[Message Deleted]
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
But isn't "hypocritical man" a more appropriate term in this instance than "religious man"?
Given that the religious people in question* are hypocrites, I don't see the difference. :confused: Besides, it is religious folk who go to said places of worship. * I'm talking about the example given above. I certainly don't intend to say all religious people are hypocrites.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Déjà moo - The feeling that you've seen this bull before. Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybob -
Fred_Smith wrote:
I think it's about time we stopped being so bloody polite about them, and tell it like it is: There is no God, get over it.
A preacher can stand in the street and tell people they are going to hell unless they believe and it is religious freedom, but if someone stands in the same street and tells people not to believe in a god then it is religious supression. We need to get over that first.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
but if someone stands in the same street and tells people not to believe in a god then it is religious supression.
Do you actually believe this? Give me a break.
Ian
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
When I became a man, I put away childish things
But not your childish beliefs, that's the point. If religion was just of historic value, I'd probably find it quite interesting. I can study and meditate on the nature of life, the universe and everything too - I just resent your (you know...you lot!), your insistence that without the guiding Word of your God my meditations are meaningless. Personally, I think they are more worthwhile than yours, because I try to base them on the world we live in today, a world that has changed and evolved over the centuries, unlike most if not all religions which base their tenets on an unchanging, constant "Word". I'm sorry, I have nothing, absolutely nothing, good to say about any religious belief. More than that, I think it's about time we stopped being so bloody polite about them, and tell it like it is: There is no God, get over it. Fred
The Grand Negus wrote:
"Take away the supernatural, and what remains is the unnatural." - G K Chesterton
What a load of gibberish...
Fred_Smith wrote:
I just resent your (you know...you lot!), your insistence that without the guiding Word of your God my meditations are meaningless
Fred_Smith wrote:
Personally, I think they are more worthwhile than yours
Interesting. So you are guilty of exactly what you resent Negus for.
Ian
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
What a load of gibberish...
Indeed. To begin with, the supernatural is by definition unnatural. So if you remove the supernatural, and you've got left is the unnatural, you didn't have anything natural to begin with! And if that is the case, then both supernatural and unnatural lose their meaning. But as is the case with anything religious - it's complete gibberish, because it has no solid foundation in reason and logic.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
There are people with much higher IQs than you that believe in God. And of course there are people with much higher IQs than you who don't. So let's stop pretending it's an intelligence test, shall we? If it were, all intelligent people would feel the same way about it. But of course they don't. The idea of God is firmly rooted in logic and reasoning. That's not to say his existence has been (or could be) scientifically proven or that every logical mind must necessarily believe in God. But for many who do believe in God, their conclusions are logically sound. Your position that God absolutely does not exist is not, however, founded in reason and logic. You have adopted and axiom that God does not exist and all of your thinking is colored by your bias.
Ian
-
There are people with much higher IQs than you that believe in God. And of course there are people with much higher IQs than you who don't. So let's stop pretending it's an intelligence test, shall we? If it were, all intelligent people would feel the same way about it. But of course they don't. The idea of God is firmly rooted in logic and reasoning. That's not to say his existence has been (or could be) scientifically proven or that every logical mind must necessarily believe in God. But for many who do believe in God, their conclusions are logically sound. Your position that God absolutely does not exist is not, however, founded in reason and logic. You have adopted and axiom that God does not exist and all of your thinking is colored by your bias.
Ian
ibowler wrote:
You have adopted and axiom that God does not exist and all of your thinking is colored by your bias.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
There are people with much higher IQs than you that believe in God. And of course there are people with much higher IQs than you who don't. So let's stop pretending it's an intelligence test, shall we? If it were, all intelligent people would feel the same way about it. But of course they don't. The idea of God is firmly rooted in logic and reasoning. That's not to say his existence has been (or could be) scientifically proven or that every logical mind must necessarily believe in God. But for many who do believe in God, their conclusions are logically sound. Your position that God absolutely does not exist is not, however, founded in reason and logic. You have adopted and axiom that God does not exist and all of your thinking is colored by your bias.
