any more believable than what you believe in, then you are crossing that line which you are referencing to.

You can deny it all you want, but that is a statement of equality. It says that your belief isn't any better than my belief. You know that, you just don't want to own up to it because it takes away from your argument.

DSD wrote:
by being vague you may not point at anyone specifically, but by doing so you leave the impression of an overall feeling. How is that concept so hard to grasp????


Just as you infer/imply "all" if "some" isn't said, I imply/infer "some" if "all" isn't said. The latter is not only much more common, but makes more sense.

DSD wrote:
Actually, I have a lot of friends who are not religious who read the bible. Maybe not necessarily for entertainment value on its own, but to learn. It's actually not uncommon. In fact, many folks I am personally aquainted with left their religious teachings because they did read and research and question. I myself can be included in that category.


There's a difference between reading for educational value vs entertainment. I browsed the Koran once for fun/education. Even with an entertainment value, it is not normal for it to be so high that you read it religiously non-religiously. In any rate, that has no relevance to his comments of calling it fiction or ridiculing people for worshiping the same "imaginary person".

DSD wrote:
I have to ask, how often do you read the Bible? I mean, really read it. Just curious. And be honest.


I actually read versus to a chapter everyday. I didn't read it while I was on vacation last month, but I have since then. My comprehension of what I'm actually reading isn't as high as I want. As a result, I watch my home town church via the Internet, like I did this morning.

DSD wrote:
This is a large reason why when a Christian comes in and starts spouting judgemental crap they are fed by their pastor without taking the time to research on their own (and its very noticable when this is the case) they get criticized and are called sheep. Its not because the person is religious, its because they claim religion without actually taking the time to learn about their religion and why it is that things are taught the way they are. Religion/faith/etc is a huge part of ones life, and helps a person to create life choices. To be ignorant in *why* they do what they do is harmful not only to them, but to those surrounding them. Thats utter ignorance and not to be treated with kid gloves in here.


Each sentence is a broad generalization geared to imply anyone who is a regular here and is religious are sheep. Which is absolutely untrue. As pointed out by PPs many of the regulars here are religious yet they are not sheep. I have not criticized people for their lack of choice in religion. I *WILL*, as will others, criticize those who come in with a judgemental attitude and use their lack of religion to justify their gross misconduct, but that is different.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#79 Apr 24 2011 at 1:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts
Ama, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall with less IQ points. Im not willing to waste any more brain cells trying to even attempt at a rational conversation with you because its obvious you dont know how to have one. It's pretty clear why you get ridiculed and honey, it ain't because you're religious that they are ridiculing.

I hope that was specific enough for you to grasp the context of my post. ;)
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#80Almalieque, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 1:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You said that already, yet you responded with a thesis of a post. I admitted to my errors, but I don't expect you to do the same. The absence of a quantifier doesn't justify "all", plain and simple. I gave you a more accurate analogy to demonstrate that.
#81 Apr 24 2011 at 2:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
DSD wrote:
I have to ask, how often do you read the Bible?
Much more importantly (and this isn't aimed at anyone in particular), how often do you deliberate on why you read the bible? Reading and believing every word printed in a book doesn't have much merit unless you're going to evaluate the reasoning behind why you're giving so much credit to that literature in the first place.

Are "because I grew up with it", "because my parents told me", "because the church told me", and so on really valid reasons?



Edited, Apr 24th 2011 3:17pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#82 Apr 24 2011 at 2:28 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
bsphil wrote:
DSD wrote:
I have to ask, how often do you read the Bible?
Much more importantly (and this isn't aimed at anyone in particular), how often do you deliberate on why you read the bible? Reading and believing every word printed in a book doesn't have much merit unless you're going to evaluate the reasoning behind why you're giving so much credit to that literature in the first place.

Are "because I grew up with it", "because my parents told me", "because the church told me", and so on really valid reasons?



Edited, Apr 24th 2011 3:17pm by bsphil


Those are not valid reasons, even though that are many people that fall in that category.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#83 Apr 24 2011 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
bsphil wrote:
DSD wrote:
I have to ask, how often do you read the Bible?
Much more importantly (and this isn't aimed at anyone in particular), how often do you deliberate on why you read the bible? Reading and believing every word printed in a book doesn't have much merit unless you're going to evaluate the reasoning behind why you're giving so much credit to that literature in the first place.

