Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Radical Plato on November 19, 2014, 03:47:00 AM
-
It is so refreshing to know that there are still a few logical and reasonable people willing to share their insight and wisdom.
(http://atheistfoundation.org.au/assets/RichardDawkinsBanner800.jpg)
-
It is so refreshing to know that there are still a few logical and reasonable people willing to share their insight and wisdom.
That's the reason you're on getbig I guess...
-
Nothing says logic and rationally than cashing in on trolling retards.
Serously no one knows how much I hate this prick.
-
That's the reason you're on getbig I guess...
Well, getbig is more a microcosm of the real world, encompassing people of many extremes and among them are a few enlightened individuals, like Tbombz for example. Here is a quote from the great man to serve as an example.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=456612.0;attach=503208;image)
-
Nothing says logic and rationally than cashing in on trolling retards.
Serously no one knows how much I hate this prick.
Well it isn't unusual to dislike someone who exposes the beliefs you have cherished for a lifetime to be nothing more than falsehoods and indoctrination. Better to remain in denial and ignorance than to face the fact you have been a deluded idiot your whole life.
-
Juruth approved!
-
Well it isn't unusual to dislike someone who exposes the beliefs you have cherished for a lifetime to be nothing more than falsehoods and indoctrination. Better to remain in denial and ignorance than to face the fact you have been a deluded idiot your whole life.
My beliefs I've cherished ???, that scientists are genearlly rational noble and honest people. Spending a decade on some tacky publicity stunt like this is fucking absurd.
Dudes made a joke out of the scientific community, trying to turn himself into some icon.
-
My beliefs I've cherished ???, that scientists are genearlly rational noble and honest people. Spending a decade on some tacky publicity stunt like this is fucking absurd.
Dudes made a joke out of the scientific community, trying to turn himself into some icon.
Not sure I agree with this. He is one of the few outspoken people for rational thought in this world. Yes, its a business for him, but his message is needed. Especially when most of the world thinks "atheism" means you worship the devil lol.
-
My beliefs I've cherished ???, that scientists are genearlly rational noble and honest people. Spending a decade on some tacky publicity stunt like this is fucking absurd.
Dudes made a joke out of the scientific community, trying to turn himself into some icon.
Publicity Stunt. WTF? How is what he is doing any different than any other successful author does who simply capitalizes on their publishing success. What evidence do you have that he is trying to 'turn himself into an icon' and exactly how has he made a joke out of the scientific community. You might be more clearly understood if you offered some evidence for your accusations which essentially is just an angry rant against someone whose views clash with your own. And you seem to have a grudge against scientists in questioning their rationality, nobility and honesty. One must be wary of talking in black and white terms, but I think it is fair to say that those who practice the sciences are as a general rule more rational than non-scientists, as rationality is a requirement of the profession. As for nobility and honesty of a scientist, they are irrelevant to scientific fact. If Einstein lied to his wife about him having an affair, I couldn't care less and it has zero impact on his 'Theory of relativity"
Are you angry because you were raped by a scientist as a child? Oh wait, it's the churches that produce the boy buggering men isn't it. Sorry, my bad.
-
Publicity Stunt. WTF? How is what he is doing any different than any other successful author does who simply capitalizes on their publishing success. What evidence do you have that he is trying to 'turn himself into an icon' and exactly how has he made a joke out of the scientific community. You might be more clearly understood if you offered some evidence for your accusations which essentially is just an angry rant against someone whose views clash with your own. And you seem to have a grudge against scientists in questioning their rationality, nobility and honesty. One must be wary of talking in black and white terms, but I think it is fair to say that those who practice the sciences are as a general rule more rational than non-scientists, as rationality is a requirement of the profession. As for nobility and honesty of a scientist, they are irrelevant to scientific fact. If Einstein lied to his wife about him having an affair, I couldn't care less and it has zero impact on his 'Theory of relativity"
Are you angry because you were raped by a scientist as a child? Oh wait, it's the churches that produce the boy buggering men isn't it. Sorry, my bad.
Calm down Betsy.
-
Calm down Betsy.
Lol x2
-
My beliefs I've cherished ???, that scientists are genearlly rational noble and honest people. Spending a decade on some tacky publicity stunt like this is fucking absurd.
Dudes made a joke out of the scientific community, trying to turn himself into some icon.
Without him and other popular scientists, most theories and scientific research would be virtually unknown to almost everyone.
He's one of the few people that bothers to bridge the gap between research/science and the common people who are generally too stupid to grasp concepts beyond keeping track of main characters in popular TV shows.
-
My beliefs I've cherished ???, that scientists are genearlly rational noble and honest people. Spending a decade on some tacky publicity stunt like this is fucking absurd.
Dudes made a joke out of the scientific community, trying to turn himself into some icon.
Money, fame, a d power are his Gods. As they are for many.
-
Money, fame, a d power are his Gods. As they are for many.
Are we still talking about mild mannered Richard Dawkins or are you talking about the Catholic Church?
-
Without him and other popular scientists, most theories and scientific research would be virtually unknown to almost everyone.
He's one of the few people that bothers to bridge the gap between research/science and the common people who are generally too stupid to grasp concepts beyond keeping track of main characters in popular TV shows.
Lol I'm prefer a feynman, sagan, hawkings, degrasse-tyson, or a nye any day of the weak.
They achieve a mild level of professionalism, whereas dawkings has made a career out antagonising those who couldn't be bothered to do high school math.
But of course he allows for a narcissitic gnots, feel like they are intellgient by ignoring the difference between logic and rhetoric.
-
Lol I'm prefer a feynman, sagan, hawkings, degrasse-tyson, or a nye any day of the weak.
They achieve a mild level of professionalism, whereas dawkings has made a career out antagonising those who couldn't be bothered to do high school math.
But of course he allows for a narcissitic gnots, feel like they are intellgient by ignoring the difference between logic and rhetoric.
Feynman is my personal favourite.
This one still hits me in the feels, from an interview with Feynman when he explains the beauty of nature, when the beholder is a scientist.
-
Publicity Stunt. WTF? How is what he is doing any different than any other successful author does who simply capitalizes on their publishing success. What evidence do you have that he is trying to 'turn himself into an icon' and exactly how has he made a joke out of the scientific community. You might be more clearly understood if you offered some evidence for your accusations which essentially is just an angry rant against someone whose views clash with your own. And you seem to have a grudge against scientists in questioning their rationality, nobility and honesty. One must be wary of talking in black and white terms, but I think it is fair to say that those who practice the sciences are as a general rule more rational than non-scientists, as rationality is a requirement of the profession. As for nobility and honesty of a scientist, they are irrelevant to scientific fact. If Einstein lied to his wife about him having an affair, I couldn't care less and it has zero impact on his 'Theory of relativity"
Are you angry because you were raped by a scientist as a child? Oh wait, it's the churches that produce the boy buggering men isn't it. Sorry, my bad.
*snaps fingers*
Ah, now i get it.
You're E-Kuls new handle. Took me a bit, but the Dawking love and the 'australian tour' coupled with your particular vehement anger towards people who disagree with you finally clicked.
-
Nice. Lucky you.
My favorite out of all atheists is Sam Harris. I'd love to hear him talk.
-
*snaps fingers*
Ah, now i get it.
You're E-Kuls new handle. Took me a bit, but the Dawking love and the 'australian tour' coupled with your particular vehement anger towards people who disagree with you finally clicked.
I haven't initiated any anger towards others in this thread, maybe you are projecting. Ironic really, If you actually read the thread the anger and passive aggression has come from those who don't like what Dawkins says. I have simply responded to their vehement anger towards people like Dawkins who they disagree with. I may have reflected back their anger in an attempt to get them to see themselves, but I myself never initiated any anger towards anyone else.
-
I haven't initiated any anger towards others in this thread, maybe you are projecting. Ironic really, If you actually read the thread the anger and passive aggression has come from those who don't like what Dawkins says. I have simply responded to their vehement anger towards people like Dawkins who they disagree with. I may have reflected back their anger in an attempt to get them to see themselves, but I myself never initiated any anger towards anyone else.
Remember, it's okay to get mad or call an atheist angry. Atheists are immoral baby eaters.
-
Didn't he died?
-
Nice. Lucky you.
My favorite out of all atheists is Sam Harris. I'd love to hear him talk.
Sam Harris is my current favorite too. I have read some of his books watched many of his youtube debates. I think he is the new generation of academic atheists with unparalleled debating skills. I would go as far to say he is a better polemicist than Christopher Hitchens. I am yet to see him debate an Islamic scholar or apologist for Islam that he hasn't utterly destroyed.
-
Didn't he died?
That's Christopher Hitchens, the superior pop-atheist
-
Remember, it's okay to get mad or call an atheist angry. Atheists are immoral baby eaters.
I have no problem being called angry when I am angry, it seems a little odd though to accuse one of being angry when they are not, especially when it is an obvious projection of the accusers own emotions. Richard Dawkins makes illogical people angry, not much I can do about that.
If anything I am excited to see a rational adult talk about the mass delusions of the many.
-
question:
I don't believe that Barney the Dinosaur is real....I mean he isn't....I mean fact is that I don't need scientific evidence or "logic" or "fancy words" to explain this...HE JUST ISN'T REAL
so, how can I parlay this thing that is so obvious that it doesn't need any explanation into a means to make money?
-
question:
I don't believe that Barney the Dinosaur is real....I mean he isn't....I mean fact is that I don't need scientific evidence or "logic" or "fancy words" to explain this...HE JUST ISN'T REAL
so, how can I parlay this thing that is so obvious that it doesn't need any explanation into a means to make money?
A web-cam may have to be involved.
-
question:
I don't believe that Barney the Dinosaur is real....I mean he isn't....I mean fact is that I don't need scientific evidence or "logic" or "fancy words" to explain this...HE JUST ISN'T REAL
so, how can I parlay this thing that is so obvious that it doesn't need any explanation into a means to make money?
