Siege
You do realize Siege that you are quoting from the same book in which Christ also stated you could drink poison and play with deadly snakes without being harmed. I trust you play it safe with the snakes, perhaps you should do the same with dill pickles.
sqweels:
You misunderstand. I’m not saying that there’s been no explanation offered and that I merely have faith that some explanation will one day arise. What I’m saying is that there have been multiple explanations offered, which have not been so carefully examined yet as to achieve any sort of “religious community consensus” on only one of them that I’d pick one to present here on the message board and defend. And certainly it would take WAY more time than it’s worth for me to present more than one of them here and try to debate on multiple fronts.
Thanks for the Haida link. Sounds fascinating, and I’m looking for more info.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Mangetout, unless you state otherwise I’ll take you silence as an admission that the fundamentalists have a pretty good point with regards to the questions you posed.
If anyone else had asked me the question, I’d presume they were interested in my answer; I’m not about to place myself as the latest target in your campaign.
It would be a lot more honest if you just admitted they were good questions and you don’t have an adequate answer. You know what Jesus says about not telling the truth.
I also know what he says about casting pearls.
I swear to IPU, you liberal Christains would rather sell your souls to the devil before admitting the weakness of your closed system of belief.
God, badchad, just shut up already…you’re making us reasonable agnostics/atheists look bad. I personally couldn’t give a flying shit whether or not liberal Christians have a rock-solid logical foundation for their beliefs, because they don’t affect me. Period.
Conservative Christians looking to enforce their faith by law, on the other hand…
Many literalists used to borrow from good ole’ Immanuel Velikovsky for their “it really happened” needs. Don’t know if they still do but you can read a bit about his ideas here:
http://www.unmuseum.org/velikov.htm
Sagan used to utterly lambast the guy but “Worlds in Collision” is still an entertaining read. Emphasis on entertaining.
Listen, it’s really very simple; my personal beliefs are something over which I spend a good deal of agonising and careful thought; I’m not about to submit to you as arbiter of them because I don’t consider you a reasonable person interested in open debate, in fact you have more than adequately demonstrated how unreasonable you can be in these two recent threads;
In this thread, you assumed that my silence was tacit agreement with you when it was nothing more that evidence of my absence from the thread.
Then you attempt to equate honesty with meeting your demands (complete with a neat little appeal to authority).
In the other thread, you assert that my reason for refusing to engage you in debate is that I supposedly know you are right (actually it is that I suspect you would never accept that you are wrong, which is a subtle but important difference).
You’re not a reasonable person; I’m not going to waste my time attempting to reason with you.
jayjay
Sorry jayjay, this is an area where we differ in opinion. It seems you don’t think fighting ignorance for ignorance sake is not worthwhile unless it serves your selfish needs. That’s fairly reasonable, however I personally think that irrational beliefs do have a societal cost even if they aren’t directed at anyone in particular. If you think that makes you look bad then, well, sorry about that.
Mangetout:
If you don’t agree that the questions **you ** posed are strong then answer them. If not don’t be surprised if I assume that the reason you don’t is because you can’t. I remember you being pleased with yourself in your ability to debate Happy Heretic, and I also remember in our only previous correspondence, you asking me to start a thread for us to debate, so I don’t really see what the problem is.
Only an authority to you.
Jesus did value honesty if I remember correctly and as a follower of him I would expect you to admit that the fundamentalist questions you posed are strong rather than implying that you have answers but just choose not to give them because of who asked.
With regards to that other thread if you have objective evidence to support the assertion that your Christian beliefs are based on evidence stronger than that which supports creationism i.e. “a combination of wishful thinking, trust, dependence and fear”, I invite you to present it.
I don’t believe you. I think you know that my arguments are quite reasonable and directed in such a way to really turn up the cognitive dissonance in folks with beliefs similar to what I think yours are. I think you just want to spare yourself that dissonance, which I think you fairly accurately portrayed as butting your head against a brick wall.
So I’ll implore you again to answer the questions, which you raised or simply admit they are good questions for which you don’t have a good answer.
I didn’t really expect you to.
We’ll have to agree to differ then, but I’m telling you the truth that it is your personality, attitude and methodology (or the manifestation of those things on these message boards) that puts me off entering into debate with you; I’m quite happy to face up to hard questions that end up shattering my dearly-held illusions - i’ve done that before, after all.
False dichotomy; I refuse to debate YOU, not the subject in hand.
And I don’t believe you.
I think both you and I know that your posts are formed not with asking reasonable questions in mind, but rather are formed with the intent of making the object of your “debate” look as bad as possible, so that you can chuckle to yourself and think how cool you are for racking up points on the 4th grade scoring system you’ve made up.
I’m a firm agnostic, leaning way over toward atheism. I have no belief in a god, and think pretty much all the religious beliefs I’ve been exposed to fall short of addressing reality as we know it. But if any of the religious folks on the board cared to ask for my advice, I’d tell them to ignore you as a childish nuisance.
So I believe Mangetout when he says he doesn’t want to debate you, not that he doesn’t want to talk about the questions.
Mangetout:
What, like learning that the world is several billion years old instead of 6000? That must have been a real tear jerker for you. How about the hard stuff like facing what I think are your real “dearly-held illusions” (i.e. a god who loves you personally and has eternal paradise in store for you) are no better supported than the young earth creationism you once believed in?
You’re debating me at length already, only about my personality. This makes me think (even more) that it ain’t me it’s the subject matter. It’s ok though your silence on the subject matter speaks for itself.
I’m not debating you; I’m explaining my reasons for refusal; your repeated assertions that my reluctance is a tacit admission of defeat only serve to reinforce my feeling that there is no point in engaging you in debate.
So why don’t you just shut up then.
Because you have constructed a situation wherein my lack of response to you is claimed as your victory by default and that the only reason I could possibly have for not debating you is that I am cowering in terror in the face of you flawless intellect.
I’ll shut up when I feel there’s nothing left to say.
Mangetout:
LOL, good at that, aren’t I?
That’s fine, but while your in the mood for explaining things (rather than debating them) how about you explain your answers to the questions you raised in this thread way back when?
That depends entirely on how you define ‘good’.
I pretty much explained my objections in the post you originally quoted (in the paragraph you, oddly, didn’t quote).