-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
And Sir T - As for long posts - Pot meet Kettle
Yeah well, I actually say something. You on the other hand provide us with a long winded air sandwich that can be said in far fewer words(Which results in a little less air, but still no substance). My posts are technical in nature which requires an explainantion, yours is just long winded opinion pieces with absolutely no technical merit at all.
Quote:
Feanor
Yes you're right about compartmentalized beliefs. But I am not convinced that "truly" happens given the Sir T's analogies about Science or what equals the term "faith." He seems to think that if I can't see God I don't believe but I can't see "air" yet I have faith that it is there. Sight has nothing to do with it since the human eye is so bad. Surely if a designer made it I'd be able to see air. But it was never designed it evolved and it evolved into something it needs to be "which is good enough" for the purpose required.
If you cannot see the compartmentalization, then this is a confirmation that not only are you an idiot, but you are a blind one. If Bill can recongnize it and confirm's it is there, that is the only reasonable explaination - you DON"T WANT to see it.
As far as the human eye being so bad - not only do you not have a audio clue, but you have no clue how acute the eye really is. Your comment is ignorant, and not based on fact, which is par for the course for you.
Who gives a damn about convincing you of anything? You should know by now that I don't give a damn what you think. It really should be crystal clear.
Quote:
As an aside - I am not adamant on Atheism - if someone can prove to me that there is a Sky -God I'll be happy to pray. Atheists have open minds to new evidence that comes along. In a vacuum of evidence however we don't fill in life altering feel good stories to explain stuff.
Based on what I have read here, you are a adamant athiest. And what is worse, is you come here and insult and try and change my mind using the words of another man who is as fallible as I am.
How stupid is that?
I think the real reason why you are still here blowing out all of this hot air is because you weakly and ineffectively tried to goad me into religious arguement - and stupidly wanted me to analyze it using scientific methods, and I refused causing you to hurl your kidneys out of your nose and ears.
Pobre bebe', se siente frustrado y eso es una verguenza. Aqui es una toalla de pepel, limpia tu auto hasta.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Yeah well, I actually say something. You on the other hand provide us with a long winded air sandwich that can be said in far fewer words(Which results in a little less air, but still no substance). My posts are technical in nature which requires an explainantion, yours is just long winded opinion pieces with absolutely no technical merit at all.
Most of your windbag replies have nothing to do with practical experience - you remind me of a borderline Aspergers type who can't understand what people are actually talking about. Real world listening to real world albums versus technical comparisons of 1 recording done in isolation without providing specific information to allow anyone to verify (ie; peer review) your experience. No one cares.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
If you cannot see the compartmentalization, then this is a confirmation that not only are you an idiot, but you are a blind one. If Bill can recongnize it and confirm's it is there, that is the only reasonable explaination - you DON"T WANT to see it.
Again learn to read - yes you compartmentalize but your analogy was patently absurd. You separate science from religion but you liken science to a MERE faith as if it is on the same level as religion in that we put "faith" in technology, medicine, and that the earth will be here tomorrow. No one can possibly be stupid enough to buy into that. Compartmentalized minds can also merely indicate a borderline split personality. You've said several times that it's all 'mere man' which implies that science is "lower" in fact and evidence than faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
As far as the human eye being so bad - not only do you not have a audio clue, but you have no clue how acute the eye really is. Your comment is ignorant, and not based on fact, which is par for the course for you.
Again you're lack of science understanding is ASTOUNDING! The hack university you went to should revoke your degree.
I know you won't actually follow the link because you're too closed minded but how about listen to the world's BEST Biologist who Chairs Oxford University discussing the human eye. I know you're too much of an ego maniac to ever once on any topic EVER admit you're wrong - but the world's best biologist on the human Eye versus you (some "legend in his own mind" weenie who makes movies go boom boom real loud supporting a vacuous industry - LOL). Puhleeze!
Richard Dawkins on Eye Evolution - YouTube
The human eye is an example of why it would NOT be designed.
Incidentally, I have taught the very same simple blind spot experiment in the above link to grade 5 classes and at science fairs. No one walks away thinking the eye is any way shape or form perfect. And only an incompetent BOOB would design the human eye the way it's been designed. So either Evolution is true or God is an incompetent BOOB. And that's your ONLY choices. Let me guess, you're gonna compartmentalize that too.:mad2:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Most of your windbag replies have nothing to do with practical experience - you remind me of a borderline Aspergers type who can't understand what people are actually talking about. Real world listening to real world albums versus technical comparisons of 1 recording done in isolation without providing specific information to allow anyone to verify (ie; peer review) your experience. No one cares.
Can you tell me what good is practical experience when you don't even have a basic understanding of what you are experiencing. How could you peer review anything, you don't know jack $hit about anything except what you think sounds good. This is a prime example of that.
http://forums.audioreview.com/genera...ful-38462.html
Getting a headache off of basic digital audio 101? So you are all opinion, and no education.
Now let's tackle the practical experience slant.
http://forums.audioreview.com/favori...ter-37210.html
Can't write stuff like this without practical and educational experience can you stupid?
Quote:
Again learn to read - yes you compartmentalize but your analogy was patently absurd. You separate science from religion but you liken science to a MERE faith as if it is on the same level as religion in that we put "faith" in technology, medicine, and that the earth will be here tomorrow. No one can possibly be stupid enough to buy into that. Compartmentalized minds can also merely indicate a borderline split personality. You've said several times that it's all 'mere man' which implies that science is "lower" in fact and evidence than faith.
See this is where your emotions blind your stupid a$$. You have a bad habit of smushing things together because you CANNOT compartmentalize anything. A mere man has nothing to do with science, but the fallibility of THAT or ANY man. Then you turn to a semantic argument as faith is not a religious construct at all. It is a human construct. Faith is not strictly a religious concept. You can have faith in your spouse, in your kids judgement, that the universe isn't going to collapse around you tomorrow.
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.
There is a hairsbreadth of difference between "reasonable expectation" and faith. Using the term "reasonable expectation" is designed to distance yourself from anything related to religion, and based on the meaning of the word, it has both religious and non religious connotations.