Well, when Barney the Dinosaur worshipers delude billions of people into believing Barney is real and create power structures to control every aspect of society including those people who know Barney isn't real, you might have a more legitimate chance of making money from un-indoctrinating the masses. Now when Barney the Dinosaur pundits start beheading people in the name of Barney you will definitely attract a few readers who will be willing to pay for what you know about Barney's non-existence. Fortunately for you, everyone else knows Barney isn't real also.
-
It is so refreshing to know that there are still a few logical and reasonable people willing to share their insight and wisdom.
(http://atheistfoundation.org.au/assets/RichardDawkinsBanner800.jpg)
What is the topic of his lecture?
-
It is so refreshing to know that there are still a few logical and reasonable people willing to share their insight and wisdom.
(http://atheistfoundation.org.au/assets/RichardDawkinsBanner800.jpg)
wasn't he on hogan's heroes????
-
What is the topic of his lecture?
It doesn't appear to be a lecture but a discussion with Dr Leslie Cannold, whom I know little about.
-
No fan of his, but he seems good.
-
Well, when Barney the Dinosaur worshipers delude billions of people into believing Barney is real and create power structures to control every aspect of society including those people who know Barney isn't real, you might have a more legitimate chance of making money from un-indoctrinating the masses. Now when Barney the Dinosaur pundits start beheading people in the name of Barney you will definitely attract a few readers who will be willing to pay for what you know about Barney's non-existence. Fortunately for you, everyone else knows Barney isn't real also.
see I'm a weird guy
i actually believe in a higher power
now, I don't think said higher power plays that much of a active part in my life....he/she/it exists but he/she/it is extremely laissez faire in terms of my life
but I don't force my belief onto other people like other Christians
some people like chocolate
some people like vanilla
it's okay if you like chocolate.....good for you....I'll NEVER tell you to not like chocolate
-
question:
I don't believe that Barney the Dinosaur is real....I mean he isn't....I mean fact is that I don't need scientific evidence or "logic" or "fancy words" to explain this...HE JUST ISN'T REAL
so, how can I parlay this thing that is so obvious that it doesn't need any explanation into a means to make money?
A majority of US citizens are still religious and so are many other people in other developed countries. Things apparently aren't so "obvious". Some parts of US are not better than Iran or other fundamentalist countries in regards to scientific prosperity.
-
I saw Dawkins speak a couple of times. You'll enjoy yourself. I've also been to a several presentations on religion held by various religious groups.
-
The selfish gene is one of the most incredible books ever written.
His other works are really great books as well.
The rest of you are just butthurt that he likes to engage people he doesn't disagree with.
-
He may be a nice guy in a humanist sense but he's as deeply deluded as the people he likes to bash.
-
He may be a nice guy in a humanist sense but he's as deeply deluded as the people he likes to bash.
Perhaps you should expand on your theory, do you have evidence to counter evolution or the fact their is no evidence for the wild claim their is a benevolent creator who paradoxically demands we worship him or he will punish us for eternity. Or do Dawkins ideas make you feel butthurt and conflict with your own delusions.
-
Great Biologist who wrote some Biology books. Dude got rich and famous worldwide by writing his god delusion book during the middle of the Bush administration, a book which trashes mostly Christianity. He's a Biologist, not a Theologian, not a Historian, not a Linguist or an Archaeologist. He could stick to Biology, but trashing Christianity brings him more money and fame.
-
one of my favorite of Dawkins' speeches.....tells everyone the type of man he is and his audience loves him for it
-
(http://i.imgur.com/ZEm07yr.png)
-
LundgrenisDumb
-
question:
I don't believe that Barney the Dinosaur is real....I mean he isn't....I mean fact is that I don't need scientific evidence or "logic" or "fancy words" to explain this...HE JUST ISN'T REAL
so, how can I parlay this thing that is so obvious that it doesn't need any explanation into a means to make money?
JNN taking names in this thread..
I too belive is some form of creative force.
I use very simple logic.
We have no understanding of time-dimensions-etc,
yet dawkins claims the simpliest explanation the only intelligent thing in the universe are those versed in science.
mine is there's some other intelligent force out there.
Who knows what it is, I call it creation(god).
-
LundgrenisDumb
Go fuck yourself and your pretensious wanking.
I never claimed to be a genius, just smart enough to see through your pretensions bullshit.
Your the ultimate back seat driver, in life.
-
Go fuck yourself and your pretensious wanking.
I never claimed to be a genius, just smart enough to see through your pretensions bullshit.
Your the ultimate back seat driver, in life.
I ride in the back, while you drive the car in a livery suit. How do you like them apples?
-
I ride in the back, while you drive the car in a livery suit. How do you like them apples?
**YAwn***
-
**YAwn***
Tired from all the psycho drugs you need just to function?
-
Tired from all the psycho drugs you need just to function?
I don't take any drug FYI. My exhaustion is from having to tolerate your insufferable existence.
-
Perhaps you should expand on your theory, do you have evidence to counter evolution or the fact their is no evidence for the wild claim their is a benevolent creator who paradoxically demands we worship him or he will punish us for eternity. Or do Dawkins ideas make you feel butthurt and conflict with your own delusions.
Your using conventional polarity's to try and see where I am coming from. I am not conventional religious or conventional atheist.
I believe in evolution and I believe in a benevolent supreme being, but fundamentally I am about experience beyond the limitations of body, mind and intellect. That is where the juice is for me and that is the domain of spirituality/mysticism and that is the baby that is thrown out with the bathwater when Dawkins and co attack all things outside their framework.
I have seen him visit a buddhist lama and he dismissed meditation as a waste of time but its clear to me that he just does not have the patience and discipline to undertake it and let it reveal its fruits.
-
Your using conventional polarity's to try and see where I am coming from. I am not conventional religious or conventional atheist.
this is what these people hate, they want polarity is means they don't have to consider the thoughts of others, and can be smug knowing they are on the correct end of the spectrum.
-
merry dawkins everyone and praises to the high priest.
-
It is so refreshing to know that there are still a few logical and reasonable people willing to share their insight and wisdom.
(http://atheistfoundation.org.au/assets/RichardDawkinsBanner800.jpg)
i do not know if you are agnostic in your beliefs or what but I will tell you a man by the name of Hank Hanegraaff takes Dawkins beliefs and theories head on and puts him to shame. If you are truly open minded and just want to know the truth or hear a good argument look up Hanegraaff and his site Equip.org and give it an honest open minded chance.
-
I haven't initiated any anger towards others in this thread, maybe you are projecting. Ironic really, If you actually read the thread the anger and passive aggression has come from those who don't like what Dawkins says. I have simply responded to their vehement anger towards people like Dawkins who they disagree with. I may have reflected back their anger in an attempt to get them to see themselves, but I myself never initiated any anger towards anyone else.
Yup, definitely Ekul, right down to the claims of projection when he doesnt agree with observations people make of his posting traits.
FYI i wasnt referring to this thread in particular when i was commenting at you vehement anger to people who disagree with you.
-
reveal its fruits.
(http://www.whatsupmovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Jack-Nicholson-humor-7.jpg)
-
I don't take any drug FYI. My exhaustion is from having to tolerate your insufferable existence.
Good. I like it that way.
-
i do not know if you are agnostic in your beliefs or what but I will tell you a man by the name of Hank Hanegraaff takes Dawkins beliefs and theories head on and puts him to shame. If you are truly open minded and just want to know the truth or hear a good argument look up Hanegraaff and his site Equip.org and give it an honest open minded chance.
ROFLMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
No way you can be serious.
-
(http://www.whatsupmovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Jack-Nicholson-humor-7.jpg)
lol
-
(http://s12.postimg.org/wphbsyrq5/Emma_Watson_Dawkins.jpg)
-
Yup, definitely Ekul, right down to the claims of projection when he doesnt agree with observations people make of his posting traits.
FYI i wasnt referring to this thread in particular when i was commenting at you vehement anger to people who disagree with you.
You seem to make a lot of "claims" about people's internal worlds, i.e., their personality traits, thoughts, and/or feelings. You must be quite the intellect on people's behavior.
-
i do not know if you are agnostic in your beliefs or what but I will tell you a man by the name of Hank Hanegraaff takes Dawkins beliefs and theories head on and puts him to shame. If you are truly open minded and just want to know the truth or hear a good argument look up Hanegraaff and his site Equip.org and give it an honest open minded chance.
I don't know this fool, but wikipedia says he has 12 kids so he must be a well adjusted individual.
-
(http://s12.postimg.org/wphbsyrq5/Emma_Watson_Dawkins.jpg)
You've ruined her forever. :'(
-
He says things that makes people feel uncomfortable- I like him!
-
He says things that makes people feel uncomfortable- I like him!
Exactly. People like to feel comfortable.
I think a big issue is this: Religion has held a special place in society for so long. Heck, during certain time periods you were not even allowed to talk out against the church without being hung. Obviously, times have drastically changed and people cannot deal with the fact that others are finally really speaking out against religion. They would prefer others to stay silent. I think that many religious people feel "attacked" even though they are not being attacked. Beliefs are being attacked, not them. They need to work it out for themselves that they are not being attacked as a whole person, just their beliefs. Many people cannot separate their beliefs from who they are as a whole person. But guess what? That is no one else's problem but their own. If they can't deal with the idea that their beliefs are going to be "attacked" and get all butt-hurt, then they need to re-evaluate their sense of self.
-
Exactly. People like to feel comfortable.
I think a big issue is this: Religion has held a special place in society for so long. Heck, during certain time periods you were not even allowed to talk out against the church without being hung. Obviously, times have drastically changed and people cannot deal with the fact that others are finally really speaking out against religion. They would prefer others to stay silent. I think that many religious people feel "attacked" even though they are not being attacked. Beliefs are being attacked, not them. They need to work it out for themselves that they are not being attacked as a whole person, just their beliefs. Many people cannot separate their beliefs from who they are as a whole person. But guess what? That is no one else's problem but their own. If they can't deal with the idea that their beliefs are going to be "attacked" and get all butt-hurt, then they need to re-evaluate their sense of self.