Are "because I grew up with it", "because my parents told me", "because the church told me", and so on really valid reasons?
Those are not valid reasons, even though that are many people that fall in that category.
Exactly. Hey, "even a stopped clock", etc.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#84 Apr 24 2011 at 2:36 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
bsphil wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
bsphil wrote:
DSD wrote:
I have to ask, how often do you read the Bible?
Much more importantly (and this isn't aimed at anyone in particular), how often do you deliberate on why you read the bible? Reading and believing every word printed in a book doesn't have much merit unless you're going to evaluate the reasoning behind why you're giving so much credit to that literature in the first place.

Are "because I grew up with it", "because my parents told me", "because the church told me", and so on really valid reasons?
Those are not valid reasons, even though that are many people that fall in that category.
Exactly. Hey, "even a stopped clock", etc.


I think I missed your point.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#85 Apr 24 2011 at 2:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
bsphil wrote:
DSD wrote:
I have to ask, how often do you read the Bible?
Much more importantly (and this isn't aimed at anyone in particular), how often do you deliberate on why you read the bible? Reading and believing every word printed in a book doesn't have much merit unless you're going to evaluate the reasoning behind why you're giving so much credit to that literature in the first place.

Are "because I grew up with it", "because my parents told me", "because the church told me", and so on really valid reasons?
Those are not valid reasons, even though that are many people that fall in that category.
Exactly. Hey, "even a stopped clock", etc.
I think I missed your point.
Not shocked.

Why do you give credence to the words written in the bible?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#86 Apr 24 2011 at 2:48 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
bsphil wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
bsphil wrote:
DSD wrote:
I have to ask, how often do you read the Bible?
Much more importantly (and this isn't aimed at anyone in particular), how often do you deliberate on why you read the bible? Reading and believing every word printed in a book doesn't have much merit unless you're going to evaluate the reasoning behind why you're giving so much credit to that literature in the first place.

Are "because I grew up with it", "because my parents told me", "because the church told me", and so on really valid reasons?
Those are not valid reasons, even though that are many people that fall in that category.
Exactly. Hey, "even a stopped clock", etc.
I think I missed your point.
Not shocked.

Why do you give credence to the words written in the bible?


Before I went to college, I challenged my own faith and concluded that being in God was more logical than following science.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#87 Apr 24 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
bsphil wrote:
DSD wrote:
I have to ask, how often do you read the Bible?
Much more importantly (and this isn't aimed at anyone in particular), how often do you deliberate on why you read the bible? Reading and believing every word printed in a book doesn't have much merit unless you're going to evaluate the reasoning behind why you're giving so much credit to that literature in the first place.

Are "because I grew up with it", "because my parents told me", "because the church told me", and so on really valid reasons?
Those are not valid reasons, even though that are many people that fall in that category.
Exactly. Hey, "even a stopped clock", etc.
I think I missed your point.
Not shocked.

Why do you give credence to the words written in the bible?
Before I went to college, I challenged my own faith and concluded that being in God was more logical than following science.
Not shocked.

Why?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#88 Apr 24 2011 at 2:58 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Bsphil wrote:
Not shocked.

Why?


Why what? Why did I challenge my religion? Because I'm not going to follow stuff just because someone said so.

Why did I conclude that believing in God is more logical, one reason is that at one point of time something had to come from nothing and science can't get around that. We've argued this point before where people tried to prove otherwise, but it's the fact that a portion (not all) non-believers refuse to accept.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#89 Apr 24 2011 at 3:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Why what? Why did I challenge my religion? Because I'm not going to follow stuff just because someone said so.
Derp, no, don't be that purposefully dense.


Almalieque wrote:
Why did I conclude that believing in God is more logical, one reason is that at one point of time something had to come from nothing and science can't get around that. We've argued this point before where people tried to prove otherwise, but it's the fact that a portion (not all) non-believers refuse to accept.
Why does there need to be an origin of the universe? Why can't it be infinite? Why can't the universe be self-evident if your god can? Why does the lack of understanding of a particular scientific topic necessitate a god be put in place as the answer?



Edited, Apr 24th 2011 5:04pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#90 Apr 24 2011 at 4:00 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
I was lurking until I got to this post:

Almalieque wrote:
Bsphil wrote:
Not shocked.

Why?


Why what? Why did I challenge my religion? Because I'm not going to follow stuff just because someone said so.