Quote:
Again you're lack of science understanding is ASTOUNDING! The hack university you went to should revoke your degree.
Another stupid statement from a stupid person. Nobody can call USC a hack university, and I didn't go there to get a science degree stupid!
Quote:
I know you won't actually follow the link because you're too closed minded but how about listen to the world's BEST Biologist who Chairs Oxford University discussing the human eye. I know you're too much of an ego maniac to ever once on any topic EVER admit you're wrong - but the world's best biologist on the human Eye versus you (some "legend in his own mind" weenie who makes movies go boom boom real loud supporting a vacuous industry - LOL). Puhleeze!
Richard Dawkins on Eye Evolution - YouTube
The human eye is an example of why it would NOT be designed.
So you complain about being called names, and then you turn around and call names. HYPOCRITE, and a stupid one at that. This is not about the eyes, and you like to deflect to minor non topic stuff to make up for your lack on topic stuff. I have no interest in your link because the topic of this thread is not about the eyes.
Quote:
Incidentally, I have taught the very same simple blind spot experiment in the above link to grade 5 classes and at science fairs. No one walks away thinking the eye is any way shape or form perfect. And only an incompetent BOOB would design the human eye the way it's been designed. So either Evolution is true or God is an incompetent BOOB. And that's your ONLY choices. Let me guess, you're gonna compartmentalize that too.:mad2:
Who said the eyes were perfect? I didn't, and this is a prime example that you are so emotional about non emotional stuff, that you cannot even read what is on the page.
Why don't you open a new post so you can talk about the eyes. I sure in the hell am not going to talk about religion, and you stupid weak a$$ goading is not going to take me there.
So, you can take all of your comments and shove them straight up your stupid(to match the rest of you) a$$.
-
Man you are long winded saying nothing.
Once agauin you have it mostly wrong.
There is not a hairsbreath difference between faith (or reasonable expectation) in any of the things you just mentioned versus faith in God. People who have faith in God are 100% positive and KNOW FOR A FACT that God exists. Every single religious person I have ever met is 100% positive that God is there without question and without doubt.
No one has that same level of expectation of their buddy Joe meeting them at Starbucks at 6pm because he said so and is usually always on time. Science types will make the adjustments.
A person having Faith that flying themselves into buildings because it's the word of their God so they can go to heaven and get 72 virgins is just slightly different than me hiring Fred the accountant with the expectation and I suppose "faith" that Fred will turn the work in when he says he will. This usage of the term faith is not remotely the same as religious "Faith" and that is because if you ask me whether I am 100% sure Fred will absolutely without question and without doubt hand in the work when he says I will say No.
That's the key difference - doubt. I am reasonably sure I will wake up tomorrow but I am not 100% of this. A spider could come in and bite me - my heart could take a holiday a plane could crash into my apartment. I don't have absolute knowledge of future events.
The eye is an example to "test" the notion as to whether God is omnipotant. A perfect person/entity means that everything he/she/it does is perfect. They would never make mistakes in mathematics tests, they would throw a perfect game striking out every batter on 3 pitches, they would write perfectly and everything they design would be "perfect." Including the human eyeball and interface to the brain.
The human eye is often used by Christians to illustrate this "perfection of design" and used as "evidence" that God must be the creator. I genuinely apologise if you were unaware that the human eye is trotted out a "proof" of intelligent design on virtually every debate on religion. Perfection creates perfection. Now if we want to say God is not "perfect" well I could get on board somewhat - but the problem is the religious people don't accept or entertain the possibility. And then there is the Duck Billed Platipus!
We have been discussing religion - the eye discussion is pretty central to that. I understand I won't convince you not to have religious faith but I wonder why you are so loathe to even read about dissenting viewpoints. You started this entire thing attacking me for not believing in God and not to me but to Frenchmon. I know you like to keep attacking me calling me an idiot every post but I have presented sound loigic and scientific reasons and you've not once considered them - or even read anything on why people don;t believe and why it's not a real good reason to.
-
hey Sir Terrence the Terrible,
its not my fight and i'm not interested in making it mine, but i have to ask, what faith are you?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Man you are long winded saying nothing.
Once agauin you have it mostly wrong.
There is not a hairsbreath difference between faith (or reasonable expectation) in any of the things you just mentioned versus faith in God. People who have faith in God are 100% positive and KNOW FOR A FACT that God exists. Every single religious person I have ever met is 100% positive that God is there without question and without doubt.
If that is what they want to believe, then what business is that of yours? You are showing yourself to be a narrow minded judgemental prick. If you don't believe, and they do, then the discussion is over. There is no point in getting into a discussion on this issue when two polar opposites are involved. You are not going to change their minds, and they are not going to change yours - discussion over. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Faith is faith. Whether it is faith is science, or in religion. Scientist believe the universe was created by the big bang theory. My question to them is how do you know, where you there? Look at the second definition of faith I posted.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
No one has proof this is how the universe was created, it is a theory they happen to think is correct. Scientist have faith in that theory. What you don't seem to get is faith by definition has a pretty multifauceted meaning. But faith is faith nevertheless.
Quote:
No one has that same level of expectation of their buddy Joe meeting them at Starbucks at 6pm because he said so and is usually always on time. Science types will make the adjustments.
And so would anyone with any common sense.
Quote:
A person having Faith that flying themselves into buildings because it's the word of their God so they can go to heaven and get 72 virgins is just slightly different than me hiring Fred the accountant with the expectation and I suppose "faith" that Fred will turn the work in when he says he will. This usage of the term faith is not remotely the same as religious "Faith" and that is because if you ask me whether I am 100% sure Fred will absolutely without question and without doubt hand in the work when he says I will say No.
This is not called faith, it is fanaticism - big difference. And sorry, but you are talking about situational faith, but it is still faith. You are parsing the meaning, and the definition is pretty clear whether you like it or not.
Quote:
That's the key difference - doubt. I am reasonably sure I will wake up tomorrow but I am not 100% of this. A spider could come in and bite me - my heart could take a holiday a plane could crash into my apartment. I don't have absolute knowledge of future events.
