I think if you return to the thread where we had this interaction, we would see that it was you who was spouting off how intelligent and logical you were, even mentioning that you were in Mensa IIRC. I just pointed out that with regard to your religion you weren’t being so. You admitted that and told me how it was a crutch for your depression, which again is not a logical reason for belief.
I recall saying that your religious beliefs were illogical, not that you were completely incapable of logic. Inferring that I stated the latter, if not true, would be dishonest wouldn’t it? Care to offer up a cite?
Just because an idea makes you feel better is not necessarily any indication that said idea is true. Would you agree?
I seem to recall giving you good reasons for doubting various Christian ideas and I also recall you stating that you were sympathetic to those ideas. I don’t recall ever asking you to accept anything on my authority. Again I think it is dishonest to infer that I had.
I remember you telling me that you didn’t have any miracle stories to tell but rather converted to Christianity because people at a church were nice to you. Am I wrong on that?
badchad, you’re right on all but the last one. Not only am I a member at Mensa, but I was off at a Regional Gathering this weekend, not because of any desire to prove or show-off my intelligence, but because RG’s are really good weekend-long parties.
I may have said I don’t have any miracle stories to tell that you or other atheists would accept as conclusive proof of God. In other words, they lean more toward chance and coincidence than breaking the laws of physics. On the other hand, I quite literally owe my life and sanity to one of them, and I can provide location, date, and approximate time for it. On Sunday, Sept. 13, 1992, I was hospitalized at Castle Medical Center in Kailua, Hawaii, on the island of Oahu. I was on the third floor ward for people suffering from severe mental illness and addiction. While I was not completely catatonic, I was responding to very little and had been since the afternoon of Thursday, September 11th. I said almost nothing, and, when I did speak, it was rarely above a whisper. I don’t remember much of that 48 hours, only fear, pain, and wishing my heart would stop beating. On the way to the hospital, I had tried to throw myself out of the car at least once. I had effectively checked out of reality. Around midday, I was told my priest was coming. The next thing I knew, she was there. She had a portable mass kit with her, and, while I don’t remember what else she said, at one point she started saying the Eucharist. Somewhere in those words, something I call “God” broke through to me. For the first time in two days, I was conscious of something other than pain and fear, and was able to speak above a whisper and without being asked a direct question. It was both a painful and profound experience, the most profound one of my life. It doesn’t fit the Fundamentalist model of Christianity as I understand it in that I was, as far as I’m concerned, a Christian before this happened, and that experience of God was certainly not wrathful and, if judgemental, the judgement was in my favor. I was engaged at the time; I’ve no doubt that if my fiance didn’t call the church, he called someone who was in my church, which accounts for my priest appearing. Explanations involving medication kicking in or the body and mind’s simply being sick of being sick could also be proposed, but as it happens, I was misdiagnosed as having obsessive-compulsive disorder at the time. I’m not an Atheist, nor am I likely to become one. The explanation I have is as provable to me and consistent with the experience as any other I have, and it provides a positive effect on my life.
badchad, I don’t like being hostile towards you, but when you first turned up here, I got the impression you felt hostile towards me, or at least the system of belief which is an essential part of who I define myself to be. I may have misread you at first; then again, I may not. Right now, I don’t have the time to dig up the cites.
For the record, I agree that belief in God requires a suspension of logic, and, quite frankly, I would not believe in a God who could be proved logically because to me, that would place mortal, human limitations on Him. I want a bigger God than that. I know people who have been harmed by religion, and I dislike those who use their religion to harm people, whether they intend to or not, which is one of the beefs I have with some Fundamentalist Christians (in my experience, liberal Christians have been less prone to do this, but are not immune, as I made clear in my recent Pit thread). I do not, however consider religion inherently harmful. It’s not logical for me to believe in God. It’s also not logical for me to have roses on my desk, but both enhance my life. I respect the fact that you do not believe in God. I’m even willing to respect the fact that you may consider belief in God offensive (I don’t know if you do). However, I ask that you respect my right to believe in God as I define Him.
No, no. So nice of you to bless me with condescending questions framed in the guise of representing sincere inquiry from a confounded and simple man.
No wonder you’re confused. Just as you confuse God with what He has created (the spiritual with the material), so do you confuse the mission of board with the foundation of the rules it issues — The backbone of GAAP accounting is the concept of the matching principle. If you didn’t think that accounting principles were important to the discussion, then you wasted your time when you raised them.
