Disagree to Disagree
-
Atheists and Theists will never get along as long as both sides honestly believe that the other side is all a bunch of self-deluded ignorant idiots, too dumb to see the obivious truth. But what the heck, the goal is not to convert the other side really, but to make themselves feel better about how smart they really are by bashing the opponent. In order for the two sides to debate constructively they would have to be willing to admit that the other side might possibly be right. Neither side is willing to do that. So the battle will rage on forever. Though I myself am a Theist, sometimes I think Agnostics are the only intelligent people out there. Agnostics are frowned upon as spineless fence-sitters, but at least they retain their intellectual integrity. [disclaimer] Please don't get into a big war about whether or not there is a God. The point of the post is the battle between the sides, not which side is right. If you get into a big war about it, you will only prove my point. [/disclaimer] Ps. I only mention this after looking at the web site for infidels.org linked to in the divorce thread from earlier today.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side
I believe in God, but I did have doubts for the better part of my life. So I can see both sides of this. It seems like almost every issue nowadays turns into a black or white issue. There is no middle ground. Maybe its always been this way, but I never noticed it before.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Catholics won't be happy untill everyone is catholic. Protestants won't be happy until the Pope is protestant. So on and so forth... Every religion wants itself to be the dominant one, due to the fact that the fundamental belief that it IS the right one is what divides them. I don't want everyone to be atheist. Sure It would have its benefits, but it would get rid of the key argument-starting topics. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, I simply disagree that people try to convert others. There IS a reason why people have chosen their belief, its not like they are gonna change just because you say they were wrong and you were right. I'd be dissapointed with myself if I were ever 'converted'. It is my decision and I will make it by myself, i've made mine now, and i'll stick with it to the grave.
"How long has the "Quote Selected Text" been around???"
- Marc Clifton, Lounge 4 Mar '03
"But a fresh install - it's like having clean sheets"
- Chris Maunder Lounge 3 Mar '03
Jonathan 'nonny' Newman
Web Designer, Programmer, Lover, Visionary Leader... Homepage [www.nonny.com] [^]Jonny Newman wrote: I'd be dissapointed with myself if I were ever 'converted'. I've been converted between sides of major issues a time or two. It all stems from the willingness to admit that you might be wrong. If someone comes along with a better argument, more compelling facts, or even proof, I'll change my beliefs. I'm not one of these idiots who will cling tenatiously to some erroneous ideology just becuause I don't want to be 'wrong'.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side
-
Jonny Newman wrote: When discussing Moses' "Parting of the sea" with a christian, I mentioned the fact that aliens could have drawn the waters using advanced technology, the guy dissmissed it inmmediately as 'nonsense'. Is the idea that a human did it not far more suspect? Moses didn't part the Red Sea, God did. Jason Gerard qeou kai kurioV Iasou Cristou douloV
-
Since I did the origional post to the links, let me state what I stated below: "The grounds for athiesm are shaky at best. I don't mean to turn this in a religious direction, but I will attempt to make one small point. Before evaluating any given fact about religion, people bring to the table a pair of rose-colored glasses representing their world-view. This world-view is a culimination of all their experiences and beliefs, as well as the root of their logic. Everyone needs a starting point for their arguments: a faith-based assumption so to speak. From the secular athiest point of view, all there exists in the universe is molecules in motion. Love is nothing more than random firings of neurons that can be duplicated by consuming lots of cholocate. It is their belief that the universe came into being merely by chance, and there is no intelligent creator (God). However, that assumption is not scientifically provable, and as thus is merely an assumption of faith. There is no scientific method to prove what is beyond the universe or supernatural. Now from a bible-believing point of view, the faith assumption is that the bible is the inerrant word of god. A revealing of the nature of God to his people. Like the secular point of view, this assumption is also not provable by scientific method, but is a faith assumption. Thus it is the bible-believer who argues that the only reason the laws of the universe make any sense is that there is an intelligent creator. It is the bible-believer who states that it is no accident that the earth is the exact distance from the sun that it needs to be. The bible-believer will argue that the