You know how many times I've been told I need to die on these boards because of my faith?
We don't have enough fingers and toes between us to count the times LOL.
-
You know how many times I've been told I need to die on these boards because of my faith?
We don't have enough fingers and toes between us to count the times LOL.
Yes, but have you ever heard Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennet or any other famous atheist tell another person that they need to die? For the most part, atheists are attacking beliefs. When was the last time you heard of an atheist kill another person because of their religious beliefs? When was the last time you heard of a religious person kill another person because of their religious beliefs? In fact, just today or yesterday, there was another terrorist attack in israel.
Come on man, you know as well as I do you can't pick a few bad atheists and lump them all together.
That's like me picking out the thousands and thousands of priests that have molested little boys and saying that all priests molest little boys. Oh, wait.............. :-\ :-\
-
JNN taking names in this thread..
I too belive is some form of creative force.
I use very simple logic.
We have no understanding of time-dimensions-etc,
yet dawkins claims the simpliest explanation the only intelligent thing in the universe are those versed in science.
mine is there's some other intelligent force out there.
Who knows what it is, I call it creation(god).
Dawkins doesn't deny that there isn't a greater intelligence out there, on the contrary.
However he thinks that Religion(faith) has no place in explaining things on how the world works.
500 years ago "Faith" explained that the earth was flat, it was the center of the universe, and if you were a genius mathematician you were a "witch"(burned alive to death).
Science on the other hand knows better..
-
Exactly. People like to feel comfortable.
I think a big issue is this: Religion has held a special place in society for so long. Heck, during certain time periods you were not even allowed to talk out against the church without being hung. Obviously, times have drastically changed and people cannot deal with the fact that others are finally really speaking out against religion. They would prefer others to stay silent. I think that many religious people feel "attacked" even though they are not being attacked. Beliefs are being attacked, not them. They need to work it out for themselves that they are not being attacked as a whole person, just their beliefs. Many people cannot separate their beliefs from who they are as a whole person. But guess what? That is no one else's problem but their own. If they can't deal with the idea that their beliefs are going to be "attacked" and get all butt-hurt, then they need to re-evaluate their sense of self.
Trashing Christianity made him rich and famous, end of story. He knows that Christians won't put a bounty on his head. I'd like to see him openly trash Islam just as much as he has trashed Christianity.
Anyway, by his own admission, Richard Dawkins has received more criticism for trashing Christianity and other religions from fellow atheists and agnostics than he has received from religious people.
-
Dawkins doesn't deny that there isn't a greater intelligence out there, on the contrary.
However he thinks that Religion(faith) has no place in explaining things on how the world works.
And I think he's the worst of our society.
Sensationalizing antagonist arguments to sell books and divide society.
500 years ago "Faith" explained that the earth was flat, it was the center of the universe, and if you were a genius mathematician you were a "witch"(burned alive to death).
Science on the other hand knows better..
do I give a shit?
Mathematics, and astronomy flurished under islamic law, for centuries.
-
Dawkins has been made to look foolish so many times now with any legitimate debater not sure what the fuss is about him anymore.
-
Trashing Christianity made him rich and famous, end of story. He knows that Christians won't put a bounty on his head. I'd like to see him openly trash Islam just as much as he has trashed Christianity.
Anyway, by his own admission, Richard Dawkins has received more criticism for trashing Christianity and other religions from fellow atheists and agnostics than he has received from religious people.
You should stop speaking now.
-
And I think he's the worst of our society.
Sensationalizing antagonist arguments to sell books and divide society. do I give a shit?
Mathematics, and astronomy flurished under islamic law, for centuries.
Have you read any of his books? I think you're a bit off based. The majority of his books have nothing to do with religion.
-
Yes, but have you ever heard Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennet or any other famous atheist tell another person that they need to die? For the most part, atheists are attacking beliefs. When was the last time you heard of an atheist kill another person because of their religious beliefs? When was the last time you heard of a religious person kill another person because of their religious beliefs? In fact, just today or yesterday, there was another terrorist attack in israel.
Come on man, you know as well as I do you can't pick a few bad atheists and lump them all together.
That's like me picking out the thousands and thousands of priests that have molested little boys and saying that all priests molest little boys. Oh, wait.............. :-\ :-\
I wish more atheists shared your perspective that way discussion is healthy.
You're point was that theists should not feel personally attacked by atheists....that it's only the theist's beliefs that are being attacked. I wish that was the case. I can clearly distinguish between disagreement on beliefs and other's clear desire for my death. I can assure you many, many have requested my life be ended LOL.... OR that my daughter be raped.....or my wife beaten and raped. I think I've heard it all.....unfortunately.
Further, theists are just as guilty of making horrific verbal attacks against atheists.
From my experience for every 5 rationale, respectful atheists (that fully disagree with me) there are 20 hateful athieists that would enjoy seeing me get died.
FYI ~ Dawkins received a bunch of backlash from the atheist community about his "mock them, ridicule them" comments.
-
Have you read any of his books? I think you're a bit off based. The majority of his books have nothing to do with religion.
I agree, which is why I can't fucking stand him and this shit he gets on with.
-
And I think he's the worst of our society.
divide society. do I give a shit?
Divide society?? more like awake society! If you question a belief on a heavily religious country you'll get beheaded(yes, still on 2014!) abandon this religion gets you a quick pass to the morgue.
[/quote]
Mathematics, and astronomy flurished under islamic law, for centuries.
From the Q'uran : “The sun and moon (are subjected) to calculations.” (55:05)
This was mainly to know which direction you should pray to.
Math and astronomy also flourished under the heavily totalitarian jesuit rule in Venice when Galileo existed, Isaac Newton was also heavily christian..
Sensationalizing antagonist arguments to sell books and
This is a dead give-away that you haven't read any of his books, but have listen to others and probably at best flicked through his books.
-
I agree, which is why I can't fucking stand him and this shit he gets on with.
His book, "The selfish gene" is an amazing book explaining how evolution works in very simple but elegant terms. All the stuff people can't seem to wrap their head around, "Why are their still apes if we evolved from them? How could something complex like an eye evolve from something else? What is altruism and morality and how is it compatible with survival of the fittest?"...all these are explained such that a child could understand them. I highly recommend it.
-
You should stop speaking now.
I haven't been speaking at all. You should stop typing now.
-
Santa Claus is as real as Jesus. The only difference is, your parents didn't tell you Jesus is a make believe character at the age of 8.
Tell someone something enough from birth, they'll believe it. How do you think they groom suicide bombers?
Nobody is at fault for many of their beliefs...regardless of how many believe it or how much the same tales are regurgitated.
You don't need to use much logic to disprove almost all religion. Has anyone read the bible? The best fictitious book around.
-
I haven't been speaking at all. You should stop typing now.
I know you mutter the words you are typing with your two pointer fingers as you type them and you take your shoes off when you count to 20.
-
merry dawkins everyone and praises to the high priest.
Can't blame him for his worshippers - many people need idols.
-
Santa Claus is as real as Jesus. The only difference is, your parents didn't tell you Jesus is a make believe character at the age of 8.
Tell someone something enough from birth, they'll believe it. How do you think they groom suicide bombers?
Nobody is at fault for many of their beliefs...regardless of how many believe it or how much the same tales are regurgitated.
You don't need to use much logic to disprove almost all religion. Has anyone read the bible? The best fictitious book around.
So you don't believe Jesus existed at all?
Have you had an opportunity to read and study the bible?
-
So you don't believe Jesus existed at all?
Have you had an opportunity to read and study the bible?
I believe he existed, whether or not he created all those miracles is another story.
check your PMs.
-
Exactly. People like to feel comfortable.
I think a big issue is this: Religion has held a special place in society for so long. Heck, during certain time periods you were not even allowed to talk out against the church without being hung. Obviously, times have drastically changed and people cannot deal with the fact that others are finally really speaking out against religion. They would prefer others to stay silent. I think that many religious people feel "attacked" even though they are not being attacked. Beliefs are being attacked, not them. They need to work it out for themselves that they are not being attacked as a whole person, just their beliefs. Many people cannot separate their beliefs from who they are as a whole person. But guess what? That is no one else's problem but their own. If they can't deal with the idea that their beliefs are going to be "attacked" and get all butt-hurt, then they need to re-evaluate their sense of self.
This. You pretty much know Dawkins is on to something by the extreme visceral reaction many religious people have to him. If he was genuinely just a fool or misguided people would simply feel sorry for him. But deep down the Religious know what he says contains kernels of truth that unfortunately happens to conflict with their cherished yet deluded beliefs. It must be terrible for such people, perhaps similar to the child who doesn't want to let go of the concept of Santa but eventually begrudgingly accepts it. Sadly, many religious adults seem unwilling to let go of deluded beliefs, perhaps because they would have to acknowledge how foolish they have been, and nobody wants to see themselves a fool. Also they would have to accept reality and all the harshness, uncertainty and cruelty it contains without a comforting yet deluded belief system to get them through it.
I think part of the problem is that a child can't so easily go into denial once they discover the truth about Santa, they face the entire adult world who will reinforce the fact Santa doesn't exist and they face ridicule if they continue to believe in Santa even after being exposed to the truth. So a child can't so easily hold onto their belief Santa exists. Unfortunately for adults, when exposed to the reality that God is a man made concept and their is ZERO evidence for GOD's existence, such people can use a myriad of psychological tools to deny this new reality. They also can simply turn to the many other deluded people who will reinforce their delusions and confirmation bias. They can then all rally together and attack those who tried to enlighten them, thus making it harder and harder for them to ever accept reality. First they would have to accept they had been sucked in and foolish to be so credulous and second they would have to join the side they have been heaping scorn and contempt on ever since they were exposed to their message. This is a tall order for many people who simply don't have the constitution or fortitude for such a task, after all they haven't relied on their own strength up until this point in time, they have relied on a delusion of strength by believing in an illusory deity. Remove the source of their strength (their delusion) and they are powerless.