This is faith no matter how you slice it. Once again, read the definition of faith that I posted. There is five pieces to it, not just one.
Quote:
The eye is an example to "test" the notion as to whether God is omnipotant. A perfect person/entity means that everything he/she/it does is perfect. They would never make mistakes in mathematics tests, they would throw a perfect game striking out every batter on 3 pitches, they would write perfectly and everything they design would be "perfect." Including the human eyeball and interface to the brain.
The human eye is often used by Christians to illustrate this "perfection of design" and used as "evidence" that God must be the creator. I genuinely apologise if you were unaware that the human eye is trotted out a "proof" of intelligent design on virtually every debate on religion. Perfection creates perfection. Now if we want to say God is not "perfect" well I could get on board somewhat - but the problem is the religious people don't accept or entertain the possibility. And then there is the Duck Billed Platipus!
Can you walk straight? Can you run straight? Can you drive straight? Can you see 7 million colors? Can you recognize black from white? Can you see a predator if it is not hidden? Can you aim? If all this is a yes, then the eyes that we come with serve their purpose. They do not have to be perfect for man to survive, so you point is just a mere sidetrack to the original context of this post.
We have been discussing religion - the eye discussion is pretty central to that.[/quote]
No it is not, and that is best illustrated by the fact it was not mentioned earlier in the discussion. You are just mudding the issue PERIOD.
Quote:
I understand I won't convince you not to have religious faith but I wonder why you are so loathe to even read about dissenting viewpoints.
Richard, what makes you think I have not already?. Do you know me personally? Have you ever lived with me? You are making an assumptions. Do you really believe this is the first time I have ever discussed this topic? If so, then you have a brain of a tsetse fly. I have had plenty of these discussion with athiests, and it goes nowhere....absolutely nowhere. This is why I will not bother with it, or waste my time - IT GOES NOWHERE.
Quote:
You started this entire thing attacking me for not believing in God and not to me but to Frenchmon. I know you like to keep attacking me calling me an idiot every post but I have presented sound loigic and scientific reasons and you've not once considered them - or even read anything on why people don;t believe and why it's not a real good reason to.
Read what I said again. I told Frenchmon he is wasting his time talking with you on this issue, and I am right about it. Frenchmon is a believer in God, you are not. So why should he waste his time talking with a brickwall on this issue. Richard, you are too damn emotional for your own good.
You presented some off topic science, and your personal opinion. That is it. If you think you have contributed sound logic, then you are a legend in your own mind. It is not sound logic to spend your time disparaging what you don't believe in. That is idiocracy - hence why you get called an idiot.
You are still making assumption. I have heard many reasons why people don't believe in God. I have also heard many reasons why people do, and it has nothing to do with them being weak and incapable of coping with life.
You make so many assumptions it is pitiful. You don't know me PERIOD, and logically you have to recognize this.
You are just another person with another opinion. Like a$$e$ we all have them. Somebody's 100% belief is just as valid as your 100% disbelief. You are not all knowing, and neither is science.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by dingus
hey Sir Terrence the Terrible,
its not my fight and i'm not interested in making it mine, but i have to ask, what faith are you?
With all due respect to you, this is my personal business, and I don't discuss this on a audio forum - even in the off topic section.
I hope you don't take this negatively, as that is not the spirit that I am delivering to you.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
If that is what they want to believe, then what business is that of yours?
Because what they "believe" impacts everyone and gets the likes of Bush elected. In other words people often die for their beliefs. If they want to die for them fine by me - but they also tend to take people with them. That's not judgment that's historical fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
You are showing yourself to be a narrow minded judgemental prick. If you don't believe, and they do, then the discussion is over. There is no point in getting into a discussion on this issue when two polar opposites are involved. You are not going to change their minds, and they are not going to change yours - discussion over. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Most Atheists began as Catholics, Christians etc. Just this past Sunday evening I met an "ex" Catholic. It would seem it is very possible to be a polar opposite and then come around to something when looked upon a different way. In your case and Frenchmon's etc that will never be the case - I get that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Faith is faith. Whether it is faith is science, or in religion. Scientist believe the universe was created by the big bang theory. My question to them is how do you know, where you there? Look at the second definition of faith I posted.
Faith is not faith. Scientific faith or "reasonable expectation" means that they are 100% willing to drop that placeholder theory when new evidence comes along and knocks it down. Religious faith is an entirely different animal. When confronted with 100% undeniable fact these people ignore it completely and believe whatever they want to believe. Which is fine by me but some country usually gets bombed because of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
Once again it is a questionable of reasonableness. For something to be held as significant theory in science it always has a tremendous amount of evidence (discovered through tests) to verify that it would be highly improbable and unlikely for the theory not to be true. That is different than saying "I have faith that it is true."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
No one has proof this is how the universe was created, it is a theory they happen to think is correct. Scientist have faith in that theory. What you don't seem to get is faith by definition has a pretty multifauceted meaning. But faith is faith nevertheless.
I have been the one telling you that faith means different things - you just said it is multifaceted and then say it's all the same. It's not. Religious Faith implies belief beyond any doubt (based on ZERO evidence, ZERO facts) - scientists do not say the Big Bang Theory is absolute. They have numerous tests in physics, astronomy, mathematics that heavily point to this theory(and variations of it) being true. I personally am not up on the Big Bang but I know that it wasn't without problems. Interestingly it was a Belgian Priest who first came out with the theory of the Big Bang. There is also a difference between the Big Bang Theory and the cause of it. Science doesn't even attempt to answer the latter. A religious person could argue (and has argued) that God snapped his fingers (that would be a helluva bang) and thus began the Universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
This is not called faith, it is fanaticism - big difference. And sorry, but you are talking about situational faith, but it is still faith. You are parsing the meaning, and the definition is pretty clear whether you like it or not.