only reason man can do what he does is that an intelligent creator set it all in motion. Well, considering those two points of view, an athiest marriage is nothing more than random electrical neural patterns, with no set course and no arguable reason to be in the relationship in the first place. Wheras, the believers in a supreme being (God) have taken an oath in front of God as has been revealed to them in God's word. Thus the marriage has a goal and substance, and is not merely random chemical and electrial responses to the presence of the other individual." So, as a bible-believing Christian, I base my worldview on the pesupposition that the bible is the inerrant word of god. Whether there is proof or not, it is an un-provable faith assumption, just as the aformentioned assumption of secular atheism or any other world religion. However, I do belive in religious pluralism (recogniti
I suppose the argument between Atheists and Theists essentially runs into problems due to the fact that Atheists seek proof, while the belief in the existence of God does not require it. In other words, how do you prove that someone invisible, inaudible, and intangible exists to someone who only looks with their eyes, ears, and hands? It's impossible. It's like trying to use a microphone to measure the brightness of light. You'll simply never find anything if you're looking with the wrong instrument. Is the light non-existent just because the microphone can't percieve it? The Atheist would say yes, and they would be correct for all intents and purposes, if the microphone was the only instrument available. It's not though, if you follow the analogy. On the other hand, at least you don't see Atheists fighting with other Atheists over which denomination of Atheism is the correct one.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side
-
Jonny Newman wrote: I'd be dissapointed with myself if I were ever 'converted'. I've been converted between sides of major issues a time or two. It all stems from the willingness to admit that you might be wrong. If someone comes along with a better argument, more compelling facts, or even proof, I'll change my beliefs. I'm not one of these idiots who will cling tenatiously to some erroneous ideology just becuause I don't want to be 'wrong'.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side
But what you don't seem to understand is that I *AM* right. This is a joke before you comment on my arrogance.
"How long has the "Quote Selected Text" been around???"
- Marc Clifton, Lounge 4 Mar '03
"But a fresh install - it's like having clean sheets"
- Chris Maunder Lounge 3 Mar '03
Jonathan 'nonny' Newman
Web Designer, Programmer, Lover, Visionary Leader... Homepage [www.nonny.com] [^] -
I think I prefer an oath to a person I love. Not an oath to a god of fear. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Well the Bible portrays God as Loving and one that you should fear. An Marriage is defined by the Bible as an union between God, your lover and you. (Eccl reference) -Steven
CPA
CodeProjectAddict
By reading this message you are held fully responsible for any of the mispelln's or grammer, issues, found on, codeproject.com.
For those who were wondering, actual (Linux) Penguins were harmed in creating this message.
Visit Ltpb.8m.com
404Browser (Efficient, Fast, Secure Web Browser): 404Browser.com -
I suppose the argument between Atheists and Theists essentially runs into problems due to the fact that Atheists seek proof, while the belief in the existence of God does not require it. In other words, how do you prove that someone invisible, inaudible, and intangible exists to someone who only looks with their eyes, ears, and hands? It's impossible. It's like trying to use a microphone to measure the brightness of light. You'll simply never find anything if you're looking with the wrong instrument. Is the light non-existent just because the microphone can't percieve it? The Atheist would say yes, and they would be correct for all intents and purposes, if the microphone was the only instrument available. It's not though, if you follow the analogy. On the other hand, at least you don't see Atheists fighting with other Atheists over which denomination of Atheism is the correct one.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side
You can prove there is a God. There are about eight or nine proofs for the existance of God, depending how metaphysical you want to get. The two main and most simple are the following: "Cause and Effect Proof" This proof builds on the fact that there are events happening all over the universe (planets spinning, stars forming, etc.). All of these events must have a cause. Yet, the universe cannot be a series of looped cause and effects, there must be a first unmoved mover. This is called God. "Someting From Nothing" This proof simply states: There are things within the universe. Yet, at one point, at the beginning of time, there was infinite nothingness. There must have been an unmade maker. This is called God. There are other deeper proofs, such as the fact that every person has a subconscience desire to believe in a higher power. This, I feel, is more a theory than a proof. That and the fact that most all cultures believe in some sort of higher power. While I believe there is a God, I can't speak for that God, so I have no idea the more specifics of God. I simply believe that there is a God based on logical evidence, but further than that, who knows? ...Zack... GCS\P\SS d- s-:- a-- C++ U--- P--- L- E- W++ N o K- W+++ O++ M-- V PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5+ X+ R++ tv++ b++ DI++ D+++ G+ e* h- r++ y+
