Disagree to Disagree
-
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.
-
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
Just want to say that what I got out of your posts on this matter is that there are as many facets to Atheists as there are to Theists. Before I thought Atheists were pretty much the same in their views on this matter and that it was the Theists who were so divided. I guess it goes back to how making generalisations is a dangerous and unfair thing. Just so you know where I stand: I have personal beliefs about life, love and everything else. It does not include a God or gods (a recent discovery for me) but I am more than willing to stand corrected if he or they make himself or themselves known. Mainly religion is not a bad thing in my eyes because it gives people something to believe in, a set of morals and laws to live by of which most are good and sound. We created these religions I believe exactly for that purpose. However I feel I don't need it, that I can govern myself without the need for external reckoning (some may say that is arrogant, so be it but I don't think it is.) To me the bottom line is that what I believe and what you believe are both geared towards similar goals. That we do it differently is not a bad thing IMO.
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: 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.
Paul Watson wrote: Oh contraire mon frair Au contraire mon ami, unless you consider me to be your brother. Google and babelfish rocks :-D Paul Watson wrote: 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!" Knowledge is power my friend. That is my belief. :-D -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine
-
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
brianwelsch wrote: BTW, do Christian's emotions not works the same way? Yes they do. However, according to Christians it is for a reason (by the grace of God) rather than by 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?
Tim Craig wrote: 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 missed the point. According to the bible-believer, the "neurons are all wrapped up" for a reason, it is by the grace of God and occurs because it was all set in motion by an intelligent creator. However, in a self-existent world of matter scattered about merely by chance, then there is no reason for holding a marriage together at all. If you argue that there is, how can "love" be quantized in a way other than a mutual chemical reaction with no purpose. If you argue there is a deeper purpose, then that negates the self-existant world of random matter. In that case, a pound of Hershey's will give you the same warm fuzzy. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
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.
I'm not trying to define God, just say that one does or at one time did exist. I think that's the biggest problem people have, they need to pin down God to a specific. God is just an entity or spirit that exists or did exists and somehow got matter into the universe. As for if that God created the universe, that is yet to be known. ...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+
-
I tend to find it funny that people are arguing over who has the better imaginary friend. Like agnostics say "Wether or not there is a God, no one can ever really know for sure." Personally, I'm a Theist, it takes too much faith to be an Atheist. I just go by the "Where did all this stuff come from?" theory. That's enough for me to believe there's a God. Now, as of what kind of God and all those other more specific questions, I go by the Agnostic view. I think that as long as you know what you believe and why, you're good to go. It's the people who believe on 'faith' alone that are the ones who are the real ones who need to be converted. "Faith is believing what you know is not true." Me, I choose logic over faith any day. ...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+ http://www.geekcode.com/geek.html
The next logical step for someone in your position is to analyze the claims about what God is like. Speaking from what I've been able to analyze, only the Bible has the literary evidence and historical accuracy one would associate with God telling His creation about Himself. Combine that with the completely accurate prophecies in texts known to exist before the prophecied events, and you've got some very compelling evidence that the Bible really is the truth. Just a little informational boost. :) John :D
-
Tim Craig wrote: 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 missed the point. According to the bible-believer, the "neurons are all wrapped up" for a reason, it is by the grace of God and occurs because it was all set in motion by an intelligent creator. However, in a self-existent world of matter scattered about merely by chance, then there is no reason for holding a marriage together at all. If you argue that there is, how can "love" be quantized in a way other than a mutual chemical reaction with no purpose. If you argue there is a deeper purpose, then that negates the self-existant world of random matter. In that case, a pound of Hershey's will give you the same warm fuzzy. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
Nitron wrote: You missed the point. According to the bible-believer, the "neurons are all wrapped up" for a reason, it is by the grace of God and occurs because it was all set in motion by an intelligent creator. No, I understand the point. My conjecture is that there is nothing but neural chemicals at work. So would you rather get your neural chemicals worked up for a good reason, sex, or some imaginary interest that somehow manages to stroke the reward center in your brain?
-
I'm not trying to define God, just say that one does or at one time did exist. I think that's the biggest problem people have, they need to pin down God to a specific. God is just an entity or spirit that exists or did exists and somehow got matter into the universe. As for if that God created the universe, that is yet to be known. ...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: I'm not trying to define God, just say that one does or at one time did exist. I think that's the biggest problem people have, they need to pin down God to a specific. God is just an entity or spirit that exists or did exists and somehow got matter into the universe. Since we don't actually know how what existed before the big bang or what triggered the big bang, why not just say we don't know and are looking for the answer? Why invent a "god" who intelligently did the deed? The obvious next question would be where did god come from and who created it?