I understand what you're saying - I am not lumping you in with people who go out shooting abortion doctors or blowing buildings up. But there are a lot of easily persuadable people out there who attend the Ted Haggert's and Jerry Falwell's of the world in football stadium sized numbers. People who send the "message" to lynch homosexuals or that Louisiana got what they deserved for being subversive etc. Sure the Westboro guys are written off as fanatical nuts (even buy Fox News) but Falwell is revered by them as a National Hero. And sure you and I may both agree that Fox is batcrap crazy but the last I checked they have the highest ratings for news in the U.S. So I am not sure you are in the majority. The fanatical parts of the religions seem to be in charge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Can you walk straight? Can you run straight? Can you drive straight? Can you see 7 million colors? Can you recognize black from white? Can you see a predator if it is not hidden? Can you aim? If all this is a yes, then the eyes that we come with serve their purpose. They do not have to be perfect for man to survive, so you point is just a mere sidetrack to the original context of this post.
The eye has "evolved" and adapted based on the needs of the animal's environment. As I said the eye is adequate for human purposes to ensure the survival of our species. But it suffers a host of unnecessary problems. Had a human top flight optical engineer sat down and was given the power to be all powerful and could create exactly what he wanted for the eye brain interface the human eye would laughed off the drawing board.
And that's just a man. If an all powerful being who is perfect in every way creates something his creation would be perfect. That means there would be no gross blind spots, there would be none of this 7 year olds having to wear glasses because they fail badly so soon. Or lousy night vision etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
No it is not, and that is best illustrated by the fact it was not mentioned earlier in the discussion. You are just mudding the issue PERIOD.
But it is because the argument is that there are no tests for a Perfect God. Using basic logic is not muddying the issue - it IS the issue. Now if you want to make the case that God is not perfect then that's something else entirely and yes the eye would not be central. God's not perfect and he made the eyeball at midnight on the 6th day and He was tired then great. Of course the problem then becomes - if he is not perfect and always right then it's possible he screwed up other things too. The slippery slop people don't want to go down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Richard, what makes you think I have not already?. Do you know me personally? Have you ever lived with me? You are making an assumptions. Do you really believe this is the first time I have ever discussed this topic?
Actually I didn't make an assumption and that's kind of the point. You did not provide one argument to me that you have made such arguments in the past. Nor did you say that you did. So I did not assume that you have been in big religious debates. Over the last say 7 years Richard Dawkins has been pretty outspoken on this subject and since you didn't seem to know who he was mixing him up with a Hawking a scientist in a completely different field" you gave me no indication whatsoever that you have been in these debates previously. It would have been erroneous of me based on this to assume that you had engaged in the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I have had plenty of these discussion with athiests, and it goes nowhere....absolutely nowhere. This is why I will not bother with it, or waste my time - IT GOES NOWHERE.
Fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Read what I said again. I told Frenchmon he is wasting his time talking with you on this issue, and I am right about it. Frenchmon is a believer in God, you are not. So why should he waste his time talking with a brickwall on this issue. Richard, you are too damn emotional for your own good.
I am not posting from emotion - I outlined logical problems with Sky-God belief systems. You choose to read and think and apply reason or you choose not to. You've told me your decision. No problems
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
You presented some off topic science, and your personal opinion. That is it. If you think you have contributed sound logic, then you are a legend in your own mind. It is not sound logic to spend your time disparaging what you don't believe in. That is idiocracy - hence why you get called an idiot.
It's called educating people to look at one thing versus another and understand why one thing makes more sense than another. One clearly does and the other clearly does not. Critical thinking on religion is uncomfortable and I can understand that reducing ignorance and increasing people's knowledge and increase their ability to examine and think for themselves is my day job. That doesn't stop when I walk out of the classroom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
You are still making assumption. I have heard many reasons why people don't believe in God. I have also heard many reasons why people do, and it has nothing to do with them being weak and incapable of coping with life.
Not at all - there is lots of money to be made in religion. You can indeed be very successful and cope quite well with religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
You are just another person with another opinion. Like a$$e$ we all have them. Somebody's 100% belief is just as valid as your 100% disbelief. You are not all knowing, and neither is science.
Science doesn't claim to be all knowing - Religious people however do claim to be all knowing - they KNOW God made the earth, is omnipotent and omniscient. They know what happens to them when they die, they know what will happen to RGA when he dies, they KNOW it absolutely.
-
1 Attachment(s)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
People who have faith in God are 100% positive and KNOW FOR A FACT that God exists. Every single religious person I have ever met is 100% positive that God is there without question and without doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir T
Faith is faith. Whether it is faith is science, or in religion. Scientist believe the universe was created by the big bang theory. My question to them is how do you know, where you there? Look at the second definition of faith I posted.
I'm so totally not qualified to step in here but that doesn't seem to deter me. Morning coffee in hand, it pains me to see Science set up in opposition to Faith. As a scientist and current agnostic, both the extremes (acknowledging that there's been many good moderate points of views) presented here just don't ring true for me.
I would define Faith as the acceptance of statements regarding unknowable aspects of how the world works as true. (I shy away from 'belief' in the unknowable because that implies the absence of doubt and I would say the majority of the Faithful still have doubt.)
I would define Science as the process of synthesizing a description of how the world works from careful observation.
Both are approaches to understanding the world and on the whole both are frequently misrepresented.
The Faithful rely on existing statements about how the world works. These are deemed true so long as they don't obviously conflict with the individuals experience of the world. When there is conflict Faithful folk tend to narrow the sphere of their faith. I think most people apply Faith reasonably to areas of moral guidance and the truly unknowable (what is the experience after death, e.g.) and the interaction of the two. Faithful tend to accept statements (that pertain to Faith) about how the world works as true, when they observe that the world works similar to their Faithful understanding, Faith is affirmed. When it doesn't…well, honestly I never really figured out for myself what the plan was here… so I don't know what the answer is. Apply more or less Faith, I suppose…or argue about it. Faith is a personal thing, the quality of which is defined by the person with the faith. Some, I'm sure define their faith as the ability to hold a belief in the face of conflicting evidence. Personally, I think the quality of Faith should be measured by how well it accommodates and incorporates the conflicting evidence of experience.