Why did I conclude that believing in God is more logical, one reason is that at one point of time something had to come from nothing and science can't get around that. We've argued this point before where people tried to prove otherwise, but it's the fact that a portion (not all) non-believers refuse to accept.
Why do you not understand that a singularity is not "nothing"? This is the same wilful ignorance of current understanding of Physics as you have in Biology.

Here when you say "something from nothing", you're either referring to 1) The big bang theory, or 2) abiogenesis. I'd like you to clarify which one, if you'd be so kind.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#91 Apr 24 2011 at 5:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts
Quote:
Why did I conclude that believing in God is more logical, one reason is that at one point of time something had to come from nothing and science can't get around that.


I have to ask, why is believing in God more logical than the ability for science to say "We don't have the answer yet."? Science is still brand new and we learn new things every day. Wouldnt it be more logical to acknowledge that we don't have the answers because we're still seeking, and will never stop?

In all seriousness, why is it that you feel that believing in a religion for a NOW answer (that also cannot be proven yet) is more logical than accepting that we as humanity do not yet know enough to provide one that would hold water?

And this has me scratching my head:

Quote:
Before I went to college, I challenged my own faith and concluded that being in God was more logical than following science


To say that science is less logical than religion... I just don't even know how to touch that one. Besides, who says you cannot follow both? Again its the US Vs. Them mentality and it doesnt have to be that way. Science and faith are not exclusive.
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#92 Apr 24 2011 at 5:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Being in god would be interesting, indeed. ;)

DSD wrote:
To say that science is less logical than religion... I just don't even know how to touch that one. Besides, who says you cannot follow both? Again its the US Vs. Them mentality and it doesnt have to be that way. Science and faith are not exclusive.


He has been pretending to use logic since he started posting here. Him asserting that religion is more logical than science not only didn't surprise me, it didn't even phase me.

Edited, Apr 24th 2011 6:25pm by Belkira
#93 Apr 24 2011 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts
Belkira wrote:
Being in god would be interesting, indeed. ;)

DSD wrote:
To say that science is less logical than religion... I just don't even know how to touch that one. Besides, who says you cannot follow both? Again its the US Vs. Them mentality and it doesnt have to be that way. Science and faith are not exclusive.


He has been pretending to use logic since he started posting here. Him asserting that religion is more logical than science not only didn't surprise me, it didn't even phase me.

Edited, Apr 24th 2011 6:25pm by Belkira



Looks like Ive been out of the loop for a long time. I have ground to catch up on, it seems
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#94 Apr 24 2011 at 5:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
DSD wrote:
Looks like Ive been out of the loop for a long time. I have ground to catch up on, it seems
Let me make it easy on you. Think of anything, anything at all in a sane manner. Now, assume Alma stands for the exact opposite of that sane thought.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#95 Apr 24 2011 at 5:38 PM Rating: Good
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD wrote:
Looks like Ive been out of the loop for a long time. I have ground to catch up on, it seems
Let me make it easy on you. Think of anything, anything at all in a sane manner. Now, assume Alma stands for the exact opposite of that sane thought.


Sooo, kind of like Varus, only Alma really believes everything he says and isnt just spouting off for shock value?


That's really scary.



Also, I had no clue Alma was a guy. Nad had to fill me in on that.
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#96 Apr 24 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
Yes. And, if for any reason, you find yourself agreeing with a conclusion of his, odds are you've come to it for very different reasons.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#97 Apr 24 2011 at 6:24 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts

Bsphil wrote:
Why does there need to be an origin of the universe? Why can't it be infinite? Why can't the universe be self-evident if your god can? Why does the lack of understanding of a particular scientific topic necessitate a god be put in place as the answer?


1. I stated that was ONE reason.

2. This goes back to the argument of beliefs. You have a set of beliefs that satisfies your interests/questions/thoughts and I have a set of beliefs that satisfies mine. Your answers or possible answers do not satisfy me.

Nilitai wrote:
Why do you not understand that a singularity is not "nothing"? This is the same wilful ignorance of current understanding of Physics as you have in Biology.

Here when you say "something from nothing", you're either referring to 1) The big bang theory, or 2) abiogenesis. I'd like you to clarify which one, if you'd be so kind.


Whichever means that there once was nothing and then under some circumstances, something happened. Look, we've had this argument before. People have sourced "particles that come from nothing" and even in their source it states there must be certain conditions. There is no way around it. Something had to come from nothing, period. If you don't want to accept it, fine that's you, just don't come attacking me like I'm saying something wrong.