-
Aside from a few very controversial ancient texts, there is no historical record of Jesus at all. Certainly nothing that speaks to his activism or miracles. The most logical explanation is there was a real-life political agitator who got blended with the myths of Horus, Dionysus, etc, and we ended up with the stories we know today.
Prayer is just a way to bargain with an uncaring universe. If you do the right things and burn enough goats, maybe, just maybe, you will be spared some hardships. Doesn't work.
-
Is he still doing Family Fued?
-
Dawkins talks with Satish Kumar, holistic philosopher and environmentalist:
-
Ask him "what is the meaning of life", and watch him stutter and stammer..
-
Ask him "what is the meaning of life", and watch him stutter and stammer..
He has often said he believes people should create their own meaning and I agree with him. There is no universal meaning to life, you simply create a life that has value and meaning for you. That is all.
-
so your one of his believers ?
I believe in evidence. That's why I believe in evolution and not in god. As the former has overwhelming evidence and for the latter their is none.
-
just another man making business.
-
I believe in evidence. That's why I believe in evolution and not in god. As the former has overwhelming evidence and for the latter their is none.
you have seen this evidence in person? You did the leg work to bring it front and center in science? No right, so basically you putting your " faith" in the men that have. You think all christians believe the earth is 6000 years old and that if you die your going to this firey inferno if your bad right , your wrong. But I do not care what you believe just do go around acting all uppity because in your delusional mind you think nothing created everything and out of that you get sophisticated thought and moral virtues, dumbass.
-
you have seen this evidence in person? You did the leg work to bring it front and center in science? No right, so basically you putting your " faith" in the men that have. You think all christians believe the earth is 6000 years old and that if you die your going to this firey inferno if your bad right , your wrong. But I do not care what you believe just do go around acting all uppity because in your delusional mind you think nothing created everything and out of that you get sophisticated thought and moral virtues, dumbass.
You moron, so when you get on a plane did you do the leg work to confirm that aeronautical theory is valid? what a ridiculous assertion. Faith isn't required when evidence can be verified, and any body who doubts the evidence that is being presented is free to investigate the evidence and if he is capable of doing so disproving it.
And not only this, yes I have seen the fossil evidence in person that in part makes up the body of evidence supporting evolution. Maybe you should try visiting a museum. And using your own illogical thinking, I guess because you weren't around to witness Jesus in person, I suppose then that he never existed and all of recorded history before our births is invalid. It comes as no surprise that you are a deluded believer, your critical thinking faculties are non-existent.
And stop presenting strawman arguments, I don't think all christians believe the earth is 6000 years old and that if you die your going to this firey inferno if your bad , but I do know that is what the book they worship says. I also don't think nothing created everything which is a sad accusation coming from someone who thinks NOTHING created GOD.
-
You moron, so when you get on a plane did you do the leg work to confirm that aeronautical theory is valid, what a ridiculous assertion. And stop presenting strawman arguments, I don't think all christians believe the earth is 6000 years old and that if you die your going to this firey inferno if your bad right, but that is what the book they worship says. I also don't think nothing created everything which is a sad accusation coming from someone who thinks NOTHING created GOD.
Yes, the whole argument, "Well, you weren't there, so you need to have faith in the scientists" is absolutely ridiculous. That argument has been destroyed numerous times over. In fact, I have not heard a theist use this argument in a debate in a rather long time. Even they learned its dumb to assert.
I did not need to be there when scientists were creating the antibiotics that is curing my double ear infection. I trust in the scientific method and that the scientists were adhering to appropriate scientific principles when developing this medicine. And guess what? It works!! :o :o
-
you seem as easy to wind up as those you despise
Whoa, settle down there big fella, no need to get enraged about it?
Who said I despise them? For the most part I pity those unable to reason effectively.
And I am not wound up, pretty weak attempt to project your feelings onto me.
-
well did anyone watch the talk with Satish Kumar?
-
well did anyone watch the talk with Satish Kumar?
I have seen it a while ago when watching Dawkins 'Enemies of Reason.' SO what of it?
-
Satish made plenty of sense to me but you probably think he's 'unawakened'
-
Satish made plenty of sense to me but you probably think he's 'unawakened'
You are right, he is a naive idiot, not much unlike yourself Such people are on the other extreme of dictators. Personally pacifists like Satish Kumar cause more suffering for others than non-pacifists. Take Gandhi for example, he encouraged the Jews to not resist the Nazis. Or the Dalai Lama, told his followers to not resist the Chinese, which of course got those poor sods murdered. Thanks Dalai lama.
-
I am not a pacifist when it comes to a person, tribe or country justifiably protecting itself.
-
You are right, he is a naive idiot, not much unlike yourself Such people are on the other extreme of dictators. Personally pacifists like Satish Kumar cause more suffering for others than non-pacifists. Take Gandhi for example, he encouraged the Jews to not resist the Nazis. Or the Dalai Lama, told his followers to not resist the Chinese, which of course got those poor sods murdered. Thanks Dalai lama.
Your tone is starting to annoy me a little 'Savagely Homo', you should wind your turkey neck in a bit.
-
Your tone is starting to annoy me a little 'Savagely Homo', you should wind your turkey neck in a bit.
You're approaching redline yourself in these last 250 posts, stud. Gonna be some hard truths getting told!
-
It is so refreshing to know that there are still a few logical and reasonable people willing to share their insight and wisdom.
(http://atheistfoundation.org.au/assets/RichardDawkinsBanner800.jpg)
Richard Dawk is a pseudo intellectual jerk off. I bet he masturbates at least once a day.
-
Your tone is starting to annoy me a little 'Savagely Homo', you should wind your turkey neck in a bit.
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/53772626.jpg)
-
Aside from a few very controversial ancient texts, there is no historical record of Jesus at all. Certainly nothing that speaks to his activism or miracles. The most logical explanation is there was a real-life political agitator who got blended with the myths of Horus, Dionysus, etc, and we ended up with the stories we know today.
Prayer is just a way to bargain with an uncaring universe. If you do the right things and burn enough goats, maybe, just maybe, you will be spared some hardships. Doesn't work.
There are the apostles. Most of whom were martyred. Do you think they all had the same collective delusion?
-
There are the apostles. Most of whom were martyred. Do you think they all had the same collective delusion?
Why Not? Considering billions of modern day humans share a collective delusion even though they are exposed to countless information that exposes their delusions as just that, I can't see why a handful of ancient apostles with limited knowledge and access to alternate information couldn't share in a delusion.
-
can you sit in a dark room and enjoy stillness of mind? Or does your militant evangelism give you no peace?
-
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/53772626.jpg)
How did you accumluate over 10k posts without me ever noticing you? The sheer volume of shit, should have alerted my nosehair at least by now.
-
How did you accumluate over 10k posts without me ever noticing you? The sheer volume of shit, should have alerted my nosehair at least by now.
You probably lack the intellect to work this out for yourself. I am sure another getbigger will take it upon themselves to help you solve your dilemma.
-
Why Not? Considering billions of modern day humans share a collective delusion even though they are exposed to countless information that exposes their delusions as just that, I can't see why a handful of ancient apostles with limited knowledge and access to alternate information couldn't share in a delusion.
Oh c'mon bro, you're stretching your imagination real hard there..
-
Oh c'mon bro, you're stretching your imagination real hard there..
I'm not imagining anything, it is true that billions of people today share a common delusion. I am right whatever faith you choose. Let's say the Christians are right then they aren't the ones participating in a mass delusion, well then that means everyone is. And if the Muslims are right, then billions of non-muslims are also collectively deluded. If billions of people can share in a mass delusion in an advanced age like ours then it is utterly plausible that 12 apostles could share a collective delusion in the Bronze age.
I am not saying that the apostles were or were not deluded just pointing out if billions of people can share in a delusion then it isn't unreasonable to think that 12 apostles could also suffer from a shared delusion.
-
your just as religious with your atheism, troubling you cant see it.
-
How did you accumluate over 10k posts without me ever noticing you? The sheer volume of shit, should have alerted my nosehair at least by now.
its because you nose hairs, having spent so long in shit, lost their sensitivity
-
your just as religious with your atheism, troubling you cant see it.
Oh Brother, this old chestnut. You are getting desperate now. Personally I don't like the term atheist, although I will use it for arguments sake and to avoid lengthy explanations. I will quote Sam Harris as he articulated this well when he said, " 'atheism' is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”
And you fail to realize you are also an atheist, I just go one god further than you. I am sure you don't believe in Zeus, Poseidon or Hera or the myriad of other gods people of other religions other than your own believe in.
-
How did you accumluate over 10k posts without me ever noticing you? The sheer volume of shit, should have alerted my nosehair at least by now.
He's the artist formerly known as E-kul IIRC.
-
Oh Brother, this old chestnut. You are getting desperate now. Personally I don't like the term atheist, although I will use it for arguments sake and to avoid lengthy explanations. I will quote Sam Harris as he articulated this well when he said, " 'atheism' is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”
Put 20 atheists in a room and you'll get about 5-6 different definitions of atheism. Same with theists.
I don't care how, what, why an atheist defines or doesn't define their position......I know exactly what/who a person without God is.
What I enjoy about Sam's comment is how he begins by stating that the term "atheism" need not exist as the identity of "atheists" need not be defined by words and then concludes with redefining the term "atheism" with different words.
That said, just enjoy Dawkins' lecture/discussion LOL. ;D
-
Put 20 atheists in a room and you'll get about 5-6 different definitions of atheism. Same with theists.
