There’s no evidence either. Evidence is not something which must be “believed” in or taken on faith. That’s the whole point of calling it evidence. “Holding” that evidence exists does not mean that evidence exists.
Consumed by hate? Moi? That’s a fuckin’ laugh. I’m a pseudo-bohemian/hippy that doesn’t give half a turd about religion…as long as its not being used to squeeze money from those who can least afford it in order to keep The Clergy and random other BS religious con-artists in The Lifestyles Of The Rich And Famous.
As for “what we deserve to be called,” I’m not quite clear. See, I happen to be really smart, but my dickhead is nothing to brag about. Even if it has its own zip-code.
Look, if you were to ask 1000 American Lit. scholars to name a short story that rebukes Christian hypocrisy, I’m pretty sure that "Bartleby the Scrivener’ would get the most votes. So when Jodi tries to tell me that any text is subject to interpretation, I’m going to conclude that she doesn’t see that theme standing out necessarily in that text because she’s deeply committed to not seeing that theme as valid anywhere. But as much as it’s a truism to say that texts are capable of several interpretations, it’s also a truism to say that there is such a thing as clarity. In the passage I’m referring to in Matthew, it’s a clarifying text. That is, someone actually interrupts Christ to ask him to simplify what he’s saying, to spell it out for him, and it’s a Q. and A. format. If Christians try to interpret the very plain text --“Sell your stuff and give the money to the poor”–as being a mysterious or metaphorical or otherwise puzzling passage, deserving of a few millennia of serious consideration before you act on it, well, I’m going to laugh. Or cry. When Christ boils down his entire philosophy to “Love thy neighbor” and you construe ways to interpret that as “You’re an asshole, you’re a jerk , you’re a dickweed, you’re not even a good enough human to deserve the title of ‘atheist,’” then I’m going to conclude that you’re not trying very hard to love thy neighbor, and you’re certainly not very good at it.
Well, maybe not. But the best you’ve got going for you is a God who may or may not exist. Some of us have concluded that he doesn’t, and we’d like a little respect for our humanity despite our differing but strongly held belief, and we get instead legislated against and prosyletized and generally treated as lacking in something valuable, when we see you as the benighted people of the earth laboring under a massive delusion. You don’t want to discuss religion with us? Fine. Stay out of religion threads. You want to defend religion, or Christ, or the Bible? Fine, step up–just don’t think that you get to set the rules of debate, or to make extraordinary claims without providing extraordinary evidence, or define terms narrowly to suit your argument, or to interpret text without entertaining counter-interpretations. If you can debate without demanding all those special privileges, I think you’ll lose most debates but that’s only because I think you’ve got a weak position.
But if you demand all sorts of privileged positions in debate that you deny your opponents, you’re going to get called on it. Personally, I’d advise you to pity us poor unbelievers and discuss your beliefs in private, in the interests of decorum and civility, and recognize that arguing with people who oppose your positions gets messy sometimes. You seem to want it both ways: “I want to talk about my belief in God’s powerful presence, but I don’t want to have to explain it to anyone, or withstand their often rude-sounding questions on the subject.” That’s not how my idea, at any rate, of discussion goes.
Of course. All Biblical accounts of supernatural occurrences ascribed to God must be supposed to be exaggeration, allegory, or flat-out lies, yes?
How 'bout “bitter as fuck”? 'cause dude, for a self-proclaimed hippie you really harsh my mellow.
Don’t you think you’d have a stronger case if some Chinese astronomers had been puzzled by the sun standing still around the same time that you could date Joshua via extenal evidence?
IOW, you’re citing the Bible as your evidence that God performed miracles? You really don’t see how that reasoning is weak or circular or anything?
Awww. Maybe both of you two have the ability to be as soft and fuzzy as marshmallows anyway… If only these evil lefty Xtions on the board will just stop persecuting y’all. I’m sure we’d all be happy to see the sweeter sides. Then instead of all this crap that’s been unfairly heaped upon your noggins, we’d get to point and say “Aren’t they cute!?!”, right?? Because then there’d be no complaints, I’m sure. Until then, simply know that I’m tossing my best “Bless your lil’ ol’ hearts” in that general direction. Have nice day, ya hear.
[ Aside to Sarahfeena: I know we haven’t interacted any, but I’d like to applaud your even-handed efforts as well. We probably wouldn’t agree on much, but back in the days when I self-identified as Christian, I wish I’d had more opportunity to come across believers who comport themselves like you. You’ve been exemplary in this thread. I only wish that you, Jodi and others realize the true impact you have and not let such inane drivel weigh you down. Good jobs. 
]
Awww. Maybe both of you two have the ability to be as soft and fuzzy as marshmallows anyway… If only these evil lefty Xtions on the board will just stop persecuting y’all. I’m sure we’d all be happy to see the sweeter sides. Then instead of all this crap that’s been unfairly heaped upon your noggins, we’d get to point and say “Aren’t they cute!?!”, right?? Because then there’d be no complaints, I’m sure. Until then, simply know that I’m tossing my best “Bless your lil’ ol’ hearts” in that general direction. Have nice day, ya hear.