DSD wrote:
I have to ask, why is believing in God more logical than the ability for science to say "We don't have the answer yet."? Science is still brand new and we learn new things every day. Wouldnt it be more logical to acknowledge that we don't have the answers because we're still seeking, and will never stop?

In all seriousness, why is it that you feel that believing in a religion for a NOW answer (that also cannot be proven yet) is more logical than accepting that we as humanity do not yet know enough to provide one that would hold water?


Read above. At the end of the day, something came from nothing. I've been arguing since day one that science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive. So, no matter what *new* discovery science has come up with, it will not have a *true* beginning. So, while I don't necessarily deny scientific advancements, the beginning will always be God. Everything in the middle, I'll leave to the scientists to find out.

DSD wrote:
To say that science is less logical than religion... I just don't even know how to touch that one. Besides, who says you cannot follow both?


Read above. (my favorite phrase) If you have been paying attention, you would notice that I've been saying that they don't have to be mutually exclusive.

DSD wrote:
Again its the US Vs. Them mentality and it doesnt have to be that way. Science and faith are not exclusive.


You're so full of BS. People grilling me questions on why I believe what I believe instead of just accepting it and moving on is creating the "US Vs. Them mentality". You don't see me asking anyone why they DON'T believe in religion. What you are doing is accusing me of creating this mentality by simply defending myself. I was ASKED why I do what I do and I answered it. If you don't want the truth, then don't ask me. I didn't come here saying that religion is more logical than "we don't know yet, but I'm sure there's an answer that doesn't involve something coming from nothing".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#98 Apr 24 2011 at 6:25 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Carrying on a futile "debate" with Alma seems to be a right of passage around here. Joph even spent a few posts trying to have a logical discussion with him, before realizing that it was pointless.

Trust me, spare yourself the effort. He'll give you an aneurysm.

My hope is that eventually everyone will realize that, and ignore him. Then, with no one left to indulge him save gbaji, the two of them will carry on a 745 page thread on the definition of "definition", eventually simultaneously dying of carpal tunnel syndrome.

Edited, Apr 24th 2011 8:26pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#99 Apr 24 2011 at 6:29 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilitai wrote:
Why do you not understand that a singularity is not "nothing"? This is the same wilful ignorance of current understanding of Physics as you have in Biology.

Here when you say "something from nothing", you're either referring to 1) The big bang theory, or 2) abiogenesis. I'd like you to clarify which one, if you'd be so kind.


Whichever means that there once was nothing and then under some circumstances, something happened. Look, we've had this argument before. People have sourced "particles that come from nothing" and even in their source it states there must be certain conditions. There is no way around it. Something had to come from nothing, period. If you don't want to accept it, fine that's you, just don't come attacking me like I'm saying something wrong


You're going wrong by assuming something had to come from nothing. That's where you're saying something wrong.


In the beginning there was a singularity. Due to quantum fluctuations within this singularity it started to expand. As it expanded space expanded with it and entropy began to take effect. Entropy is what makes the arrow of time flow forwards. This is why time began when expansion started.

There's a lot of information about this now. Continually saying "something can't come from nothing" is an argument from ignorance, when the only person saying there was nothing is you. The only thing that had to come from nothing, was your notion of a supreme being. Why is it okay for that being to come from nothing?

Edited, Apr 24th 2011 8:30pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#100 Apr 24 2011 at 6:36 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Why does there need to be an origin of the universe? Why can't it be infinite? Why can't the universe be self-evident if your god can? Why does the lack of understanding of a particular scientific topic necessitate a god be put in place as the answer?
1. I stated that was ONE reason.

2. This goes back to the argument of beliefs. You have a set of beliefs that satisfies your interests/questions/thoughts and I have a set of beliefs that satisfies mine. Your answers or possible answers do not satisfy me.
What are the other reasons?

I'm not proposing answers, I'm proposing questions.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#101 Apr 24 2011 at 6:47 PM Rating: Good
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts
Quote:
What you are doing is accusing me of creating this mentality by simply defending myself


Nope! You defended yourself by using this mentality. Im just pointing it out in case you were ignorant on how you come across to others. Kind of like how we originally started this whole discussion ;)

____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 45 All times are in CST
Kastigir, Uglysasquatch, Anonymous Guests (43)