Scientists rely on careful observation. Careful observation involves creating various hypothesis about how the world should work, predicting what the evidence for or against this would look like, and then looking to see if that evidence exists. If not, start anew with a different hypothesis. Not every scientist is 100% effective, some are pretty bad at this. But scientists are aware that people are imperfect and tend to doubt everything until the evidence is solid enough to suggest the most reasonable synthesis of how the world works. Scientists always consider argument and doubt to be healthy, however painful personally. The quality of a concept of how the world works is determined by how well it holds up against every doubt, and every potential bit of counter observation that you can throw at it.
Anyway, I think it's silly to attack a persons Faith as being wrong. Faith is Faith and Faith is a personal experience. It's also silly to beat back Faith with Science. Science is a process and not a belief system. We expect a lot of science to be wrong before we get any universal rights. I have Faith in Science but a could never prove if that Faith was right or not. It's a lot easier to have blind faith than it is to intellectually challenge faith. It's also much much harder to do good science than it is to jump to conclusions.
People do good things and people do bad things, both in the name of science and in faith. Crusades & Eugenics vs Charity & Vaccines. People will do bad things regardless of what they believe or know, either because they are just evil or because they don't care about others as much as themselves.
Civil argument is always good. Its a lab for working out ideas and differences. I guess I can see why some would want to close the thread. But, the mods are reminding all to be civil and people are testing out arguments. That seems to me a better good.
-
An argument for more God...I think.
Craig’s Artisinal Pickles Philosophy
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
:lol: Wow! Dissing God! :nono: Tender feelings could be hurt and/or fatwahs issued.
I have noticed, though, that believers tend to feel that God should get all the praise but none of the blame.:devil: Wish I'd had it more like God during my career.
-
Funny article. It is interesting how believers think that they do nothing on their own and that all they do is God working through them.
But a non-believer gets thru the day all by themselves.
Another interesting observation is how I have never had an Atheist knock on my door to convert me but I have had many many Christian based, JWs, Mormons, and the likes try to convert me.
-
I didn't read the article either as an attack or a defense of God. It was just a humorous parody of Godlessness. For balance, I'll put in some plugs for God and the faithful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feonor
I have noticed, though, that believers tend to feel that God should get all the praise but none of the blame. Wish I'd had it more like God during my career.
Well, praise is really a form of thanks for blessings bestowed. From my Lutheran upbringings, my take on the doctrine is that we don't, on our own merits deserve blessings, so it's right to be thankful and praise God for the good in our lives. It's beyond man's ability to comprehend God or God's motives but not beyond us to be thankful for the good. When something 'bad' happens, well, its not in mankind's right to judge god, ergo you can't blame god. You can be angry with God, however. Lot's of examples of that.
Summary: I don't think there is any thing wrong with imbalance you point out. It's quite logical. Them's just the rules of Faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi
Funny article. It is interesting how believers think that they do nothing on their own and that all they do is God working through them.
But a non-believer gets thru the day all by themselves.
I'll disagree with this one too (except, I do think the article is funny). After all, "The Lord helps those who help themselves"
OK. That's not really anywhere in the bible. But it's pretty clear that there is no basis for a belief, along the lines of what Hyfi implies, that believers think they do nothing on their own. For example, there's second Thessalonians 3 verse 6-10
6*In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7*For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8*nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9*We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10*For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
Plus there are several Protestant faiths that consider good works part of the path to salvation. Lutheranism isn't one of those, however. Most faithful would concede that God works in mysterious ways, and the best one can do is pray that God works good through you. It's vanity to assume that you know God's plan and are implementing it. ...Unless you hear the voice of God in your head telling you so. Then you're either a prophet or crazy. I don't know who get's to make the call on 'prophet'.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
I'll disagree with this one too (except, I do think the article is funny). After all, "The Lord helps those who help themselves"
OK. That's not really anywhere in the bible. But it's pretty clear that there is no basis for a belief, along the lines of what Hyfi implies, that believers think they do nothing on their own. For example, there's second Thessalonians 3 verse 6-10
6*In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7*For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8*nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9*We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10*For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
Plus there are several Protestant faiths that consider good works part of the path to salvation. Lutheranism isn't one of those, however. Most faithful would concede that God works in mysterious ways, and the best one can do is pray that God works good through you. It's vanity to assume that you know God's plan and are implementing it. ...Unless you hear the voice of God in your head telling you so. Then you're either a prophet or crazy. I don't know who get's to make the call on 'prophet'.
I have been involved with many different churches over the years and most recently Calvary Chapel, a non-denomination church and what I wrote above is how they act and think. I realize my statement should not have been all encompassing.
The point I was trying to make is that without faith, I get thru the day where many believers think that God gets them thru the day.
Now, just maybe, God gets both the believers AND the non-believers thru the day OR, Both the believers and non-believers both get thru the day because God does not do anything for either because he does not exist or he just does not get down to the minute level of each individuals complete life.
Just remember, God answers all your prayers.
The answer is just usually NO
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by noddin0ff
...
Well, praise is really a form of thanks for blessings bestowed. From my Lutheran upbringings, my take on the doctrine is that we don't, on our own merits deserve blessings, so it's right to be thankful and praise God for the good in our lives. It's beyond man's ability to comprehend God or God's motives but not beyond us to be thankful for the good. When something 'bad' happens, well, its not in mankind's right to judge god, ergo you can't blame god. You can be angry with God, however. Lot's of examples of that.
Summary: I don't think there is any thing wrong with imbalance you point out. It's quite logical. Them's just the rules of Faith.
...
Yep, but it's these rule that bring faith into disrepute in my books.
BTW, you Lutheran take isn't much different than my Calvinist take ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westminster Confession of Faith
...
CHAPTER 6
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of
the Punishment thereof.
I. Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtily and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.
III. They being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation.
IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.
V. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.
VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Because what they "believe" impacts everyone...
...they are 100% willing to drop that placeholder theory when new evidence comes along and knocks it down. Religious faith is an entirely different animal.
For something to be held as significant theory in science it always has a tremendous amount of evidence (discovered through tests) to verify that it would be highly improbable and unlikely for the theory not to be true.
Faith implies belief beyond any doubt (based on ZERO evidence, ZERO facts)
... reducing ignorance and increasing people's knowledge and increase their ability to examine and think for themselves is my day job. That doesn't stop when I walk out of the classroom.