I can see how you missed the two words “not only”, since they were surrounded by so many other words. The accountant must be NOT ONLY ethical and honest, he must APPEAR to be ethical and honest. It is a simple concept which a simple man should understand. He must not, for example, keep his work secret without compelling cause, behaving as though he has something to hide even if he has been honest in every detail. He must be forthright as well as diligent.
Again, here was the statement: For example, as an accountant you must not only maintain propriety, [color=#c00000]you must maintain the appearance of propriety[/color]. The green part and the blue part are tied together by the red parts.
Lordy. Do you understand what the NYSSCPA means when it says: “A member should maintain objectivity and be free of conflicts of interest in discharging professional responsibilities. A member in public practice should be independent in fact and appearance when providing auditing and other attestation services.”? Or the Professional Ethics Executive Committee of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Division of Professional Ethics when it says: “The former partner or professional employee does not participate in or appear to participate in, and is not associated with the firm, whether or not compensated for such participation or association, once employment or association with the client begins.”? Or the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s Modernization of the Rules Governing the Independence of the Accounting Profession when it says: “The rule is based on the widely endorsed principle that an auditor must be independent in fact and appearance.”? (Emphases mine.) Do you honestly mean to say that it makes no difference to you whether or not you appear to be honest to your clients? How many clients do you think you would have if you appeared to be dishonest?
Yeah, I can tell. You’ve practically ignored it.
Let me get this straight — you’re complaining that I refered you to the American Heritage dictionary when you asked me for a definition?
Wow. You just dig yourself deeper and deeper. The “unknown” professor’s name is at the end of the document, and he is a professor of the Philosophy of Science — quite well credentialed to write about his topic. And he is not from the University of North Carolina; he is from North Carolina State University. In addition to believing that accountants need not appear to be honest, do you also believe that all the universities in North Carolina appear to be the same?
Actually, you haven’t figured out anything at all. You’ve looked and looked but you have not seen. You’ve listened and listened but you have not heard. You pretended not to know what was meant by “life”. When you were given the dictionary, you dismissed its definition. When you were shown that even scientists cannot define life, you pretended you still don’t understand. You — the man who asked for a defintion of life — pretend you don’t understand the response. I cannot pardon you until I know what to pardon: your dishonesty or your incorrigibleness. Let me know.
It is relevant so that you can at least appear to be honest. Wait, let me rephrase. It is relevant so that you realize that you are demanding a definition of something that even science has not defined. This is not something you do when you participate in a discussion of evolution. You do not demand that the evolutionist define what he means by life — a term that he might use a hundred times. And yet you demand a definition in a discussion of philosophy. I don’t think research will help you. I’ve done your research for you, linked you to it, and still you are as dumb as ever.
It is important because you are asking that I define something that you yourself cannot define. You are two-faced. Were you sincere in your inquiry, you would admit that you know what I mean by life. But it is a common tactic in debate to distract people from the argument by demanding definitions to ordinary words. No one of importance is fooled by you. Whoever buys into your weak argument is equally as hopeless as you are.
If only you meant what you said. If only you meant that you aren’t as stupid as you pretend to be. Unfortunately, nearly every word you write is a lie.
The cite is dictionary.com, but the source is American Heritage. I know, I know, you think they are the same thing.
[…shrug…] It could be, I suppose.
You’re an idiot. An idiot is defined as a “foolish or stupid person”. Stupid is defined as “slow to learn or understand”. Slow is defined as “not having or exhibiting intellectual or mental quickness”. Mental is defined as “mentally or psychologically disturbed”. Disturbed is defined as “showing signs or symptoms of mental or emotional illness”. Well, whaddaya know? Definitions go in circles! :eek: That makes sense since a definition is a “statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term” — which means, of course, that each word, phrase, or term in the statement also has a definition. Congratulations on stumbling upon the obvious.
No. You?
Out of nowhere? You asked what I meant by life. (Okay, okay, you actually made a smarmy and ass-puckered remark that appeared to be asking what I meant by life.) I answered you. You’re not satisfied. Not my problem.
Conclusion? Did I miss the syllogism? Or did you halucinate one that wasn’t there? Let’s recap: I showed you that there are in fact many definitions for “life”. I showed you that even biologists — who exist for the sake of studying life — cannot define life. I showed you which of the common definitions of life are pertinent to the way I use the term. I then state my definition for you. And your response is to ask me how I deduced it. Maybe you should just give it up and go back to writing your little equations while not giving any concern to whether you appear to be writing the correct ones.
