Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

#77 Apr 24 2011 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,454 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.


#78 Apr 24 2011 at 12:17 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#79 Apr 24 2011 at 1:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,454 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.


#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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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.
#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
*****
15,268 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
*****
14,454 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.


#92 Apr 24 2011 at 5:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 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
*****
14,454 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.


#94 Apr 24 2011 at 5:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 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.


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
*****
14,454 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.


#96 Apr 24 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 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.


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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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".
#98 Apr 24 2011 at 6:25 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 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
#99 Apr 24 2011 at 6:29 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 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
*****
14,454 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.


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 44 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (44)