All well said!
You are completely correct in that science is constantly being revised, whether it be what we believe to be the beginning of creation, evolution, or any other area of science we choose. When Sir Isaac Newton discovered gravity it held strong until Einstein theorized that what we call gravity is actually a result of space curvature surrounding a mass. From this he also predicted that the passing of time for an object within a gravitational field is different relative to an observer outside that field. String-theory might possibly change our understanding of gravity in a much more profound way than Einstein's theory changed our understanding of Newton's discovery.
I find science infinitely more fascinating and wondrous than religion. We've only actually just begun discovering the realities of our existence and what we will know someday will make today's knowledge seem naive. Go back 200 years and try to describe the world that we live in today. People back then wouldn't be able to understand and would probably think you were crazy.
I used to not care whether someone believed in a religion but, as you said, it affects us all. Religion is two sided, it has it's good side, it's ugly side, it's good people, and it's evil people.
Ask a religious person why they believe and they will say that's the way they were raised. Ask them if they were raised in a different place where the religion was different, would they believe in the other religion. If they were to answer honestly, they would say yes. We spend our lives being programmed by religion, by government, and by our peers and are completely unaware that it is happening.
BTW, I enjoyed the Richard Dawkins link.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
...
You are completely correct in that science is constantly being revised, whether it be what we believe to be the beginning of creation, evolution, or any other area of science we choose. When Sir Isaac Newton discovered gravity it held strong until Einstein theorized that what we call gravity is actually a result of space curvature surrounding a mass. From this he also predicted that the passing of time for an object within a gravitational field is different relative to an observer outside that field. String-theory might possibly change our understanding of gravity in a much more profound way than Einstein's theory changed our understanding of Newton's discovery.
I find science infinitely more fascinating and wondrous than religion. We've only actually just begun discovering the realities of our existence and what we will know someday will make today's knowledge seem naive. Go back 200 years and try to describe the world that we live in today. People back then wouldn't be able to understand and would probably think you were crazy. ...
Proper science is fundamentally different from religion because it is a process that tests hypotheses and systematically discards or revises those the don't fine the empirical evidence -- this is the antithesis of religious faith.
However among naive people there is such a thing as "scientism", i.e. the faith that science has all the answers right now. But proper science is a process, not body of knowledge. By it's nature science will never have all the answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
...
I used to not care whether someone believed in a religion but, as you said, it affects us all. Religion is two sided, it has it's good side, it's ugly side, it's good people, and it's evil people.
...
When you bring it up with religionists all the harm done in the name of religion, they respond that the evil doers are misguided and not proper representatives of the faith: yeah well.
But like Jesus said, "You will know the tree by the fruit it bears". Religion has born a lot of evil.
-
I am at a loss as to why so many who do not believe in religion would come here bashing it. Why waste your time discussing something you don't believe in? Surely folks have better things to do than to discuss a god they don't believe in.
I guess some do have an agenda to make themselves better than others here. Maybe it makes some feel better that they don't believe in jack, than respect those that believe in something.
Folks around here are not quite as tolerant as I thought. Respect begats respect, and no respect begats no respect. This is why I have lost respect for some folks(and profoundly for some as well). This kind of topic should never be discussed on a public forum.
Whatever pleasure some are looking for(at the cost of some respect for others), I hope they have found it.
-
2 Attachment(s)
Sir T - perhaps I got off track a little for the "debate's sake" rather than staying on point. I truly and honestly don't care or mind if someone believes in God or is a religious person. I only mind when their beliefs affects me. I am quite sure you would be very upset if you lived in a world run by Jehovah Witnesses and your wife or one of your kids needed a blood transfusion to live but the government said no because under Jehovah Law they've been banned. That is truly and only the thing that bothers me about religion. So long as people pray in peace and leave me out of it and don't enact any law whatsoever that is formed in ANY WAY based on Bible verse then I have no complaints.
But unfortunately, there are SO MANY laws in the U.S. alone that run directly counter to the notion of "the separation of church and state.
One example. I have no problem with suicide. If I am 80 years old and suffering in agonizing pain I want to be allowed to be put out of my misery. Nope - sorry not allowed. Why? religious belief that suicide will send me to hell. Doesn't matter if I don;t believe in hell - doesn't matter that the world is overpopulated and I'd be doing the environment a big favor - it is illegal because of religious voodoo belief. Sure doctors do it under the umbrella of pain management but they dictate what is "pain" and what isn't. Alzheimers is a pain of indignity and basically I want to decide my own fate not some other person who feels he has to run MY LIFE because he believes in whatever he believes in. I won't tell that guy to commit suicide and if he wants to suffer horrific cancer pains for 2 years that's fine by me.
It goes to virtually all of the "liberal" issues I mentioned earlier - woman's body her choice. But many religions basically put women on the same level as cattle. (how else do we explain why it took so long for them to get the vote?) And that's the supposed "good" religions like Christianity and Catholics. The Taliban just shot a 14 year old girl in the face - for wanting to be educated.
Virtually every human rights policy that succeeds is brought about by secular society or what I termed as soft religious people -
Joe Biden (a religious guy who is not a crackpot and understands that what he believes others don't) versus Ryan (a nut that would put me in a gas chamber if he had any real power)
-
RGA -
Actually religions effect goes much deeper than direct influence on those that don't believe. I met a guy from Ireland that was visiting the U.S. and he made the comment that he felt so much more relaxed here in the United States. His reason was that in his native country, if you didn't follow the prevailing religion where you lived, people would frown upon and avoid you. Apparently this had an effect on this person mental state of being. I also know a person from Iran than shared the same viewpoint.
Even in the U.S. it was this way many years back. If you were atheist you never mentioned it for the same reasons that I mentioned above.
Fortunately this is changing.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I am at a loss as to why so many who do not believe in religion would come here bashing it. Why waste your time discussing something you don't believe in? Surely folks have better things to do than to discuss a god they don't believe in. ...
That's ironic, eh? But the answer is obvious: religions belief affect the non-religious -- and the religious of different beliefs -- in ways they'd rather not be affected.