Ian
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
I just resent your (you know...you lot!), your insistence that without the guiding Word of your God my meditations are meaningless
Fred_Smith wrote:
Personally, I think they are more worthwhile than yours
Interesting. So you are guilty of exactly what you resent Negus for.
Ian
-
I needed to post a question on a forum from work and I couldn't remember my user info so I set up a different account. So when I'm at work, I'm edmundisme and when I'm home I'm ibowler.
Ian
-
I needed to post a question on a forum from work and I couldn't remember my user info so I set up a different account. So when I'm at work, I'm edmundisme and when I'm home I'm ibowler.
Ian
-
So i take it your employer doesn't mind you evangelizing on work hours?
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
My employer expects me to get my work done on schedule and doesn't micro-manage.
Ian
-
http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/883/youarefullofshittoiletpy6.jpg[^]
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
Hmmm... I don't think I'll click on a link that ends in youarefullofshittoiletpy6.jpg but thanks for playing! So, you think I'm full of shit with my comments? Do you care to elaborate? Fred basically said he resented Negus for thinking his meditations were of more value than Fred's. Fred then goes on to say that he (Fred) thinks his meditations are better than Negus'. I merely pointed out that Fred was guilty of the same thing he accused Negus of. Do you have an actual rebuttal?
Ian
-
Hmmm... I don't think I'll click on a link that ends in youarefullofshittoiletpy6.jpg but thanks for playing! So, you think I'm full of shit with my comments? Do you care to elaborate? Fred basically said he resented Negus for thinking his meditations were of more value than Fred's. Fred then goes on to say that he (Fred) thinks his meditations are better than Negus'. I merely pointed out that Fred was guilty of the same thing he accused Negus of. Do you have an actual rebuttal?
Ian
Yes I think you are full of shit, and here is why. All your comments sound the same, you either refute what someone says without giving any explanation, say that extremists are not really christians, or say that believing in God does not make you unintelligent.
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
-
Hmmm... I don't think I'll click on a link that ends in youarefullofshittoiletpy6.jpg but thanks for playing! So, you think I'm full of shit with my comments? Do you care to elaborate? Fred basically said he resented Negus for thinking his meditations were of more value than Fred's. Fred then goes on to say that he (Fred) thinks his meditations are better than Negus'. I merely pointed out that Fred was guilty of the same thing he accused Negus of. Do you have an actual rebuttal?
Ian
I really ought to know better by now, and not start these things, but sometimes I just can’t resist…. Trouble is, after a while I just get frustrated at the mind-boggling sophistry you religious lot employ; it is impossible to have the reasonable argument you are so good at pretending to engage in, because your whole belief system is not based on reason. It simply isn’t. Somewhere in the past you (your church, your prophets, you yourselves, whatever) have gone from thinking something into believing into knowing it, without even realising you have slipped from the one state into the next. Anyway, to get to your point: the Christian church(es – all of them as far as I can make out) insist that without a religious dimension there can be no moral meaning to our lives. All I’m saying is I disagree, and more than that, think a changing secular morality is better than one based on an immutable lie. If you want to console yourself with thinking that makes me as guilty as those I argue against, go right ahead. I’m still right.
-
I really ought to know better by now, and not start these things, but sometimes I just can’t resist…. Trouble is, after a while I just get frustrated at the mind-boggling sophistry you religious lot employ; it is impossible to have the reasonable argument you are so good at pretending to engage in, because your whole belief system is not based on reason. It simply isn’t. Somewhere in the past you (your church, your prophets, you yourselves, whatever) have gone from thinking something into believing into knowing it, without even realising you have slipped from the one state into the next. Anyway, to get to your point: the Christian church(es – all of them as far as I can make out) insist that without a religious dimension there can be no moral meaning to our lives. All I’m saying is I disagree, and more than that, think a changing secular morality is better than one based on an immutable lie. If you want to console yourself with thinking that makes me as guilty as those I argue against, go right ahead. I’m still right.