-
The grounds for athiesm are shaky at best. I don't mean to turn this in a religious direction, but I will attempt to make one small point. :~ :wtf::rolleyes: God is nothing more than a invisible giant pink elephant that circles the earth. When it rains it is nothing more than him taking a big piss. Now considering I have as much proof that my god exists as you have that yours does, tell my why again it is atheism that is on shaky ground? Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Atheism is on shaky ground for this reason. It takes a tremendous amount of faith to believe that the universe just appeared. While I do not know if a God created everything we see, I do believe that a God somehow put matter into the universe. How else did it get here? Logic concludes that you cannot get something out of nothing. As does the Convervation of Matter and Enegery: "Matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed, it simply shifts" God may be a giant elephant, but a God of some sort had to exist at one point to put all the matter we see today into the universe. ...Zack... GCS\P\SS d- s-:- a-- C++ U--- P--- L- E- W++ N o K- W+++ O++ M-- V PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5+ X+ R++ tv++ b++ DI++ D+++ G+ e* h- r++ y+
-
Well the Bible portrays God as Loving and one that you should fear. An Marriage is defined by the Bible as an union between God, your lover and you. (Eccl reference) -Steven
CPA
CodeProjectAddict
By reading this message you are held fully responsible for any of the mispelln's or grammer, issues, found on, codeproject.com.
For those who were wondering, actual (Linux) Penguins were harmed in creating this message.
Visit Ltpb.8m.com
404Browser (Efficient, Fast, Secure Web Browser): 404Browser.comAh, yes, the loving God as portaryed in the Bible. I'm going to skip the Old Testament view of God ordering the genocide of nations to make way for the 'chosen people'. And go right into what one sees upon reading the bible or going to a Christain church for the first time. Taken from "George Carlin: You Are All Diseased" "The church has actually convinced rational logic people that there is this invisible man, who lives in the sky, and he watches your every move 24 hours a day...And if you do anything wrong, he has a special place he will send you full of fire and pain. But, he loves you. And he needs your money. This omnipitent being, who has no problem controling the cosmos, can't seem to keep a handle on money." As for marriage, all it should be is a promise made between two people that they will love each other. That's all. If you're truly in love, all the other vows will follow naturally.(Mabye not so much obey). "Christianity is great. Christians should try it." -Ghandi ...Zack... GCS\P\SS d- s-:- a-- C++ U--- P--- L- E- W++ N o K- W+++ O++ M-- V PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5+ X+ R++ tv++ b++ DI++ D+++ G+ e* h- r++ y+
-
Ah, yes, the loving God as portaryed in the Bible. I'm going to skip the Old Testament view of God ordering the genocide of nations to make way for the 'chosen people'. And go right into what one sees upon reading the bible or going to a Christain church for the first time. Taken from "George Carlin: You Are All Diseased" "The church has actually convinced rational logic people that there is this invisible man, who lives in the sky, and he watches your every move 24 hours a day...And if you do anything wrong, he has a special place he will send you full of fire and pain. But, he loves you. And he needs your money. This omnipitent being, who has no problem controling the cosmos, can't seem to keep a handle on money." As for marriage, all it should be is a promise made between two people that they will love each other. That's all. If you're truly in love, all the other vows will follow naturally.(Mabye not so much obey). "Christianity is great. Christians should try it." -Ghandi ...Zack... GCS\P\SS d- s-:- a-- C++ U--- P--- L- E- W++ N o K- W+++ O++ M-- V PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5+ X+ R++ tv++ b++ DI++ D+++ G+ e* h- r++ y+
Zachery wrote: And if you do anything wrong, he has a special place he will send you full of fire and pain Thats an oversimplification, forgiveness isn't mentioned. The verse that I was referencing to was "three accord remains unbroken" this mentions three..God, wife, and husband. -Steven
CPA
CodeProjectAddict
By reading this message you are held fully responsible for any of the mispelln's or grammer, issues, found on, codeproject.com.
For those who were wondering, actual (Linux) Penguins were harmed in creating this message.