I don't care how, what, why an atheist defines or doesn't define their position......I know exactly what/who a person without God is.
What I enjoy about Sam's comment is how he begins by stating that the term "atheism" need not exist as the identity of "atheists" need not be defined by words and then concludes with redefining the term "atheism" with different words.
That said, just enjoy Dawkins' lecture/discussion LOL. ;D
And please, tell me what or who a person is without God in their life? Unless you know the internal world of every atheist, this ought to be interesting.
Cue the statement, "All atheists are depressed, lonely, lost, misguided, without god." ::) ::)
-
its because you nose hairs, having spent so long in shit, lost their sensitivity
Still the worst posts in getbig history then :-\.
-
He's the artist formerly known as E-kul IIRC.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahha a 'E-Kul' oh brother, didn't know I was dealing with that bitter little beta oh brother, I wouldn't have bothered.
-
And please, tell me what or who a person is without God in their life? Unless you know the internal world of every atheist, this ought to be interesting.
Not a problem.....just a person that chooses to have no belief in God....simple as that. Reasons why vary from person to person. You'll most likely give me a different spin....fine. It'll still come back to what I just wrote.
I agree with Sam, don't need the term "atheist" or "atheism". I just found it funny that he still redefined it.
-
Still the worst posts in getbig history then :-\.
better than being shit nosed like you claim to be
-
Well it isn't unusual to dislike someone who exposes the beliefs you have cherished for a lifetime to be nothing more than falsehoods and indoctrination. Better to remain in denial and ignorance than to face the fact you have been a deluded idiot your whole life.
You mean to tell me that Snoopy will never have the Christmas Beagle come visit his doghouse.
-
Most atheists are completely unaware of the fact the term "atheist" pertains to a rejection of all deities existing. A most unscientific mentality and not actually the term they think they are subscribing to.
Some blithering idiots obvious cross their own faith barrier and do maintain there is no god but most people (and I do mean the critical thinkers) merely do not believe in the ones that have been perpetuated on earth without any proof, but maintain they *could* exist aka agnosticism.
Anybody who claims that "there is no god" instead of "they doubt there is a god by virtue of lack of proof" is in their own special way a religious person.
Debating religion is a desperately fruitless process of attempting to reinforce your own beliefs by criticising others.
I will say this, though - anybody who believes that without god, life isn't magnificent and the universe we reside in is not "magical" enough is wrong and I'm glad to say that having discovered astrophysics and owned telescopes and whatnot, I no longer have any fucks to give about there not being a magical skygod in my life.
Also, Richard Dawkins is a poor ambassador for critical thinking in the context of interaction with those who have faith. He bleeds a very clear and identifiable frustration for people who have faith and it doesn't matter how unintelligent people are, they can all read when someone thinks they are a fucking moron.
-
Not a problem.....just a person that chooses to have no belief in God....simple as that. Reasons why vary from person to person. You'll most likely give me a different spin....fine. It'll still come back to what I just wrote.
I agree with Sam, don't need the term "atheist" or "atheism". I just found it funny that he still redefined it.
Well, I cannot say for a 100% fact that a God does not exist because anyone could be wrong. I say with a 99.9% certainty that a God does not exist based on the available evidence. But I am always willing to change my mind if the evidence presents itself. Dawkins said the same thing. You can't be fully certain a God does not exist. Anyone can be wrong. So, what does that make me? An atheist with a slight twinge of agnosticism? Who really cares.
How you or anyone else wants to define my stance is their prerogative. I do not put much time into thinking about how to define atheism lol. There are much better things to do than that.
-
Most atheists are completely unaware of the fact the term "atheist" pertains to a rejection of all deities existing. A most unscientific mentality and not actually the term they think they are subscribing to.
Some blithering idiots obvious cross their own faith barrier and do maintain there is no god but most people (and I do mean the critical thinkers) merely do not believe in the ones that have been perpetuated on earth without any proof, but maintain they *could* exist aka agnosticism.
Anybody who claims that "there is no god" instead of "they doubt there is a god by virtue of lack of proof" is in their own special way a religious person.
Debating religion is a desperately fruitless process of attempting to reinforce your own beliefs by criticising others.
I will say this, though - anybody who believes that without god, life isn't magnificent and the universe we reside in is not "magical" enough is wrong and I'm glad to say that having discovered astrophysics and owned telescopes and whatnot, I no longer have any fucks to give about there not being a magical skygod in my life.
Also, Richard Dawkins is a poor ambassador for critical thinking in the context of interaction with those who have faith. He bleeds a very clear and identifiable frustration for people who have faith and it doesn't matter how unintelligent people are, they can all read when someone thinks they are a fucking moron.
good post, especially like the bolded part.
-
Well, I cannot say for a 100% fact that a God does not exist because anyone could be wrong. I say with a 99.9% certainty that a God does not exist based on the available evidence. But I am always willing to change my mind if the evidence presents itself. Dawkins said the same thing. You can't be fully certain a God does not exist. Anyone can be wrong. So, what does that make me? An atheist with a slight twinge of agnosticism? Who really cares.
How you or anyone else wants to define my stance is their prerogative. I do not put much time into thinking about how to define atheism lol. There are much better things to do than that.
It makes you not an atheist. That's not an atheist.
End of story.
Not an atheist with a dash of agnosticism. It is agnosticism. They only differ by how you define your certainty and I was truly surprised when I discovered that, that anybody bothers to define themselves as an atheist.
-
Put 20 atheists in a room and you'll get about 5-6 different definitions of atheism. Same with theists.
I don't care how, what, why an atheist defines or doesn't define their position......I know exactly what/who a person without God is.
What I enjoy about Sam's comment is how he begins by stating that the term "atheism" need not exist as the identity of "atheists" need not be defined by words and then concludes with redefining the term "atheism" with different words.
That said, just enjoy Dawkins' lecture/discussion LOL. ;D
Sam uses the word atheism for simplicity sake. It is done so that he doesn't have to continually expand it by saying "What others mean when they refer to the word atheism". It is ridiculous to think that one can avoid the word atheism while explaining why the word is unnecessary.
To fully understand his point it would be necessary to hear his complete view on the matter, rather than just a quote taken out of context.
-
I am a 'born again Christian'. I try to live according to the bible, I attend church regularly and am a 'guest speaker' oh brother at several churches.
Still, I would not say 100% that God exists, or that I 'know' God exists.
If I claimed that, my faith, which is the only thing that justifies me in God's eyes, would be void.
I have faith He exists. I don't 'know'.
Hows them apples?
-
Sam uses the word atheism for simplicity sake. It is done so that he doesn't have to continually expand it by saying "What others mean when they refer to the word atheism". It is ridiculous to think that one can avoid the word atheism while explaining why the word is unnecessary.
To fully understand his point it would be necessary to hear his complete view on the matter, rather than just a quote taken out of context.
No, no I grasp what he did.
In my experience, atheists love defining terms in discussions.....except the term "atheism". Sam takes it a step further and thinks it shouldn't exist.
I agree and also don't care if it exists or not.....it changes absolutely nothing.
-
I am a 'born again Christian'. I try to live according to the bible, I attend church regularly and am a 'guest speaker' oh brother at several churches.
Still, I would not say 100% that God exists, or that I 'know' God exists.
If I claimed that, my faith, which is the only thing that justifies me in God's eyes, would be void.
I have faith He exists. I don't 'know'.
Hows them apples?
Well technically you don't have faith, because you have doubt, which makes you an agnostic.
-
No, no I grasp what he did.
In my experience, atheists love defining terms in discussions.....except the term "atheism". Sam takes it a step further and thinks it shouldn't exist.
I agree and also don't care if it exists or not.....it changes absolutely nothing.
The term atheist should exist. It should be a label for a person who does not believe in god and does not have a scientific way of thinking :)
-
Well technically you don't have faith, because you have doubt, which makes you an agnostic.
there is no faith without doubt.
-
(http://memenotgene.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/dawkins-quote.jpg)
:D which religion is he referring to here?
-
It makes you not an atheist. That's not an atheist.
End of story.
Not an atheist with a dash of agnosticism. It is agnosticism. They only differ by how you define your certainty and I was truly surprised when I discovered that, that anybody bothers to define themselves as an atheist.
Well, there ya go lol
-
Well technically you don't have faith, because you have doubt, which makes you an agnostic.
Read my post again.
There is not even 0.00001% doubt.
I have 100% faith.
But that does not equate to even 1% knowledge.
If I walk off a cliff, who's bottom is clouded by mist, but someone tells me there is a safety net 20ft down - then when I jump I have 100% faith in what that person is telling me.
However, I have 0% knowledge of the net, nor can I say I 'Know' it exists.
-
(http://memenotgene.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/dawkins-quote.jpg)
:D which religion is he referring to here?
Nice quote, and pretty convincing if you didn't know otherwise. However, it's interesting that he uses modern terms such as 'homophobic' to describe an entity who predates even the terms.
-
I am a 'born again Christian'. I try to live according to the bible, I attend church regularly and am a 'guest speaker' oh brother at several churches.
Still, I would not say 100% that God exists, or that I 'know' God exists.
If I claimed that, my faith, which is the only thing that justifies me in God's eyes, would be void.
I have faith He exists. I don't 'know'.
Hows them apples?
Few words from the choirboy :). Earlier in my life I felt as you do know, but the Lord clearly revealed himself to me in my darkest, gravest hour.
I don't think a lot of folks get that close to death personally and experience the spiritual darkness and light I did....left me a changed man.
Today, I absolutely know his reality because of his revelation in my life via the Holy Spirit.....just too many divine encounters/appointments to ignore.
Your post helps me regain perspective that is needed.
-
I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible.
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/why-dont-i-criticize-israel/
:o
-
No, no I grasp what he did.
In my experience, atheists love defining terms in discussions.....except the term "atheism". Sam takes it a step further and thinks it shouldn't exist.