Fred_Smith wrote:
Trouble is, after a while I just get frustrated at the mind-boggling sophistry you religious lot employ
You are obligated to back up a statement like this. Point out to me the fallacy of Christianity.
Fred_Smith wrote:
your whole belief system is not based on reason
C.S. Lewis was a logician. He was also an athiest. His reasoning eventually led him to believe in God. Don't assume that all who believe in God have accepted it on blind faith and have abandoned reason. This is simply not the case.
Fred_Smith wrote:
a changing secular morality is better
Only if it is making progress towards a better morality though, right? And what is this standard of morality towards which we are moving?
Ian
-
Yes I think you are full of shit, and here is why. All your comments sound the same, you either refute what someone says without giving any explanation, say that extremists are not really christians, or say that believing in God does not make you unintelligent.
Think for yourself, free from his lies, trample the cross and smash Jesus Christ. - Deicide
First of all, it is a fallacy to suggest that I am full of shit because my comments are all the same. Secondly, please give me a link to where I have refuted someone without giving an explanation. Finally, the reason all my comments tend to sound the same to you, is that so many of your posts are an attempt to use fringe examples to make Christians appear stupid.
Ian
-
There are people with much higher IQs than you that believe in God. And of course there are people with much higher IQs than you who don't. So let's stop pretending it's an intelligence test, shall we? If it were, all intelligent people would feel the same way about it. But of course they don't. The idea of God is firmly rooted in logic and reasoning. That's not to say his existence has been (or could be) scientifically proven or that every logical mind must necessarily believe in God. But for many who do believe in God, their conclusions are logically sound. Your position that God absolutely does not exist is not, however, founded in reason and logic. You have adopted and axiom that God does not exist and all of your thinking is colored by your bias.
Ian
ibowler wrote:
If it were, all intelligent people would feel the same way about it.
This is a false assumption. Intelligent people can look at the same body of information and still come to different conclusions about it - and the really interesting part is that they can both be right. This is one of the important lessons I have taken from my philosophy classes - and it MUST be the starting point for any intelligent discussion or debate. That said...
ibowler wrote:
The idea of God is firmly rooted in logic and reasoning.... But for many who do believe in God, their conclusions are logically sound.
No it isn't, and it doesn't have to be. This is one of the biggest mistakes that believers make - trying to shoehorn your belief into a logical framework you think will make it more palatable to people you already suspect aren't going to believe in God anyway. And it's a mistake because if you try to defend God as a question of logic, you're always going to lose. It is also beside the point. Believing in God as a matter of faith is perfectly acceptable and needs no further explanation - faith and belief in a 'higher power' is a very common and very fundamental part of the human experience for approximately 96.5% of the human race. Such belief provides commonality and agreement where there may otherwise be none - that can't be a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. THAT is the purpose of your belief, because it gives you something you have not found (or believe you cannot find) anywhere else. Whether that is logical is irrelevant.
Cheers,
Patrick
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-
ibowler wrote:
If it were, all intelligent people would feel the same way about it.
This is a false assumption. Intelligent people can look at the same body of information and still come to different conclusions about it - and the really interesting part is that they can both be right. This is one of the important lessons I have taken from my philosophy classes - and it MUST be the starting point for any intelligent discussion or debate. That said...
ibowler wrote:
The idea of God is firmly rooted in logic and reasoning.... But for many who do believe in God, their conclusions are logically sound.
No it isn't, and it doesn't have to be. This is one of the biggest mistakes that believers make - trying to shoehorn your belief into a logical framework you think will make it more palatable to people you already suspect aren't going to believe in God anyway. And it's a mistake because if you try to defend God as a question of logic, you're always going to lose. It is also beside the point. Believing in God as a matter of faith is perfectly acceptable and needs no further explanation - faith and belief in a 'higher power' is a very common and very fundamental part of the human experience for approximately 96.5% of the human race. Such belief provides commonality and agreement where there may otherwise be none - that can't be a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. THAT is the purpose of your belief, because it gives you something you have not found (or believe you cannot find) anywhere else. Whether that is logical is irrelevant.