Visit Ltpb.8m.com
404Browser (Efficient, Fast, Secure Web Browser): 404Browser.com -
Ah, yes, the loving God as portaryed in the Bible. I'm going to skip the Old Testament view of God ordering the genocide of nations to make way for the 'chosen people'. And go right into what one sees upon reading the bible or going to a Christain church for the first time. Taken from "George Carlin: You Are All Diseased" "The church has actually convinced rational logic people that there is this invisible man, who lives in the sky, and he watches your every move 24 hours a day...And if you do anything wrong, he has a special place he will send you full of fire and pain. But, he loves you. And he needs your money. This omnipitent being, who has no problem controling the cosmos, can't seem to keep a handle on money." As for marriage, all it should be is a promise made between two people that they will love each other. That's all. If you're truly in love, all the other vows will follow naturally.(Mabye not so much obey). "Christianity is great. Christians should try it." -Ghandi ...Zack... GCS\P\SS d- s-:- a-- C++ U--- P--- L- E- W++ N o K- W+++ O++ M-- V PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5+ X+ R++ tv++ b++ DI++ D+++ G+ e* h- r++ y+
Zachery wrote: As for marriage, all it should be is a promise made between two people that they will love each other. That's all. If you're truly in love, all the other vows will follow naturally.(Mabye not so much obey). How do define love? What good is a promise between two people when all they are experiencing is some mutual chemical reaction that causes some strange electrical neural impulse we call love? If the natural universe in existant unto itself, and everything is up to chance, then the marriage is just a feel-good thing and as a species is totally useless. (Hence the high rate of divorce.) How can you be "truly in love"? Just get yourself a pound of Hershey's and be done with it. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
God is technically an alien, though not one of these little grey men types of popular science fiction.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side
-
lol. Sorry. The origional meaning of that statement was for the divorce conversation below. The meaning was that grounds for a marriage founded in atheism is shaky. And obviouslyu this thread IS a religous discussion, so disregard that too. The reason for the shaky marraige in (secular) atheism is that the only thing holding their marriage together is mutual chemical nural patterns firing in their brains. Where the godly marriage is an oath before God with purpose and direction, not just neural patterns and random chance. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
Marriage is an oath between two people. They commit their lives to one another. Whether before God, or not. Don't take the oath if you don't intend to keep it in any case. That's really all there is to it. Perhaps true Christians are more serious, when they take the oath, than some others, but that in no way means that all others who take the oath are not serious about it. I'm agnostic, but if and when I do decide to share my life with the right woman, I'll take that very seriously. BTW, do Christian's emotions not works the same way? ;) BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security
-
lol. Sorry. The origional meaning of that statement was for the divorce conversation below. The meaning was that grounds for a marriage founded in atheism is shaky. And obviouslyu this thread IS a religous discussion, so disregard that too. The reason for the shaky marraige in (secular) atheism is that the only thing holding their marriage together is mutual chemical nural patterns firing in their brains. Where the godly marriage is an oath before God with purpose and direction, not just neural patterns and random chance. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
Nitron wrote: The reason for the shaky marraige in (secular) atheism is that the only thing holding their marriage together is mutual chemical nural patterns firing in their brains. Where the godly marriage is an oath before God with purpose and direction, not just neural patterns and random chance. So it's better to hold your marriage together by getting your neural chemicals all wound up over a supernatural being than getting them wound up over your partner?
-
You can prove there is a God. There are about eight or nine proofs for the existance of God, depending how metaphysical you want to get. The two main and most simple are the following: "Cause and Effect Proof" This proof builds on the fact that there are events happening all over the universe (planets spinning, stars forming, etc.). All of these events must have a cause. Yet, the universe cannot be a series of looped cause and effects, there must be a first unmoved mover. This is called God. "Someting From Nothing" This proof simply states: There are things within the universe. Yet, at one point, at the beginning of time, there was infinite nothingness. There must have been an unmade maker. This is called God. There are other deeper proofs, such as the fact that every person has a subconscience desire to believe in a higher power. This, I feel, is more a theory than a proof. That and the fact that most all cultures believe in some sort of higher power. While I believe there is a God, I can't speak for that God, so I have no idea the more specifics of God. I simply believe that there is a God based on logical evidence, but further than that, who knows? ...Zack... GCS\P\SS d- s-:- a-- C++ U--- P--- L- E- W++ N o K- W+++ O++ M-- V PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5+ X+ R++ tv++ b++ DI++ D+++ G+ e* h- r++ y+
Zachery wrote: You can prove there is a God. There are about eight or nine proofs for the existance of God, depending how metaphysical you want to get. The two main and most simple are the following: In a word, poppycock. Those are not scientific proofs, but mind games. And even if you subscribe to them, which I and many others don't, they don't show the way to the christian god that the believers want to use it for.