I offered you the dictionary definiton. Isn’t that where you get definitions from? Or do you just make them up?
You’re deluded. You’ve shown no such thing. You’ve shown only that you’re incompetent.
You’re a liar, and I don’t trust you. What you prefer is that I waste time defining words for you that are already defined by dictionaries. Because now you want me to define the words I used to define the word you asked me to defined. You’re not fooling anyone but yourself.
I offered you what any ordinary dumbass already knows. That which is not material is — get this: by definition — spiritual.
Yeah, I get it. I’ve debated dodgers like you before. In other words, anything I say is not relevant to the “issue at hand”. And the “issue at hand”, of course, is whatever rhetorical limb you happen to find yourself prostrate upon when you start babbling.
You mean you don’t know what you are? You said you think in black and white, but you don’t know that 2-value is a system wherein a statement is either true or false but not neither and not both.
Well, if we agree on this, why can’t we agree on the simple things — like the fact that definitions come from dictionaries or textbooks?
You’re pretending to be simple, when you aren’t. You’re pretending to care about my answers when you don’t. And you’re pretending to ask for definitions even as you reject dictionaries, experts, and my own paraphrases. Your own faking is sufficient to cover all the rest of us in the thread.
Agreed. Your statement about your second sentence does not follow from your statement about bovine excrement.
Really? And yet you compare them, to wit:
You should identify which of your faces is speaking to make it easier for us to know whether the man who is asking what “spirit” means is making a statement about something he is ignorant of, or whether the man who knows what spiritual matters are has pretended that he doesn’t know what spirit is. If you don’t know what spirit is, then how can you make a statement about what spiritual matters are? And if you do know what spirit is, then why are you pretending you don’t?
I don’t think that word means what you think it means. To persistently question and argue about something whose existence is irrelevant is to place yourself just this side of legally sane.
Yes, I do.
That doesn’t help you. Set aside that absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence — you still insist that your experience is the sole valid representation of reality. I mean damn: you speak for everyone, everywhere, for all time. That’s just plain weird.
Another word you don’t understand. A non sequitur is a formal term from logic, and does not mean “an extra word”. But just to indulge you, so you can come up with a different dodge for pretending not to understand, show me beauty. I’ve put no adjective in front of it.
That’s what I was telling you, dipshit. Throwing the documents back in your face would be tantamount to what you are doing here: applying a materialist interpretation of terms to a discussion about nonmaterial things. You’re not so quick on the uptake, are you?
Incidentally, there are negative numbers in accounting. For example, on a balance sheet, a credit represents a negative amount, and can appear either as an asset or a liability. And on a cash flow statement, they can mean that a company is servicing debt, among other things. Of course, this is all irrelevant, which must be why you continue to revisit it over and over.
Damn, you’re stupid. You don’t want to bother reading a paper from a scientist who is explaining to you what you’re asking about. And yet, like some ankle-nipping Chihuahua you keep asking. Let me help you by diggin out the relevant portions of a different discussion on the matter. (You can see hundreds of these by Googling “biology define life”. This one is from Astrobiology Magazine.)
What is life, exactly? This is a question that keeps biologists up at night. The science of biology is the study of life, yet scientists can’t agree on an absolute definition. Are the individual cells of your body, with all their complex machinery, “alive?” What about a computer program that learns and evolves? Can a wild fire - which feeds, grows, and reproduces - be considered a living entity?
[…snip…]
“Current attempts to answer the question, ‘What is life?’ by defining life in terms of features like metabolism or reproduction - features that we ordinarily use to recognize samples of terrestrial life - are unlikely to succeed,” says Cleland. “What we need to answer the question, ‘What is life?’ is a general theory of living systems.”
(The “unknown” person this time is professor Carol Cleland.) Are you anywhere close to getting this yet: biologists cannot define “life”?
You? Ask a difficult question? It is to laugh. Ha.
I’m trying to imagine what sort of convoluted, twisted statement someone would have to produce to come up with the two fallacies you named with respect to the two statements you’re comparing. Beats me. But the primary difference, as far as I’m concerned, is that I believe the first but I don’t believe the second.