When religionists insist that they should just be left alone with their beliefs regardless of the consequences of those beliefs, it a form of "special pleading", i.e. a logical fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
...
I guess some do have an agenda to make themselves better than others here. Maybe it makes some feel better that they don't believe in jack, than respect those that believe in something.
...
As a religious non-believer, I resent the insinuation that I "don't believe in jack". There a few things that I certainly believe in. One is the right to human dignity; an other is philosophical skepticism.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I am at a loss as to why so many who do not believe in religion would come here bashing it. Why waste your time discussing something you don't believe in? Surely folks have better things to do than to discuss a god they don't believe in.
I guess some do have an agenda to make themselves better than others here. Maybe it makes some feel better that they don't believe in jack, than respect those that believe in something.
Folks around here are not quite as tolerant as I thought. Respect begats respect, and no respect begats no respect. This is why I have lost respect for some folks(and profoundly for some as well). This kind of topic should never be discussed on a public forum.
Whatever pleasure some are looking for(at the cost of some respect for others), I hope they have found it.
Thought, discussion, scientific facts among other things help a person grow and be more open minded and not rigid with a single set of beliefs. I learn from these discussions whether it changes my mind about things or not.
And I am surprised you participated at all in this whole thread after posting this. You must have enjoyed it as much as the others or you would have just passed it by. You had every opportunity to just not respond.
Politics should also not be discussed on a public forum either since your politics are directly correlated to your religious beliefs, or lack of.
Like RGA stated, the Bushwacker took our country and others to war because God influenced him to. That says it all as to why religious beliefs should be totally kept out of political decisions.
Not believing does not make anyone feel better than the next guy but I have surely been treated the opposite way at times.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi
...
Not believing does not make anyone feel better than the next guy but I have surely been treated the opposite way at times.
High-5, Hyfi. So true
Being a non-believer one tends to feel that life has no "higher" purpose, that there is no one "up there" to help you, etc. Your main consolation is that you aren't in indulging in self-delusion.
On the other hand I've observed religionists not only "feeling better" about themselves, but mock and condemning those who don't believe as they do.
But let's allow that Sir T is liberal religionist, and by that token that there is a wide range of tolerance capacity among religionists of all religions.
-
In the U.S there are pockets where Atheists are outright attacked and killed for "not believing" in God.
Evolution is a fact and yet it has been continuously attacked by people who have never read anything on the subject, don't understand it when they do read it.
Even with my two pictures above even Biden mentions the bit of not going against the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court which is supposed to be unbiased and supposed to separate Church and State virtually always split right along political and religious lines. Of course there is no separation - how can you separate your beliefs that are part of who you are with that of public policy?
Take this U.S congressman Rep. Broun: Evolution, Embryology, Big Bang Theory Are "Lies Straight From The Pit Of Hell" - YouTube
This man is saying loud and clear that he has absolutely no intention to separate church from state. Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.
I can take public policy disagreement over abortion for example. You can make plenty of pro-life arguments that resonate and same for capital punishment and ultimately - the majority rules. (if it is actual number of votes and not votes based on regions having more sway than other reasons even with less people).
If we're going to pretend we live in a "free" society then it should mean you are free to make any choices you want so long as thy don't hurt others. You want to smoke a plant in your house be my guest - has nothing to do with me. You want to advocate against people smoking pot fine but use credible arguments and don't be a hypocrite - Pot's bad but smoking and alcohol are fine? I don't smoke either and rarely drink but just because I don't do it I just feel it's hypocritical - alcohol makes you do crazy stuff and smoking causes cancer - most people who drink also smoke. Pot is just like combining the two except the net results is they're less violent and tend to eat cookies. That helps the economy and Oreo Corporation and potato chip companies everywhere.
And personally speaking I would love there to be a God - I wish so bad that there is one. I would love to see my dad again - And I really get why people are drawn to religions that promise just that and that your next life will be better than this one etc. The idea of immortality is also an exciting prospect. Humans have such massive egos that we are more special than a fish. Everything revolves around us and we are the chosen ones. My Mormon friend claims that how you do in this world determines what level of "God" you get to be in the next life or some such tiered level of goodness. Follow our religion and you get 72 virgins, follow our religion and you'll get to BE a God, follow our religion and go to Heaven a sea of the penultimate levels of happiness, joy, and pleasure.
What's common to all is that you need to hand over a credit card.
I so wish I could suspend my disbelief the way I can when I watch a play or a great film. Dream worlds are often far more exciting and wonderful than real life. The mind is such a creative and intricate device - it can create and imagine and hope. That pesky Vulcan logic comes into play however to ensure we stay grounded in reality and accept some hard truths. Like every other animal we're here to live, spawn, and die. And in the blink of a universal eye we'll be snuffed out of existence like Dino.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi
Thought, discussion, scientific facts among other things help a person grow and be more open minded and not rigid with a single set of beliefs. I learn from these discussions whether it changes my mind about things or not.
This may apply to you, but does it really apply to others. This is not thought or discussion, this is an outright bashing and disrespect of somebody's beliefs.
Quote:
And I am surprised you participated at all in this whole thread after posting this. You must have enjoyed it as much as the others or you would have just passed it by. You had every opportunity to just not respond.
I was enjoying it until it got to religion and God bashing. And please, don't make excuses for disrespecting others beliefs. That kind of deflection is disingenuous at best.
Quote:
Politics should also not be discussed on a public forum either since your politics are directly correlated to your religious beliefs, or lack of.
I agree.
Quote:
Like RGA stated, the Bushwacker took our country and others to war because God influenced him to. That says it all as to why religious beliefs should be totally kept out of political decisions.
So this one person decision makes religion and God bad. How does anyone know God told him anything, folks lie about that all the time. His actions do not give you carte blanche to disrespect all christians and their beliefs
Quote:
Not believing does not make anyone feel better than the next guy but I have surely been treated the opposite way at times.
So you let how you were treated by a few mislead christians allow you to disrespect other christians who mean you no harm to you at all.
Don't complain about how you are treated if you are going to turn around and disrespect others beliefs. That is kind of hypocritical don't you think?.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
That's ironic, eh? But the answer is obvious: religions belief affect the non-religious -- and the religious of different beliefs -- in ways they'd rather not be affected.