-
Atheists and Theists will never get along as long as both sides honestly believe that the other side is all a bunch of self-deluded ignorant idiots, too dumb to see the obivious truth. But what the heck, the goal is not to convert the other side really, but to make themselves feel better about how smart they really are by bashing the opponent. In order for the two sides to debate constructively they would have to be willing to admit that the other side might possibly be right. Neither side is willing to do that. So the battle will rage on forever. Though I myself am a Theist, sometimes I think Agnostics are the only intelligent people out there. Agnostics are frowned upon as spineless fence-sitters, but at least they retain their intellectual integrity. [disclaimer] Please don't get into a big war about whether or not there is a God. The point of the post is the battle between the sides, not which side is right. If you get into a big war about it, you will only prove my point. [/disclaimer] Ps. I only mention this after looking at the web site for infidels.org linked to in the divorce thread from earlier today.
"HELP? No wait, cancel that. It says HELF." - Gary Larson, The Far Side
Kevnar wrote: But what the heck, the goal is not to convert the other side really, but to make themselves feel better about how smart they really are by bashing the opponent Well, it seems to me that converting the other fellow is exactly what the argument is about to many of the theists. And for historical proof all you have to do is look at the now mostly defunct christian theocracies of Europe, the modern islamic theocracies in in the middle east and asia, and the sometimes defacto and potentially real christian theocracy in the US. They've managed to plant 3 of the last 4 presidents who have an ambition to chuck the First Amendment and place belief tests on the rest of us.
-
You can prove there is a God. There are about eight or nine proofs for the existance of God, depending how metaphysical you want to get. The two main and most simple are the following: "Cause and Effect Proof" This proof builds on the fact that there are events happening all over the universe (planets spinning, stars forming, etc.). All of these events must have a cause. Yet, the universe cannot be a series of looped cause and effects, there must be a first unmoved mover. This is called God. "Someting From Nothing" This proof simply states: There are things within the universe. Yet, at one point, at the beginning of time, there was infinite nothingness. There must have been an unmade maker. This is called God. There are other deeper proofs, such as the fact that every person has a subconscience desire to believe in a higher power. This, I feel, is more a theory than a proof. That and the fact that most all cultures believe in some sort of higher power. While I believe there is a God, I can't speak for that God, so I have no idea the more specifics of God. I simply believe that there is a God based on logical evidence, but further than that, who knows? ...Zack... GCS\P\SS d- s-:- a-- C++ U--- P--- L- E- W++ N o K- W+++ O++ M-- V PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5+ X+ R++ tv++ b++ DI++ D+++ G+ e* h- r++ y+
Entropy and Causality used as a proof for God's existence[^] Apologetics when dealing with Atheists[^] carm.net -> Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security
-
Kevnar wrote: Agnostics are frowned upon as spineless fence-sitters If someone throws that in my face I'll just sigh loudly and go away. Such people are best ignored. Kevnar wrote: but at least they retain their intellectual integrity Thank you. To me, following something blindly seems very dangerous. -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: To me, following something blindly seems very dangerous But being a spineless fence sitter is ok? ;P
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: To me, following something blindly seems very dangerous But being a spineless fence sitter is ok? ;P
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.
At least it's not dangerous! ;) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine
-
At least it's not dangerous! ;) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: At least it's not dangerous! Oh contraire mon frair... or however you say that. Fence sitters are often the first to go as they are hated by both sides in a war. Just like GWB says "You are either with us, or against us. No inbetween." And when the reckoning day comes and you find out that God does in fact exist, he will say "You spineless fence sitter. At least the atheists believed in something, at least they formed their beliefs and stuck to their guns. You just vacelated like a broken gyroscope. Off with your head!" :-D
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.