Well, why not stretch your pretenses just a bit further: pretend I never mentioned the movie. Just pretend I told a story without crediting its source. Or better yet, have someone read you the story at bedtime.
I already did that.
At last, an honest statement. It is true that you do not think anything I say matters. In fact, this response is not even for your benefit. I would never waste another two hours on you. Rather, it is for the benefit of those who would make a good faith attempt at understanding what others are saying.
Originally posted by badchad
This sounds like you are saying in your opinion I am right and Polycarp is wrong, but you just don’t like my tone. Is that a fair paraphrase? If so, once we settle this tone thing we can both talk about how we think Polycarp’s belief system is not something reasonable folks like us would fall for?
I did the true scottsman on purpose as a bit of a dig. No worse then Polycarp calling the fundamentalists “neopharisees” or do you think there is a fundamental difference between the two. I still don’t think I have presented a strawman argument of any kind. Rather just pointed out that the liberal Christians believe awfully extraordinary things based on shaky evidence which is not very reasonable. If you think that is not really the case I would ask that you explain why?
Is my tone really that out of line? For instance compare it to Polycarp’s tone to fundamentalists or Libertarian’s tone towards Roundguy.
So you are saying that beliefs should based on what we think works for us rather than what evidence actually suggests?
I find that funny. In your own words, which argument temps to toward belief? BTW, are we talking about Christianity of Deism?
For one thing they are hypocrites IMO and you would understand my perspective clearly if you have read much of my posts.
Fighting ignorance for ignorance sake is a worthwhile endeavor if you ask me, though you may disagree.
I think your mistaking sarcasm for frothing and I care more about unreason than oppression as the former often leads to the latter.
Sure. I didn’t know that either were supposed to go along with the teachings of Jesus. In your interpretation of the bible would you say both are just fine or are you sinning when you respond to me?
I could say I know you by your fruits, at least as much as posted to this board.
I don’t know that it needs proving that belief in an undetectable god that supposedly is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent created a world with much pain and suffering and in spite of said god’s quality of being undetectable thinks it is just and fair to punish forever those people it created for a lack of faith which those people admittedly can’t earn but can only get as a gift from the same god that distributes the punishment. I kind of thought that was self evident.
Certain sections of the bible and faith as described are open to scientific scrutiny and I would bet money, and fairly large sums of it, that I can prove them untrue in an experimental setting. I would also bet that you would interpret those parts as errant so as not to lose your shirt.
Why then do you Jodi believe in the supernatural and more specifically eternal life?
I would say that a certain amount is passed down by word of mouth from parent/teacher to child. I also think without the above text books recording the supposed original message, much would be forgotten to the point where the above religions would be unrecognizable from the perceptions of those who god allegedly spoke directly with.
If the bible is admittedly errant then you have no way of knowing which spiritual guidance is actually instructed by god and which part came from to much alcohol. Same goes for the Iliad, and I personally don’t see where this is an area where intelligent people can disagree. At least in the Iliad, Zeus didn’t command the killing of babies, IIRC.
I said nothing of “legitimate value” rather I talked of a clear moral message or evidence sufficient to support supernatural claims.
Do you consider the bible on par with the Koran and the Iliad, or better?
My assertion is that the belief in extraordinary claims based on inferior evidence is unreasonable. I also don’t think that matters of faith are not amenable to disproof. It’s just that Christians tend to rationalize away all the disproof with multiple excuses of why the disproof at hand doesn’t really count.
I know the non-literal spin and it’s really not that hard for me to pin you on stuff if you answer ahead of time what parts you believe are true and what parts you don’t, as well as how you draw your conclusions. Just ask Polycarp.
Oh, Gobear. You’re not still bitter from my having to correct you as to the teachings of Jesus regarding fear and judgment are you? Why does this thread have the ring of; “badchad made me (or someone I like) feel stupid once, therefore let’s pretend we have sticks and stones?”
I would call a liar one who says one thing and does another or one who deceives or misleads another. This fits the Polycarp situation quite well. What definition of liar are you using?
After better than 2 months I have given up on his keeping his word. He said specifically, when I did my part he would do his. Well I did my part a long time ago and got nothing back, and it’s not like he forgot. Should I wait for him to die before I call him a liar.
I don’t know how asking someone to do something with you and then not having it come to pass makes you a liar but I wasn’t there. If however you promised to do something with this person and gave the impression that it would be imminent while knowing full well that you couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver then yes I would call you a liar.