-
Tim Craig wrote: 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 missed the point. According to the bible-believer, the "neurons are all wrapped up" for a reason, it is by the grace of God and occurs because it was all set in motion by an intelligent creator. However, in a self-existent world of matter scattered about merely by chance, then there is no reason for holding a marriage together at all. If you argue that there is, how can "love" be quantized in a way other than a mutual chemical reaction with no purpose. If you argue there is a deeper purpose, then that negates the self-existant world of random matter. In that case, a pound of Hershey's will give you the same warm fuzzy. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
The reason for keeping a marriage together is that if done properly and worked on continuously a marriage adds a level of happiness to life that someone can rarely achieve on their own. So, the purpose is mutually selfish. Which is OK. The bond between two people "in love" helps both individuals to further develop and enjoy life. This does not negate the self-existant world of random matter, it is simply a part of it. People who do not believe in a God, or choose not to care whether one exists or not, generally do not require the same "deeper" meaning that you do. Life just is. We accept it as such, and are happy enough that way, and live it in such a way as makes us happy. Perhaps its a mistake, perhaps it isn't. We'll find out when we die. I've ignored values, because I don't want to take the time to get into that. Also, for arguments sake I could say love to a Christian is just as random and that you have simply fashioned a purpose which fits for you. Furthering that too gets into discussion targeting the base of each our beliefs, and isn't the point here, I just wanted to illustrate a point. :) 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
-
Zachery wrote: I'm not trying to define God, just say that one does or at one time did exist. I think that's the biggest problem people have, they need to pin down God to a specific. God is just an entity or spirit that exists or did exists and somehow got matter into the universe. Since we don't actually know how what existed before the big bang or what triggered the big bang, why not just say we don't know and are looking for the answer? Why invent a "god" who intelligently did the deed? The obvious next question would be where did god come from and who created it?
Tim Craig wrote: The obvious next question would be where did god come from and who created it? Then we just come to an infinite loop of "Where did 'it' come from?" There must have been a first uncreated creator. This is called God. I'm defining God like someone would define a chair, simply. A chair is a place to sit, as for the specifics of it, they are not given. Same with God, God is what created the matter for the Big Bang. Nothing more, nothing less. ...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+
-
Tim Craig wrote: The obvious next question would be where did god come from and who created it? Then we just come to an infinite loop of "Where did 'it' come from?" There must have been a first uncreated creator. This is called God. I'm defining God like someone would define a chair, simply. A chair is a place to sit, as for the specifics of it, they are not given. Same with God, God is what created the matter for the Big Bang. Nothing more, nothing less. ...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: Then we just come to an infinite loop of "Where did 'it' come from?" There must have been a first uncreated creator. This is called God. No, we simply stop at the last place we actually know what happened and don't conjecture beyond that and invent 'gods' to take care of the dirty work. When we actually have the ability to look back beyond the big bang scientifically, then we can say something about it. Until then, conjecturing gods, demons, or pink faeries is all just mind games. Why give it credence?
-
Zachery wrote: Then we just come to an infinite loop of "Where did 'it' come from?" There must have been a first uncreated creator. This is called God. No, we simply stop at the last place we actually know what happened and don't conjecture beyond that and invent 'gods' to take care of the dirty work. When we actually have the ability to look back beyond the big bang scientifically, then we can say something about it. Until then, conjecturing gods, demons, or pink faeries is all just mind games. Why give it credence?
And once we stop, where does that leave us? If I read what you're saying correctly, I'll just simplify it into an example that can be easily understood. Take a '65 Ford Mustang. Where did that car come from? Well, it came from a manufacturing plant. No it didn't, to say it came from a manufacturing plant is to conjecture up something to take care of the dirty work of where that car came from. Now, I know you're going to say that you can easily prove that the plant did, in fact, exist. Alright, I'll take it a few steps further. Well, you can prove that the car came from a manufacturing plant. We can go and see it. What if that plant has burnt down. You can see the spot where it existed. What if something else is built upon that spot or there is no physical proof that the plant ever existed? There are historical records. What if they kept no records of that plant being built, or all the blueprints and records were distroyed? People remeber the plant being there. All the people that worked there and remeber it are all dead and have no friends or relatives. Given that senario, you have no proof that the plant ever existed. All you have is a car. The car had to have gotten here somehow. But with no tangible proof that the plant existed, what do you do? To hypothesize about a manufacturing plant would be, as you put it, just mind games. ...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+