When religionists insist that they should just be left alone with their beliefs regardless of the consequences of those beliefs, it a form of "special pleading", i.e. a logical fallacy.
As a religious non-believer, I resent the insinuation that I "don't believe in jack". There a few things that I certainly believe in. One is the right to human dignity; an other is philosophical skepticism.
None of this is an open door for the kind of disrespect you have shown here.
I am really disappointed.......
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
None of this is an open door for the kind of disrespect you have shown here.
I am really disappointed.......
Don't be sanctimonious. We couldn't begin to count the times you've called various people, "liar", for example.
Is possible to respect the person but not respect some of his/her beliefs? Yes, it is.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Don't be sanctimonious. We couldn't begin to count the times you've called various people, "liar", for example.
Is possible to respect the person but not respect some of his/her beliefs? Yes, it is.
No, in some cases the two are intertwinded.
I do not call anyone a liar unless they keep on repeating a myth over and over again.
You have no context to this comment. I would never call anyone a liar based on their religious beliefs, but their audio and video knowledge is another story.
I know you understand compartmentalization. There are some things that are free to be discussed, and things that are wise to be discussed. You are showing a profound lack of wisdom in favor of your right, and it is insulting others with your freedom. So don't give me your sactimonious BS, it has nothing to do with that.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Pot is just like combining the two except the net results is they're less violent and tend to eat cookies. That helps the economy and Oreo Corporation and potato chip companies everywhere.
LOL...I surprised that the cookie companies aren't on the legalize pot bandwagon!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
...
I know you understand compartmentalization. There are some things that are free to be discussed, and things that are wise to be discussed. You are showing a profound lack of wisdom in favor of your right, and it is insulting others with your freedom. So don't give me your sactimonious BS, it has nothing to do with that.
The ability to compartmentalized is a good thing in an individual and you have this capability -- in this case it's a matter of keeping personal religious belief out of the real world.
What I do objective is the "special pleading" with respect to personal religious belief that it must be excluded from criticism and debate. Here, Off Topic we discuss many things, including politics for example: why not philosophical/religious issues?
Let the moderators exclude religion and I will observe that rule; they haven't -- it isn't taboo. If don't want your feelings hurt, stay away from the discussions; don't come in and castigate those participating. As Truman said, "If you can't take heat, get out of the kitchen".
When I was young I often heard advice from my mother and others, "Never discuss religion or politics". Good advice if you aren't ever willing to risk giving offend, (or are selling a used car).
Earlier I suggested that this thread be closed: that suggestion still stands.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
The ability to compartmentalized is a good thing in an individual and you have this capability -- in this case it's a matter of keeping personal religious belief out of the real world.
What I do objective is the "special pleading" with respect to personal religious belief that it must be excluded from criticism and debate. Here, Off Topic we discuss many things, including politics for example: why not philosophical/religious issues?
Let the moderators exclude religion and I will observe that rule; they haven't -- it isn't taboo. If don't want your feelings hurt, stay away from the discussions; don't come in and castigate those participating. As Truman said, "If you can't take heat, get out of the kitchen".
When I was young I often heard advice from my mother and others, "Never discuss religion or politics". Good advice if you aren't ever willing to risk giving offend, (or are selling a used car).
Earlier I suggested that this thread be closed: that suggestion still stands.
You should have listened to your mother before it costs you a friend. In the future, I will be sure to disrespect your beliefs as profoundly as you have disrespected mine.
-
Arggg! Sir T asking for respect when he is one of the most disrespectful people I have encountered.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
You should have listened to your mother before it costs you a friend. In the future, I will be sure to disrespect your beliefs as profoundly as you have disrespected mine.
Feel free.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Feel free.
Trust me when I say I do.........
-
Well the nice thing about this thread is that in about 22 days it will disappear and then everyone can go back to criticizing the gear choices of others......... :D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
Arggg! Sir T asking for respect when he is one of the most disrespectful people I have encountered.
It is interesting that stupid $hit has the same first letters as your moniker.So you think your comments have affordorded the high road. Well I guess if the curb was you high road, then you have met your standards.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Trust me when I say I do.........
I can take a lot of heat without wilting ...
On the other hand, you, I, and various other people here would do well to emulate that relentlessly gracious & gentlemanly, some-time member, Bernd.
-
I am still unsure why asking why and how people can believe certain stories with absolutely no proof they ever happened or happened the way they are told or if we are supposed to believe them word for word or that they mean something else......is disrespecting someone's religion. We don't even know what religion the complainer is anyway.
I never said anyone was wrong for believing, I just question how and ask for an explanation of how certain stories could have ever happened the way they were written.
I never told anyone they should not have faith and believe whatever they think they need to believe.
So how having a discussion, asking for real answers to questions, and pointing out flaws in the theory is disrespecting ones religion eludes me.
And why do Christians think their religion is the only right one? That disrespects ALL other religions.
All religions are just different pathways to the same end, a glorious afterlife or whatever one chooses to believe.
Buddha allegedly said many of the same things Jesus allegedly said but many years before Jesus was born. Many other religions existed before Christianity so why are they all wrong and only Christians are now right?
And as for reverse disrespect, go back and read many of Mark's entries back to Feanor, RGA and myself. We have been totally disrespected for not believing what he believes. But that is OK I guess.
Yeah, I went too far and called Mark (and myself for that matter) an inbred. He pushed my buttons. I will try not to let that happen again.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi
I am still unsure why asking why and how people can believe certain stories with absolutely no proof they ever happened or happened the way they are told or if we are supposed to believe them word for word or that they mean something else......is disrespecting someone's religion. We don't even know what religion the complainer is anyway.
....
This was certainly my question too. In fact I heard many religious people object to this questioning. When they are people who insist on objective information & reasoning in all other areas, it strikes me as a "special pleading" for religion. Does religion deserve this privilege? They say 'yes'; I say 'no'.
BTW, I meant no personal disrespect to the most recent complainer but, typical of these special pleaders, he chose to take insult from my purely intellectual position.
|