Fortunately for me, none of my arguments hinge on the point of view I take towards the suspects listed above. My arguments stand alone just fine.
That religious psychosis is a matter of degree and not kind.
One that allows for human error, one that does not impose a time restraint (AFAIK Poly is still away from the board for a day or two more), for one. Also just because one intends to do something doesn’t mean it is going to happen. It doesn’t make him a liar, it just means he hasn’t done it yet. Would a sports team be lying if they said “We’ll win it next year” after they come perilously close year after year?
No, but you might consider that he leads a busy life:)
Do you have evidence to support the notion that Poly knew full well he couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver?
What meaning do you have behind “suspects”?
The only religious psychosis from which I have ever suffered had nothing to do with Lib. But since you make me curious in this way, what is the degree, and how is one able to measure it?
Your tone was in response to a man who had treated you with kindness, deference, and respect from the get-go. My tone was in response to a man who came across as “I’m going to pretend I’m simple-minded and don’t know the defintions of common words in the vain hope of making you look stupid.”
Maybe you just have an over-bloated sense of self-importance that deludes you into believing that you are the center of Poly’s universe. Maybe making a promise to you is like making a promise to a tree in the woods — something that is merely poetic and metaphorical.
Dude, are you delusional? I corrected you, and pointed out the flaws in your reading of the text.
Frankly, as a stone atheist myself, I really wish you would shut the fuck up because your immature mudslinging and handstabbing (tip of the hat to Lib is embarrassing the rest of us who would like to make an intelligent case for rationalism instead of the petty harrassment you prefer.
I’m glad you posted that because I did want to let you know, for whatever it’s worth, that you and other thoughtful materialists (like Diogenes and Cervaise) do indeed make a reasonable case for “rationalism”. When I debate with people like RoundGuy or Vorlon (Badchad is afraid to debate me), I get a sense that materialism is the most mystical of all philosophies.
But when I debate with you and the others, I get a sense that materialism is merely a difference in our perceptions based upon our personal experiences. I respect that your experience does not include a personal journey with God, and I don’t find you delusional, deceitful, or lacking in anything.
I once told Gaudere that it is like we are both standing by a river and I recommend that we walk together over the bridge. She says, “What bridge? There’s no bridge there.” Yet I see the bridge, and in fact have walked on it many times.
It took me a long time to understand that both things are true: there is a bridge and there is not a bridge. “There is a bridge” is so true that I often remind Gaudere that both she and I are standing on it as we speak. But likewise, “there is no bridge” is so true that Gaudere often reminds me that both she and I are standing in the water getting wet.
That is the nature of subjective beings in an objective reality. Reality becomes perception, and every perception is correct.
:: Shrug :: Probably both. But then, I don’t grant you the authority to sit in judgment on me, so you’ll have to take me as you find me. If your attempt is to declare that I am not a “good Christian” your time is wasted, because (a) I never claimed to be particularly “good,” and (b) I can see no reason to consider the conclusion of one so obviously contemptuous of the faith as particularly relevant to what in reality constitutes a “good Christian.”
You could say a lot of things, but the fact remains that you know jack-shit about me.
Damn, that’s an ugly sentence. But I’ll attempt to parse it out. First, as is glaringly obvious, your conclusions are not “self-evident,” so kindly cease deluding yourself that they are. Now, let’s break it down, my responses in bold:
“I don’t know that it needs proving . . .it certainly does if you are going to affirmatively assert the nonexistence of God . . . that belief in an undetectable god . . .He is undetectable to you, but He is not undetectable to me, or to other believers. . . . that supposedly is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent . . . generally held to be both, yes . . . created a world with much pain and suffering . . .to the extent that pain and suffering are a product of nature and/or human free will, the general argument is that allowing the world to unfold without extraordinary divine intervention requires allowing them . . . and in spite of said god’s quality of being undetectable thinks it is just and fair to punish forever . . .** Nope, liberal Christians generally do not believe in eternal damnation. Some posit an end of existence for the truly evil – a true “death” – but most do not believe in hell** . . . those people it created for a lack of faith . . .liberal Christians do not believe a lack of specifically Christian faith is necessarily a bad thing, and most of them do not believe that unbelief nets you punishment . . . which those people admittedly can’t earn . . . Right, grace and faith cannot be earned, obviously . . . but can only get as a gift from the same god that distributes the punishment.” Except you’re attacking people who don’t really believe in the punishment part.