I agree and also don't care if it exists or not.....it changes absolutely nothing.
Well it does change things. Sam argues by attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn't really a thing at all. And atheism, he argues, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as “non-racism” is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such.
He argues by consenting to be labelled an atheist, we are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that lacks credibility. It also has been used to keep our criticism of religion at arm’s length, and has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them.
Rather than declare ourselves “atheists” in opposition to all religion, Sam suggests we should do nothing more than advocate reason and intellectual honesty—and where this advocacy causes us to collide with religion, as it inevitably will, we should observe that the points of impact are always with specific religious beliefs—not with religion in general.
-
I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible.
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/why-dont-i-criticize-israel/
:o
He may not support biblical claims to Isreal's real estate, historical ones should suffice.
-
Nice quote, and pretty convincing if you didn't know otherwise. However, it's interesting that he uses modern terms such as 'homophobic' to describe an entity who predates even the terms.
You aren't too bright are you BigCyp? The term may not have existed but the behavior the term defines did. Did oxygen exist before there was a name for it?
-
He may not support biblical claims to Isreal's real estate, historical ones should suffice.
this is a Sam Harris quote to be clear
-
I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible.
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/why-dont-i-criticize-israel/
:o
He thinks it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have any state organized around any religion, that includes Muslims claims over so called holy land.
-
Well it does change things. Sam argues by attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn't really a thing at all. And atheism, he argues, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as “non-racism” is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such.
He argues by consenting to be labelled an atheist, we are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that lacks credibility. It also has been used to keep our criticism of religion at arm’s length, and has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them.
Rather than declare ourselves “atheists” in opposition to all religion, Sam suggests we should do nothing more than advocate reason and intellectual honesty—and where this advocacy causes us to collide with religion, as it inevitably will, we should observe that the points of impact are always with specific religious beliefs—not with religion in general.
All good....remove the term "atheism" and all philosophical ties, worldviews, labels and promote reason and intellectual honesty while challenging specific religious beliefs.
However the mission statement, position statement, aims and principles, shared objectives, creed, definition, terminology etc…..is structured is fine by me. It’s a non-issue for me and I object to nothing. State the "atheist" position however best represents you.
LOL cause in the end, as a theist I still represent belief in God and as an atheist you choose no belief in God.
-
You aren't too bright are you BigCyp? The term may not have existed but the behavior the term defines did. Did oxygen exist before there was a name for it?
Really? ::)
The point I was making, is that a lot of terminology used in these dicussions was birthed out of sociology itself. The label itself, although it describes a type of behaviour (or attempts to) is authoritative of the behaviour, but a human attempt to understand complex social transaction. Once a behaviour has a 'name', it does not become that name, rather it carries on as before. The only difference being it is easier to converse about. By this reasoning, if God decided that Homosexuality was not acceptable, it does not make him 'homophobic'. This term suggests that He is somehow wrong or not reaching the standards His own creation has set for him. That notion alone is laughable.
-
All good....remove the term "atheism" and all philosophical ties, worldviews, labels and promote reason and intellectual honesty while challenging specific religious beliefs.
However the mission statement, position statement, aims and principles, shared objectives, creed, definition, terminology etc…..is structured is fine by me. It’s a non-issue for me and I object to nothing. State the "atheist" position however best represents you.
LOL cause in the end, as a theist I still represent belief in God and as an atheist you choose no belief in God.
To be clear, you also choose non belief in the myriad of known gods except for the one you think is the right one.
-
Really? ::)
The point I was making, is that a lot of terminology used in these dicussions was birthed out of sociology itself. The label itself, although it describes a type of behaviour (or attempts to) is authoritative of the behaviour, but a human attempt to understand complex social transaction. Once a behaviour has a 'name', it does not become that name, rather it carries on as before. The only difference being it is easier to converse about. By this reasoning, if God decided that Homosexuality was not acceptable, it does not make him 'homophobic'. This term suggests that He is somehow wrong or not reaching the standards His own creation has set for him. That notion alone is laughable.
well said
-
Really? ::)
The point I was making, is that a lot of terminology used in these dicussions was birthed out of sociology itself. The label itself, although it describes a type of behaviour (or attempts to) is authoritative of the behaviour, but a human attempt to understand complex social transaction. Once a behaviour has a 'name', it does not become that name, rather it carries on as before. The only difference being it is easier to converse about. By this reasoning, if God decided that Homosexuality was not acceptable, it does not make him 'homophobic'. This term suggests that He is somehow wrong or not reaching the standards His own creation has set for him. That notion alone is laughable.
Of course GOD is wrong, simply because God contradicts himself all the time. On one hand he expresses disapproval and contempt of homosexuals and on the other preaches that man should be tolerant and show love for all mankind. Which is it? The golden rule and judge not, lest you be judged or kill homosexuals.
-
To be clear, you also choose non belief in the myriad of known gods except for the one you think is the right one.
correct with the only change being "think" to "know"
-
well said
I thought it was ridiculous. If God showed a prejudice against homosexuals, that by definition does indeed make him homophobic as the word is understood today.
-
Few words from the choirboy :). Earlier in my life I felt as you do know, but the Lord clearly revealed himself to me in my darkest, gravest hour.
I don't think a lot of folks get that close to death personally and experience the spiritual darkness and light I did....left me a changed man.
Today, I absolutely know his reality because of his revelation in my life via the Holy Spirit.....just too many divine encounters/appointments to ignore.
Your post helps me regain perspective that is needed.
Don't get me wrong, in a conversation between brothers in Christ I would not put my point across the way I did in that post. To you, I say that yes I 'know' God is real because the Holy Spirit bears witness in me that I am a child of 'Abba' Father. I can't explain my 'knowledge' outside of that concept (apart from my experiential knowledge, through personally witnessing healings, demons being cast out, prayers being instantaneously answered and so on). To another believer it's a different conversation, as the Spirit Himself is spiritually discerned so to speak..
-
To be clear, you also choose non belief in the myriad of known gods except for the one you think is the right one.
correct with the only change being "think" to "know"
So, all the people who also 'know' they are correct in choosing a God other than yours are simply mistaken. Why is that?
-
Don't get me wrong, in a conversation between brothers in Christ I would not put my point across the way I did in that post. To you, I say that yes I 'know' God is real because the Holy Spirit bears witness in me that I am a child of 'Abba' Father. I can't explain my 'knowledge' outside of that concept (apart from my experiential knowledge, through personally witnessing healings, demons being cast out, prayers being instantaneously answered and so on). To another believer it's a different conversation, as the Spirit Himself is spiritually discerned so to speak..
well said again
-
Don't get me wrong, in a conversation between brothers in Christ I would not put my point across the way I did in that post. To you, I say that yes I 'know' God is real because the Holy Spirit bears witness in me that I am a child of 'Abba' Father. I can't explain my 'knowledge' outside of that concept (apart from my experiential knowledge, through personally witnessing healings, demons being cast out, prayers being instantaneously answered and so on). To another believer it's a different conversation, as the Spirit Himself is spiritually discerned so to speak..
Demons being cast out, Oh Brother. I had no idea I was dealing with a whackjob of such magnitude. I understood far more now what I am dealing with. I often have to pinch myself and check the calendar when I read such nonsense. Is this really the year 2014?
-
I thought it was ridiculous. If God showed a prejudice against homosexuals, that by definition does indeed make him homophobic as the word is understood today.
Your logic would necesitate that God is also prejudiced against thieves, adulterers, liars and murderers and makes him thiefophobic, adultererphobic, liarphobic and murderphobic.
God redeems and cleanses the sinner and removes the sin. He desires all come to him in surrender seeking righteousness.
-
So, all the people who also 'know' they are correct in choosing a God other than yours are simply mistaken. Why is that?
We've discussed all this before....consult post history for same answers. No offense intended either....I've just written this stuff so many times.
-
Well it does change things. Sam argues by attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn't really a thing at all. And atheism, he argues, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as “non-racism” is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such.
He argues by consenting to be labelled an atheist, we are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that lacks credibility. It also has been used to keep our criticism of religion at arm’s length, and has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them.
Rather than declare ourselves “atheists” in opposition to all religion, Sam suggests we should do nothing more than advocate reason and intellectual honesty—and where this advocacy causes us to collide with religion, as it inevitably will, we should observe that the points of impact are always with specific religious beliefs—not with religion in general.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
-
Demons being cast out, Oh Brother. I had no idea I was dealing with a whackjob of such magnitude. I understood far more now what I am dealing with.
If you met me in person, you would not think I am a whackjob whatsoever, I am convinced of that.
I would clarify though, that I have not, and never would be a part of a church who are 'hyper' in terms of demon exorcism, or focused too much on that side of things. However, to share one quick story I was helping out a teenage Christian Camp for troubled kids one Summer and I cannot deny what I saw with my own eyes. By nature, a camp near any City in the U.K. will have a large percentage of African kids, either 1st or 2nd Generation, and have been exposed to a lot of traditional African 'Juju' etc. One night around 9pm, the kids were lining up to get a bedtime hot chocolate and out of the blue this 13 year old African girl falls to the ground and was clearly 'possessed' with another entity. She had no history of siezures or epilepsy etc, but her eyes had completely rolled back, her back arched at a very inhuman angle (is the best way to describe it) and it was like she was being held up by an invisible force. We tried to bring her around by speaking to her, comforting her etc, and in the end a few of the pastors came over and a group of us simply said the words "Come out of her now in the Name of Jesus Christ" and within seconds it was almost like you could see the angle the entity left her body at, immediately she was herself again and so grateful that 'it' was gone. We didn't set out to do this that night, but it happened.
-
Your logic would necesitate that God is also prejudiced against thieves, adulterers, liars and murderers and makes him thiefophobic, adultererphobic, liarphobic and murderphobic.
God redeems and cleanses the sinner and removes the sin. He desires all come to him in surrender seeking righteousness.