Cheers,
Patrick
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Someone who argues that theism is rooted in logic and reasoning, does not deserve a reasonable response! Don't waste your time ;)
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
ibowler wrote:
If it were, all intelligent people would feel the same way about it.
This is a false assumption. Intelligent people can look at the same body of information and still come to different conclusions about it - and the really interesting part is that they can both be right. This is one of the important lessons I have taken from my philosophy classes - and it MUST be the starting point for any intelligent discussion or debate. That said...
ibowler wrote:
The idea of God is firmly rooted in logic and reasoning.... But for many who do believe in God, their conclusions are logically sound.
No it isn't, and it doesn't have to be. This is one of the biggest mistakes that believers make - trying to shoehorn your belief into a logical framework you think will make it more palatable to people you already suspect aren't going to believe in God anyway. And it's a mistake because if you try to defend God as a question of logic, you're always going to lose. It is also beside the point. Believing in God as a matter of faith is perfectly acceptable and needs no further explanation - faith and belief in a 'higher power' is a very common and very fundamental part of the human experience for approximately 96.5% of the human race. Such belief provides commonality and agreement where there may otherwise be none - that can't be a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. THAT is the purpose of your belief, because it gives you something you have not found (or believe you cannot find) anywhere else. Whether that is logical is irrelevant.
Cheers,
Patrick
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Patrick Sears wrote:
This is a false assumption. Intelligent people can look at the same body of information and still come to different conclusions about it - and the really interesting part is that they can both be right. This is one of the important lessons I have taken from my philosophy classes - and it MUST be the starting point for any intelligent discussion or debate.
That is precisely my point. String likes to suggest that belief in God is stupid. My point is that people smarter than all of us can be found on both sides of this issue and therefore belief in God is not a matter of intelligence.
Patrick Sears wrote:
No it isn't
You're wrong about this. Those who believe in God, don't trade reason for belief. The idea of God may not agree with modern science, but it agrees with logic (the logic may not prove his existence, but his existence is logically supportable. Read by C.S. Lewis. He takes a reasoned approach to his belief in God).
Patrick Sears wrote:
Such belief provides commonality and agreement where there may otherwise be none - that can't be a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. THAT is the purpose of your belief
Commonality is not the purpose for my belief. What is your purpose for you belief that 2+2=4? It's not commonality. You believe it because you believe it. Purpose has nothing to do with it. One of the reasons I believe in God is because He is the most reasonable explanation for my existence. This is my belief. I have reasoned it out. You may think my reasoning is faulty, but faulty reason and no reason are not the same thing.
Ian
-
Someone who argues that theism is rooted in logic and reasoning, does not deserve a reasonable response! Don't waste your time ;)
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
You're simply wrong about that. You may not agree with the conclusions, but that does not mean logic and reasoning weren't used to reach them.
Ian
-
Someone who argues that theism is rooted in logic and reasoning, does not deserve a reasonable response! Don't waste your time ;)
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
I gave up trying to tell not to believe in God about 10 years ago. I have found much more value in trying to make believers aware that alternate worldviews can exist that are perfectly valid and also perfectly workable - because one very large problem with many who believe is that they think those who do NOT believe have made some sort of massive intellectual mistake. If you remove that particular mental block, true discussion on the why's and how's can actually take place. Until then, it's all just "No, I'm right." "No, I'M right! You're wrong!" "No, YOU are wrong, I'm right!" ad nauseum. At one point in our history, the need for such discussion was purely an intellectual exercise. At this point in our history, however, it is absolutely imperative - else we destroy each other in a never-ending and ever-escalating orgy of mutual hatred. To paraphrase from the Matrix, such disagreements "constitute an escalating probability of failure." When interactive systems are far apart, the probability that any single incident will cause massive problems is low. In our fully interactive system however, upheaval tends to have powerful ripple effects across the whole world. We can no longer afford to look at each other and say "you're wrong!" and then actually forcefully act on it. That's why war as our ancestors fought it is no longer an option, and for the same reasons.
Cheers,
Patrick
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