I find this fascinating. You want to dictate what Christianity is, or must be, and who God is, or must be, so then you can in turn attack Christians for not being what you think Christians must be, or for not worshipping the eminently attackable God you posit.
Sure, certain sections of the Bible do not jibe with science; much of the book is mythos (like the creation stories) and much of it must be read in the context of the time in which it was written and the knowledge of the men writing it (a time when it was generally believed the earth was the center of the universe, for example). This presents no problem to the millions of Christians who do not read it literally. But: Which sections of faith would you describe as open to scientific scrutiny? How would you prove them untrue in an experimental setting? If you can do this – undone for millenia – there is indeed big money in your future.
I don’t think you’re entitled to an answer to this, because at the end of the day you have not exhibited any ability to be respectful of my beliefs. This naturally makes me reluctant to share the basis for them with you. You do not need to know why I believe in the supernatural and more specifically eternal life; it is enough for you to know that I do.
You “think” that without the texts much “would be” forgotten and the religions “would be” unrecognizable? And what is your evidence of this, oh great exhalter of proof? You have none, of course; this is just your opinion of what “would have” happened if the world had unfolded differently, which it didn’t. Thin, my friend, very very thin. And also not what you said: You said the Bible was the basis for the belief in God, which obviously it is not. Certainly it has had uncalculable influence on how Christianity has historically and culturally unfolded – most of the great schisms, even if politically motivated, were justified through Biblical texts – but it is not the reason people believe in God. As I said, I don’t know a single Christian, no matter how fundamental or liberal, who would say he or she is a Christian because of the Bible.
This leaves out the possibility that the Bible is a divinely-inspired but still less-than-perfect text – one that records the history, culture, and opinions of fallible men who were the product of their times, and whose words must reasonably be read in the context of their times. And it can – IMO should – be read with a questioning mind, and those parts that do not make sense may be dismissed. But then, I believe in an active interrogative faith, not in “blind faith.”
Ah, yes, the Old Testament God. That’s not going to help you either, as most liberal Christians tend to ascribe more to the kinder, gentler New Testament God. I realize this makes your argument more difficult, which in turn drives your desire to make seem inconstant, which in turn drives your desire to require us to be absolutely bound by every word in the Bible, and every description of God, but this doesn’t strike me as being my problem. So attempt to wrap your mind around the fact that intelligent people can disagree with you, because many have, and do.
There’s no evidence in the Bible of supernatural claims that cannot be dismissed as myths. But then, nobody in my camp has been asserting the Bible is “evidence” of anything. Again, God doesn’t exist because of the Bible; the Bible exists because of God. IMO, of course. And as for clear moral messages – I think the NT offers very clear moral messages, but few are so clear as to be absolutely beyond dispute. But if you don’t see any clear moral messages, then by all means, dismiss it. You’re hardly in a position to insist I must do the same, however, or to insist it is some failing of inquiry or intelligence that prevents me from doing so.
Better than the Iliad, which is not considered a sacred text by any of the families of faiths to which I ascribe (that is, the monotheistic, middle-eastern faiths of Islam, Judaism, or Christianity). On par with the Koran, though better than the Koran for me as a Christian, because the Koran is not my sacred text. I don’t know if it’s truly “better” than the Koran because I haven’t read the entirety of the Koran, what I have read has been in translation, and I don’t have the background in Islamic religion, culture, or history, to be able to read the Koran with an informed mind.
There is no evidence as you would define the term, inferior or otherwise, for the existence of God. There is also no evidence, inferior or otherwise, for the nonexistence of God. This strikes me as self-evident. I personally don’t see where this is an area where intelligent people can disagree. And what matters of faith do you think are amenable to disproof?
It’s “really not that hard” but yet you don’t do it. And wisely so; I’m unlikely to submit “what I believe is true” and “how I draw my conclusions” to your judgment, since I have no reason to respect it, much less accept it.
Here’s what I see: You don’t like the fact that liberal Christians “pick and choose” what they will take from the Bible – which we do – so you want to insist that we must be bound by every word it says. You don’t like the fact that liberal Christians believe in a God who is good and does good, so you insist that we must believe in the baby-killing iteration of God. You don’t like the fact that there is no proof for the existence or non-existence of the Christian God, or indeed any god, so you want to construe the Bible as “evidence” of His existence or nonexistence.