[ Aside to Sarahfeena: I know we haven’t interacted any, but I’d like to applaud your even-handed efforts as well. We probably wouldn’t agree on much, but back in the days when I self-identified as Christian, I wish I’d had more opportunity to come across believers who comport themselves like you. You’ve been exemplary in this thread. I only wish that you, Jodi and others realize the true impact you have and not let such inane drivel weigh you down. Good jobs. ]
Damn hamsters!!! If a mod even cares, could someone remove my stupid duplicate post? For it truly wasn’t insightful enough to say twice (nor, as some would probably argue, even once). Thanks just the same.
OK, let’s get started.
Prior to some 12-15 billion years ago, nothing was. Not even time itself. (Sorry about the awkward language, but we don’t have a better construction than “prior to” even though there was no “prior to”).
Since then (same disclaimer about awkward language), there has been an event. Only ONE event. Nothing caused it. The language of causality is not applicable here.
Only one event, unless you artificially divide it up, drawing a line and saying everything behind the line is Event A and everything beyond the line is Event B.
Now, having drawn such a line (artificial though it may be), one could say that Event A causes Event B. Or, to put it a different way, Event B is determined by Event A. And we do find it useful to do that kind of thing.
But it’s an illusion. There is no causation.
Ergo, determinism is also an illusion.
Well, I, for one, didn’t mind reading it twice, especially that second paragraph!
You know, we may not agree on that much…I don’t know. But I don’t tend to judge my friends based on how much I agree with them, especially about religion! Life is a lot richer and more interesting when you are exposed to different cultures, religions, and points of view. And I, for one, couldn’t give a crap that there are people who call themselves “Christians” who tell me I’m going to hell because I’m Catholic. If you are secure with who you are, then it really doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks. And it doesn’t make me think less of Christians in general, because I know enough of them to know that, just as in any group, some are good people and some aren’t, and you can’t prejudge the whole group based on the ones that aren’t. It’s too miserable a way to go through life, for one thing.
So, anyway, thank you very much for the complement. It’s fun to have these kind of discussions and learn about all these other points of view. I don’t let the bad attitudes of a few people get me down.
Blame your dealer.
Good job. Lost me in one. Only one event? You’re going to have to expound on that for me. I’m pretty sure you’re not describing the “big bang”. (That wasn’t an event.)
Then so too are change, time, and well, the universe. Solves a lot of problems. Thanks.
faithfool, what the fuck are you talking about? A couple of athiests with some cock and balls come along and promote rational thinking and you call them assholes? Just because Jodi and Sarahfeena have nice flowery beliefs that give you wetdreams doesn’t mean their beliefs are exempt from criticism, no matter how abrasive it may be. There wouldn’t be a problem if all of the liberal christians went along believing what they believed without calling it rational, but thats not what they do. They think the only reason they are christians is because it is rational. Obviously this isn’t the case. As such every athiest in here promoting rational thought understands them to be JUST PLAIN WRONG. I think its OK to call people that are JUST PLAIN WRONG dumbfucks. What do you think dumbfuck?
[Bolding mine.]
Ok, this is really too easy, but under your criteria (and because your reading comprehension is for shit – and just so you know, all my wet dreams surround Kevin Bacon and Johnny Depp together, covered in bubbles) I call you a dumbfuck.
Next question lackey. Thanks for playing.
Whoa, Grant the Giant-way to make a first impression!
In what sense is it not an event? Did (does) it not happen?
If that is an example of “rational thought,” I prefer vanilla, with a dash of nutmeg.
JSGoddess, I don’t recall ever suggesting that you ought to go to Hell. Context? What I said was that the turn-the-other-cheek ethic does not mandate making oneself into a whipping boy for whoever wants to take a poke at one. I think it requires returning good for evil to the extent one is able, but it also permits calling obnoxious behavior obnoxious, and it permits choosing one’s battles. My support of Duffer was confined to his comment that such fights were not worth engaging in.
When badchad and Der Trihs insist on replacing me with the Scarecrow from the private remake of the Wizard of Oz going on in their minds, and then condemn me for not holding the belief structure against which they are rebelling, and hurl snide remarks back for every effort to explain what it is I do believe and why, I feel absolutely no compunction for abandoning the field and letting them have their fun. Sooner or later, they will actually come in contact with the real world, where that sort of behavior is rewarded in quite other terms.
And there’s an end to’t. In my opinion, badchad is being the worst sort of troll, and a jerk to boot. The administration of this site does not see it in those terms, and that is their privilege. But it’s mine not to participate in something that, far from bringing me pleasure or feeling like a worthwhile ministry, ends up leaving me frustrated and angry. And that’s where GD is these days.
Let’s just say they’re all necessarily ahistorical. It is not possble that impossible events have ever happened. You don’t actually think Biblical claims of miracles are “evidence” of anything do you? If you do, then you really don’t have any grasp of what that word means. Do you think that Homeric accounts of supernatural events are evidence for Zeus? Can you articulate any rational basis for affording Bible stories any more literal, historical plausibility than the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Mahabharata?