No, it doesn't. There is a reason there are no such terms. The prejudice alluded to in the term homophopic is based on that it is an unreasonable dislike or hatred of someone or something. In the case of thieves and murderers, it is reasonable to dislike such people. One can put forward a reasonable and rational argument why such behavior would be disliked.
As for lying and adultery, I think god got it wrong on those counts too. Lying is necessary and can be beneficial and the idea of confining one man and one woman together for life, even if against their will is ridiculous. And even theft is questionable, in a truly 'Christian' society a man would have no need to steal if he had access to all the resources he needed, it is the greedy hoarding by some that precludes others from being able to get their basic needs met, necessitating theft for their survival. Some would also argue murder is also acceptable under certain circumstances, especially when it prevents even greater numbers being murdered.
-
If you met me in person, you would not think I am a whackjob whatsoever, I am convinced of that.
I would clarify though, that I have not, and never would be a part of a church who are 'hyper' in terms of demon exorcism, or focused too much on that side of things. However, to share one quick story I was helping out a teenage Christian Camp for troubled kids one Summer and I cannot deny what I saw with my own eyes. By nature, a camp near any City in the U.K. will have a large percentage of African kids, either 1st or 2nd Generation, and have been exposed to a lot of traditional African 'Juju' etc. One night around 9pm, the kids were lining up to get a bedtime hot chocolate and out of the blue this 13 year old African girl falls to the ground and was clearly 'possessed' with another entity. She had no history of siezures or epilepsy etc, but her eyes had completely rolled back, her back arched at a very inhuman angle (is the best way to describe it) and it was like she was being held up by an invisible force. We tried to bring her around by speaking to her, comforting her etc, and in the end a few of the pastors came over and a group of us simply said the words "Come out of her now in the Name of Jesus Christ" and within seconds it was almost like you could see the angle the entity left her body at, immediately she was herself again and so grateful that 'it' was gone. We didn't set out to do this that night, but it happened.
Awesome.....evil fleeing at the name of Jesus!! Now that I can absolutely attest to this as I've experienced it many, many times personally. Although, I never witnessed a possession in person (and don't really wanna either), but I've heard stories from pastors, in books and online/tv.
-
Awesome.....evil fleeing at the name of Jesus!! Now that I can absolutely attest to this as I've experienced it many, many times personally. Although, I never witnessed a possession in person (and don't really wanna either), but I've heard stories from pastors, in books and online/tv.
Amen!
I must say though, that my preconceived notions of it being something that would be a thrill to do were quickly stifled. You could sense that every full grown bloke there was filling their pants. A demon is not the best company.
-
If you met me in person, you would not think I am a whackjob whatsoever, I am convinced of that.
Sorry, but if I met you in person and you mentioned demons and possession, that would trigger my "spider-sense" and I would politely disengage myself and avoid any further interaction as best I could. I actually choose not to have religious people as part of my inner circle. I know I can't avoid religious people, but I choose never to develop any meaningful relationships with them. There are to many 'reasonable' and 'rational' people out there to waste time on the masses of deluded god botherers. I have a few friends who claim to be spiritual and believe in a GOD, just not the god of the bible. But they don't try and preach religious nonsense and they good-naturedly accept my mocking of their crazy views. You have reinforced to me why It is wise to avoid such people.
-
No, it doesn't. There is a reason there are no such terms. The prejudice alluded to in the term homophopic is based on that it is an unreasonable dislike or hatred of someone or something. In the case of thieves and murderers, it is reasonable to dislike such people. One can put forward a reasonable and rational argument why such behavior would be disliked.
As for lying and adultery, I think god got it wrong on those counts too. Lying is necessary and can be beneficial and the idea of confining one man and one woman together for life, even if against their will is ridiculous. And even theft is questionable, in a truly 'Christian' society a man would have no need to steal if he had access to all the resources he needed, it is the greedy hoarding by some that precludes others from being able to get their basic needs met, necessitating theft for their survival. Some would also argue murder is also acceptable under certain circumstances, especially when it prevents even greater numbers being murdered.
You deny God and you deny sin. The world justifies whichever sins they enjoy. Nothing new here.
Again, we've done this all before.....just consult my post history.
-
Sorry, but if I met you in person and you mentioned demons and possession, that would trigger my "spider-sense" and I would politely disengage myself and avoid any further interaction as best I could. I actually choose not to have religious people as part of my inner circle. I know I can't avoid religious people, but I choose never to develop any meaningful relationships with them. There are to many 'reasonable' and 'rational' people out there to waste time on the masses of deluded god botherers.
Don't flatter yourself, i'd rather be seen playing golf with Shizzo than be accepted by you on facebook. All I was saying, is that I am not 'freaky' by any stretch of the imagination.
The only way you would know I believed in Demons, would be if we got onto the topic after 6 pints of lager ;D
-
Sorry, but if I met you in person and you mentioned demons and possession, that would trigger my "spider-sense" and I would politely disengage myself and avoid any further interaction as best I could. I actually choose not to have religious people as part of my inner circle. I know I can't avoid religious people, but I choose never to develop any meaningful relationships with them. There are to many 'reasonable' and 'rational' people out there to waste time on the masses of deluded god botherers. You have reinforced to me why It is wise to avoid such people.
Those types of relationships are almost impossible to develop....oil and water.
-
Don't flatter yourself, i'd rather be seen playing golf with Shizzo than be accepted by you on facebook. All I was saying, is that I am not 'freaky' by any stretch of the imagination.
The only way you would know I believed in Demons, would be if we got onto the topic after 6 pints of lager ;D
I am skilled in getting people to open up very early on, it is rare for me to meet someone and not soon discover their inner workings and core beliefs. Because I am very selective who I choose to spend time with, I make it a habit to learn about others quickly.
-
I am skilled in getting people to open up very early on, it is rare for me to meet someone and not soon discover their inner workings and core beliefs. Because I am very selective who I choose to spend time with, I make it a habit to learn about others quickly.
So you ask others, "Hey, what religion are you?" or "Say, where do you got to church?". And if they say "I'm a Methodist" or "St. Lukes down on Culver Drive" your instincts tell you it's time to cut ties. ;D
-
So you ask others, "Hey, what religion are you?" or "Say, where do you got to church?". And if they say "I'm a Methodist" or "St. Lukes down on Culver Drive" your instincts tell you it's time to cut ties. ;D
No, Often I just talk about subjects related to religion or politics. It could be anything from Mother Theresa, ISIS, The Pope, the Church's role in African overpopulation, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Stephen Hawking or sometimes I just reveal my own convictions. Richard Dawkins is a good one to get people to expose their beliefs, as he is quite well known and religious people can't help but react to his name. I once mentioned him to a customer who pulled the most sour of faces and went on to disparage him mercilessly. I simply explored the reasons why he reacted that way and it wasn't long before he spilled his entire deluded belief system out for all to see. Homosexuality and the right for same sex marriage is also another good one to get people to expose their religion, as it is a rare Religious person who would support same sex marriage. And because I hide my own convictions and talk using such a tone that suggests I am neutral and won't judge them either way, people feel free to open up to me believing that I am not judging what they say.
-
I am skilled in getting people to open up very early on, it is rare for me to meet someone and not soon discover their inner workings and core beliefs. Because I am very selective who I choose to spend time with, I make it a habit to learn about others quickly.
Same here. I can evaluate people extremely fast and most people reveal themselves very quickly and their entire belief system without even ever asking them directly. Cues are so easy to pick up and they don`t even realize it.
-
Same here. I can evaluate people extremely fast and most people reveal themselves very quickly and their entire belief system without even ever asking them directly. Cues are so easy to pick up and they don`t even realize it.
Christians are called to share their faith with others.
-
Christians are called to share their faith with others.
And so then they should expect criticism and a thorough evaluation of their ideas.
-
And so then they should expect criticism and a thorough evaluation of their ideas.
Agreed.
This is why we're also told the following:
1 Peter 3:15
15 Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if someone asks about your hope as a believer, always be ready to explain it.
I think most believers are ill-equipped to enter into discussion. Questions are posed and they're left mouths agape and embarrassed or they begin insulting due to their insecurities because of their ignorance.
-
And so then they should expect criticism and a thorough evaluation of their ideas.
as you should yours, oh wait your immune as the burden of proof is on those who believe anything other than your materialistic framework so your excused ::)
-
as you should yours, oh wait your immune as the burden of proof is on those who believe anything other than your materialistic framework so your excused ::)
I welcome it and all the evidence is accessible for everybody and is verifiable. Religious morons don`t want criticism, and then when some are willing to be criticized, they throw a hissy fit and can`t produce anything other than a book conceived in myths and written by hearsay. No proof, nothing scientific, nothing verifiable, no evidence. Nothing.
Materialistic? Look at your own fucking self and your fake muscles. What good do you do in the world? Who do you help other than yourself with your bullshit "self-introspection" and meditation. You are trying to enlighten only yourself with all your mumbo jumbo. If anyone is materialistic and shallow its someone hopped up on steroids, meditating in a corner, looking for self guidance.
-
So on the one hand you say you welcome criticism, go on to say how religious folk throw a hissy fit when asked for evidence then when your world view is called materialistic you meltdown and resort to vehemence.
-
So on the one hand you say you welcome criticism, go on to say how religious folk throw a hissy fit when asked for evidence then when your world view is called materialistic you meltdown and resort to vehemence.
1. I was stating what they do.
2. You have no idea what my world view is,
3. You are a shallow piece of shit only interested in yourself. You have never done a goddamn thing for anyone or anything on this planet I bet other than for yourself.
-
The problem is scientific methods are incompatible with the transcendant yet ironically are demanded to be forcefit into discussions of spirituality. Natural methods can't measure or replicate supernatural properties (God). Since God stands outside the natural, testable, observable world and he must be approached on his terms as set forth in scripture. Either you are willing and desire to do so or you aren't and don't. You don't demand things of God, you willfully submit to him....that's when he reveals himself......on his terms, not the world's.