Again, all these things strike me as being your problem, not mine. You may or may not be able to find some rational basis to quarrel with what I believe – I’m guessing not – but you will not be able to dictate what I believe or must believe just to make your attack easier. I’m afraid you’ll have to take me – us, the moderate to liberal American Christians – as you find us, and if our beliefs or the basis for them are inconvenient to your argument – hey, sucks to be you.
With respect to Badchad’s tired old lament about the world’s “pain and suffering”, I’m reminded of George Burns’ line when he played God. It was something like this: “But if I get rid of the sadness, the happiness will go with it.”
There is much pain and suffering, yes, but there is also much triumph and joy. How can a person who has never known sadness even know what happiness is? A relative state must have something with which to relate.
Incidentally, pain and suffering these days is often wrongly equated with poverty and struggle. There are many poor and struggling people who are mentally and emotionally happy, and many wealthy people who are mentally and emotionally miserable.
Oh, and BADCHAD? I also don’t see why you should have all the fun of being on the offensive. You said:
and
So let’s see you prove that faith in a benevolent omnipotent supernatural god is untrue. Prove it, mind you; don’t muddy the issue with more of your tiresome opinions. Feel free to designate your “experimental setting” as well as speficy what exactly you intend to disprove – God’s existence? His nature? The lack of an afterlife? What?
And another thing: Assuming you believe in something – anything, truth, justice, the American way, whatever – I assume you reached that belief by thinking about it, questioning it, considering whether it was a ideal worth adhering to, whether it makes good sense, and whether it furthers your world-view as you understand it, and your world-view as you would like it to be. That’s more or less the process by which thinking people decide “this is worthwhile and should be supported; this is not worthwhile and should not be.”
So why do you insist that people of religion must believe what they believe because it’s written in a book, and only because it’s written in a book?
I know Poly lied to me and more importantly I think Poly knows it too, and if he differs in opinion he is free to make his own excuses. To save you more mental gymnastics lets just leave it at that.
Gobear:
Quote by me:
Oh, Gobear. You’re not still bitter from my having to correct you as to the teachings of Jesus regarding fear and judgment are you?
Last time I checked you were speechless. Still if you have anything more to add I invite you to resurrect the tread.
Ha ha, you tell me to “shut the fuck up” and then call me an immature mudslinger. That’s funny.
Jodi:
I imagine that what should concern you is what you think your god wants and how you admittedly sin when you respond to me, and the example you set towards other Christians as to what kind of behavior is acceptable. But of course opinions do vary.
I know that you are admittedly both foul mouthed and quick to anger, you acknowledge this as sin and yet express no interest in trying to curb your behavior.
Stuff like those who believe being able to heal the sick, drink poison, play with deadly snakes and not be harmed, those who believe in Jesus the miracles he can do they can do also. But like I said I’m sure you have plenty of excuses as to why the relevant verses don’t apply to you or don’t work anymore… Still if your game I have both cash and poison at my disposal.
Quote by me:
Why then do you Jodi believe in the supernatural and more specifically eternal life?
Well I could just dismiss you as irrational for believing in the supernatural but I thought I would give you a chance to come up with good reasons as to why. It is interesting that you balk. Still the why is very important. Why you believe in the reality of an eternal heaven and not an eternal hell considering Jesus reportedly spoke of both. Just because one goes along with your preferences is not a good reason.
Jodi, I thought this would have been obvious to you. If not look up the rules to the game “telephone” and try it out with a bunch of you church friends.
Quote by me:
If the bible is admittedly errant then you have no way of knowing which spiritual guidance is actually instructed by god and which part came from to much alcohol.
That is quite possible though I would say highly improbable. Still if what you say is true then you have to come up with a good objective measure as to what part is divinely inspired and what part is crap. Perhaps the killing babies part is divinely inspired and that lip service about love that Jesus spouts off about is just the ravings of a mad man.
Ah, yes, the gospels, where hellfire and everlasting punishment is emphasized in a kind and gentle way. But of course you just don’t count that part right?
As I wrote above the powers of faith to do anything remotely supernatural.
I see, you don’t want to put forward your beliefs of how you got them. Yes I agree that will insulate you from scrutiny, babyish but effective. Personally, I don’t see you as much of a player in the straight dope religious debates (as opposed did Polycarp) so if you don’t want to play any further it’s not skin off my back.