Proof is a subjective concept and is negotiable. Individuals differ in the amounts and types of validation to proof something.
-
1. I was stating what they do.
2. You have no idea what my world view is,
3. You are a shallow piece of shit only interested in yourself. You have never done a goddamn thing for anyone or anything on this planet I bet other than for yourself.
yet your doing the exact same thing, you cannot even hold a rational discussion. You say I have no idea what your worldview is then go on to tell me about the effect my life has on the world, are you god or something?
-
The problem is scientific methods are incompatible with the transcendant yet ironically are demanded to be forcefit into discussions of spirituality. Natural methods can't measure or replicate supernatural properties (God). Since God stands outside the natural, testable, observable world and he must be approached on his terms as set forth in scripture. Either you are willing and desire to do so or you aren't and don't. You don't demand things of God, you willfully submit to him....that's when he reveals himself......on his terms, not the world's.
Proof is a subjective concept and is negotiable. Individuals differ in the amounts and types of validation to proof something.
And on that note, proving whether or not God exists, according to your strict terms, is impossible.
If that's the case, all we can do is agree to disagree.
-
And on that note, proving whether or not God exists, according to your strict terms, is impossible.
If that's the case, all we can do is agree to disagree.
That's just it....they aren't my terms....they're God's. In the end, if you choose not to abide by his terms then yes there's little else to say.
I desired to know the reality of God and I surrendered to him, prayed to him, honestly sought him.....and he responded in a way that changed me.
-
That's just it....they aren't my terms....they're God's. In the end, if you choose not to abide by his terms then yes there's little else to say.
I desired to know the reality of God and I surrendered to him, prayed to him, honestly sought him.....and he responded in a way that changed me.
You changed yourself, you just don`t realize it.
-
That's just it....they aren't my terms....they're God's. In the end, if you choose not to abide by his terms then yes there's little else to say.
I desired to know the reality of God and I surrendered to him, prayed to him, honestly sought him.....and he responded in a way that changed me.
And if they are Gods terms, then all scientific methods will be pointless, because as you stated, he is impossible to measure.
Again, agree to disagree. You claim that you surrendered to God and youre changed. And I claim that believing in God has done nothing for me and not believing has positively changed me. That is my subjective world. No one can say its true or false, but me.
So, again, why even debate then? lol
-
You changed yourself, you just don`t realize it.
To be honest, from your chair, that is a fair conclusion to reach.
I can only assure you that the Lord entered my life and the Holy Spirit of God has filled me and changed me from the inside out almost instantly.
I can share with you evidence that validates the bible via archeological findings, non-biblical contemporaneous writings that validate Christ's divinity and resurrection, prophetic scripture that has been fulfilled, to my personal divine experiences with God and not to forget the millions of other personal testimonies of other folks divine appointments.
It's up to each individual to truly be proactive and evaluate that information.
If folks that have no belief refuse to proactively evaluate what believer's present them and simply stick to "I refuse to believe unless validated with naturalistic, scientific methods only" then what many assume to be true will often be proven to be true if all they seek after is what they desire to be true.
-
And if they are Gods terms, then all scientific methods will be pointless, because as you stated, he is impossible to measure.
Again, agree to disagree. You claim that you surrendered to God and youre changed. And I claim that believing in God has done nothing for me and not believing has positively changed me. That is my subjective world. No one can say its true or false, but me.
So, again, why even debate then? lol
Because millions of others have claimed the same or similar as I have.....we make up a huge body of evidence.
E-kul says it's simply mass delusion, but that's an avoidance tactic.....a brush off.
Why debate? As I mentioned to TA we're called to share our faith and as I noted in another thread yesterday and many prior to it:
All a believer can do when speaking to an atheist is try and understand their perspective, give insights into objections they have, answer questions where able and simply demonstrate that the believer represents Christ.
The discussion can feel pointless to some, but I don't speak about my faith hoping to convert an atheist to Christ. Now, if that happens then awesome, but I'm under no delusion that it will....firm choices have been made.
I'm speaking to those that haven't made a choice and that aren't speaking because they may not know what to say. Atheists and agnostics are at the forefront of most discussion because they have made a definite choice about God and choose to voice it and engage theists. I use those dialogues as opportunities to provide the other side of the coin - the Christian answer to the atheist question. I'm not always successful, but I learn as I go.
-
Because millions of others have claimed the same or similar as I have.....we make up a huge body of evidence.
E-kul says it's simply mass delusion, but that's an avoidance tactic.....a brush off.
Why debate? As I mentioned to TA we're called to share our faith and as I noted in another thread yesterday and many prior to it:
All a believer can do when speaking to an atheist is try and understand their perspective, give insights into objections they have, answer questions where able and simply demonstrate that they represent Christ.
The discussion can feel pointless to some, but I don't speak about my faith hoping to convert an atheist to Christ. Now, if that happens then awesome, but I'm under no delusion that it will....firm choices have been made.
I'm speaking to those that haven't made a choice and that aren't speaking because they may not know what to say. Atheists and agnostics are at the forefront of most discussion because they have made a definite choice about God and choose to voice it and engage theists. I use those dialogues as opportunities to provide the other side of the coin - the Christian answer to the atheist question. I'm not always successful, but I learn as I go.
Sorry, the fact that millions of people have found god does not mean he exists. Millions of people often believe things and it does not necessarily make it true. There are many sociohistorical reasons why people believe in god that have nothing to do with scientific evidence. I am sure if we dig deep enough, we can find sociological and anthropological reasons as to why God has survived and continues until this day. This is may provide evidence for another phenomena, but it does not provide evidence that a God actually exists. And sorry to say, but that line of reasoning (millions of people have experienced god and therefore we make up a huge body of evidence) has already been taken to task many of times. This in no way proves a God exists from a scientific standpoint.
I only get involved when theists try to violate separation of church and state. If you want to believe in your own home or church, I do not care. But leave your God to you. I don't want it in my life or in my laws. Plain and simple.
-
Sorry, the fact that millions of people have found god does not mean he exists. Millions of people often believe things and it does not necessarily make it true. There are many sociohistorical reasons why people believe in god that have nothing to do with scientific evidence. I am sure if we dig deep enough, we can find sociological and anthropological reasons as to why God has survived and continues until this day. This is may provide evidence for another phenomena, but it does not provide evidence that a God actually exists. And sorry to say, but that line of reasoning (millions of people have experienced god and therefore we make up a huge body of evidence) has already been taken to task many of times.
I only get involved when theists try to violate separation of church and state. If you want to believe in your own home or church, I do not care. But leave your God to you. I don't want it in my life or in my laws. Plain and simple.
There's nothin to be sorry about.
Again, the body of believers sharing their divine experiences is not aligned with scientific evidence, but that doesn't negate it as evidence. It just doesn't meet your standard of criteria in that you want scientific, natural methods of man to prove out the transcendant and divine.
Can't produce God in a test tube and centrifuge or even the Hadron Collider.
Yes, you can use use sociology and anthropology to make a case for the history of religion...no argument.
-
There's nothin to be sorry about.
Again, the body of believers sharing their divine experiences is not aligned with scientific evidence, but that doesn't negate it as evidence. It just doesn't meet your standard of criteria in that you want scientific, natural methods of man to prove out the transcendant and divine.
Can't produce God in a test tube and centrifuge or even the Hadron Collider.
Yes, you can use use sociology and anthropology to make a case for the history of religion...no argument.
Okay, I misspoke. It is evidence, its just not good or sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a God, according to my standards.
Their experiences align more with subjective reality. Not objective reality.
-
Okay, I misspoke. It is evidence, its just not good or sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a God, according to my standards.
Their experiences align more with subjective reality. Not objective reality.
I understand what you're saying.
-
I understand what you're saying.
As stated previously, I "believe" that the experience of god can better be explained by sociology, biology, philosophy, psychology,anthropology, etc, as opposed to the actual existence of a god.
But I have not done this research, so I can't speak on specifics. In my opinion, it makes more sense to align the belief in a God due to sociohistorical reasons.
-
As stated previously, I "believe" that the experience of god can better be explained by sociology, biology, philosophy, psychology,anthropology, etc, as opposed to the actual existence of a god.
But I have not done this research, so I can't speak on specifics. In my opinion, it makes more sense to align the belief in a God due to sociohistorical reasons.
Ok, I hear you. I just want folks to cut to the chase, humble themselves, surrender to his terms and seek him earnestly. Saves a ton of time!! ;D
Unfortunately time is something we're not guaranteed to have a lot of.
-
Ok, I hear you. I just want folks to cut to the chase, humble themselves, surrender to his terms and seek him earnestly. Saves a ton of time!! ;D
Eh, I'll pass on that one. Im too busy watching bodybuilding videos. Maybe tomorrow. :-\ :-\
-
Eh, I'll pass on that one. Im too busy watching bodybuilding videos. Maybe tomorrow. :-\ :-\
Hey, we all gotta have some glittery-panty, muscle pagaent time! :D
-
surly its Gods wants not yours that matter?
As a believer I represent Christ and spread his good news. I align my will according to his.
-
knowing gods will is a lifetime activity which when engaged with allows me to let other people lead their lives as they and their god (s etc ) see fit
I would go further and suggest that understanding God's full will couldn't be accomplished within a 1000 lifetimes. I do agree that understanding God's will take the rest of my life, but he has provided specific glimpses that are easily understandable immediately.
I spread his gospel and let others lead their lives however they see fit (they're free to choose to live however). If challenged on facets of my faith I try and respond out of respect for the challenger as best I'm able....I don't always succeed.
-
I am skilled in getting people to open up very early on, it is rare for me to meet someone and not soon discover their inner workings and core beliefs. Because I am very selective who I choose to spend time with, I make it a habit to learn about others quickly.
Oh brother.