Ha! Yes, they certainly do. That’s not high on the list of things that I’m attempting to do. Again, I really don’t give a rat’s ass what you think I ought to be, or should do, because you’ve never given me the least reason to do anything but dismiss your opinion out of hand. Can you think of any reason why I should care what you, a non-believer of dubious intellect who is incapable of basic civility, think about my faith? Because frankly I can’t.
And why am I under any obligation to express my interests in anything to you? It is a logic error to assume that because you do not see something, it does not exist. It’s one thing to be quick to judge, but usually considered best to have some basis for doing so.
Do you seriously imagine I will make it that easy for you? Surely you are aware that modern liberal Christians do not believe in faith healing, snake-handling, or having the powers of Jesus. And it’s the liberal Christians you’re attacking, remember? So you’ll have to limit your attacks to things we actually believe. And just to remind you: You said, “I also don’t think that matters of faith are not amenable to disproof.” So let’s hear how you would go about disproving the things that modern liberal Christians actually believe – like the existence of God, the essentially good nature of God, the divinity of Christ. And remember: You have to meet your own standard of disproof. So get cracking.
By all means, dismiss me as irrational. See above re: not giving a rat’s ass what you think. I do not generally share my beliefs with people who have failed to demonstrate the ability to be even minimally civil about them. So you’ll have to limit your attack to liberal Christianity generally, as opposed to what I personally believe. Or at least you will until you can come up with some credible reason why I would want to discuss with you what I believe.
But as far as hell is concerned, I can tell you that it is a not-uncommon modern liberal Christian belief that the Biblical idea of hell refers to an eternal or “real” death, based on the fact that the original words translated into English as “Hell” – Hades, Sheol, Gahenna, Tartaroo – do not corrolate with the concept, dating from the Middle Ages, of eternal torture in a pit of fire at the center of the earth, presided over by a devil with horns and a pitchfork. Not to mention that this “traditional” idea of hell is incompatible with a loving God. This philosophy holds that the truly evil or irredeemable truly die – that is, they lose their eternal life.
“I thought this would be obvious to you”? Is that your idea of a compelling argument? This won’t take long if you can’t do any better than that. Gee, looks like you’ve got a bunch of unfounded opinions there, which you are unable or unwilling to defend.
A good objective measure would be, to start with: Does it make sense? Assuming a person embraces the idea of a loving God, that itself is an objective basis to reject the baby-killing (or, for that matter, allowing eternal roasting of souls) iteration of God. Another objective measure would be to study the times, history, and philosophies in place at the time the book was written, to see if that explains why god is described in a way that does not appear to make sense to a person reading the Bible today. But since you have admitted the possibility the text is divinely inspired, you’re not really in a position to criticize anyone who believes that it is, are you?
Certainly I count it. I just read it with the original text in mind, as opposed to just the English translation. Unless you’re under the impression the Bible was written in English?
So you would admit, I assume, that you have no way of disproving any part of faith/supernaturalism that does not purport to create concrete, specific, observable results? You would admit that you have no way of proving God does not exist, God is not essentially good, Christ was not divine, the soul does not exist and/or is not eternal, right?
You need to read the entire sentence. I do not intend to put forward my beliefs or how I got them to you. Because why should I? If you can put forward any reason for me to do so, I will consider it.
It insulates me from scrutiny from you. See above. And I am not generally described as “babyish.” I kind of like it.
I freely admit I’m not much of a player in religious debates, anymore. Nobody’s mind is ever changed, people get pissed off, it’s largely pointless, and, if you do it often enough – as I used to do – you get the dubious privilege of explaining the same things over and over and over again to new posters who have just discovered their bright shiny new scepticism, who weren’t around when you went over the same ground the first dozen times, and who think they’ve really discovered some new and damning (ha!) indictment of God by reading with perfect literalism the Bible in English translation.
But, hey, I’m here, and I’m happy to debate liberal Christianity with you as long as you like. You will find, however, that I will require you to actually address yourself to what liberal Christians believe, as opposed to what you’d like us to believe in order to make your facile arguments easier; that I will require you to maintain a basic level of civility, because I don’t waste my time typing out responses to people who don’t or can’t; and that I will not discuss my personal beliefs, as oppose to liberal Christianity generally, so long as you fail to give me any reason to discuss the details of my personal beliefs with you.
