Why is that it seems the agnostics and atheists are the most vocal/confrontational/belittling/belligerent on this thread? It's like you think you have something to prove and are therefore compelled to try to get a rise out of people.
Fortunately, it hasn't been very successful, but my point still stands.
...Whatever happened to trying to have an intelligent and civil conversation?
Dunno who that was directed at, but I cannot see many posts aiming to get a rise out of people. Indeed, I rarely see said posts anywhere. I think it would just be because atheists disagree with you, that you end up perceiving them as belligerent. For an atheist, it would likely be the other way around.
There is also that religions are pretty established, so often don't need to do much shouting to get noticed or heard.
Dunno who that was directed at, but I cannot see many posts aiming to get a rise out of people. Indeed, I rarely see said posts anywhere. I think it would just be because atheists disagree with you, that you end up perceiving them as belligerent. For an atheist, it would likely be the other way around.
There is also that religions are pretty established, so often don't need to do much shouting to get noticed or heard.
Is it safe for everyone to assume that you didn't find the Jewish Zombie post offensive and that you actually consider that copied/pasted remark to be a valid contribution to an intelligent, rational discussion?
Hrrrm. I didn't find it offensive, no. It's not the most intelligent, but it does demonstrate the poster's view point (that christianity is absurd, and thus incorrect.)
I'd like to point out that it's possible to be offensive and demonstrate your point of view. I could tell my friend I don't think that dress suits her, or I could tell her it makes her look like a water buffalo. Technically, they both come to the same thing, but if she got pissed with me for the second comment I wouldn't blame her. I don't think Chryon's statement was very fair either, since it made it sound like he was judging all athesists and agnostics by Pale Man's behavior, and because it is also unfair to judge them as one group since they are quite different.
People, let's keep this civil, and by civil I mean do not belittle someone's beliefs. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't means you can make fun of their way of thinking. If you have issue with their statements or beliefs, state you issues in a non-aggressive way that invites a non-aggressive response.
If you are offended that people believe in Christianity, that's your problem. People have the right to believe in what they believe. Just as the forums agnostics, atheists, Buddhists, Jews and Hindus have the right to believe what they like, so do the forum's Christians.
This is meant to be a discussion. No one has the right to tell any one else they're wrong for believing what they believe. No one has the right to make fun of someone's beliefs. No one has the right to attack any other forum user personally.
I don't understand how posting something which accurately describes how I feel about what Christianity is could offend someone, but here's another quote that accurately reflects why I think it's silly to believe in the Christian idea of a god.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
I'm Catholic and even I think that some of the stuff we Christians believe in is sort of ludicrous. But that's why it's called belief. It doesn't need to make sense as long as it's good enough for people (Flying Spaghetti Monster for example:p).
As for Epicurus, I personally love that quote. But, as far as philosophers go, I prefer Bentham. He's stuffed.:D
I'd like to point out that it's possible to be offensive and demonstrate your point of view. I could tell my friend I don't think that dress suits her, or I could tell her it makes her look like a water buffalo.
Everybody's got a water buffalo
Yours is fast but mine is slow
Oh, where do you get them I don't know
But everyone's got a water buffalo-oooooooooo
I took my buffalo to the store
Got his head stuck in the door
Spilled some lima beans on the floor
Oh everybody's got a water buffalo...
I personally found Pale Man's post obviously provocative. It seemed to me it was meant to offend people who are Christians more than state his position on the subject. While I can't say I was personally offended, I wasn't impressed either.
I understand why that post would be shocking, but I see no reason to turn it into
Why is that it seems the agnostics and atheists are the most vocal/confrontational/belittling/belligerent on this thread? It's like you think you have something to prove and are therefore compelled to try to get a rise out of people.
Which I personally found confrontational, addressing agnostics and atheists as a whole ("you") and making a blanket statement (the agnostics and atheists).
I feel if you want to respond to Pale Man's post instead of ignoring him, then do so, but I really don't see why you should turn that into "the atheists and agnostics". It seems to me most people here, no matter what their beliefs are, have been keeping it civil.
On topic, for the record I don't believe that the Earth is only ~10,000 years old, nor do I believe that everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally (eg. the Adam and Eve creation story.)
I do have specific beliefs on the subject, but with that being said, I also believe that God could have created the universe and everything in it in any manner that he wanted to. If he wanted to create the universe in 6 24-hour time periods, he could have. If he wanted create everything over the span of hundreds of billions of years (or more) then he could have. Either way, I would say the important thing is that he did.
For societies to literally get into wars and stuff over how he did it (or other similar doctrinal minutia) seems absurd to me.
About the 6000 year old Earth thing; I've heard that the bible makes no such claim. The idea comes from an estimate made by an Irish bishop in the 17th century, which he based on his interpretation of the genealogical records in the bible.
I find it strange that some christians are so intent on unconditionally believing this claim. Were bishops hundreds of years ago infallible? Really?
Because otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation?
More seriously, from a theoretical point of view, I can see how the details might not matter. On the other hand, if God is all powerful and did create the universe, and we end up having an idea of how, it might be interesting to analyse. I mean, he could do it in any possible way, maybe he did it that way for a reason.
This being said, I don't think we can randomly come up with the way he did it, or say that because it's written that way it has to be that way even if there seems to be evidence against it. As Chyron said, it could be a metaphor. There is also the possibility that the Bible being written by men, they misinterpreted things. And finally, some things could have been lost in translation. So while I'd understand, once there is a reason to believe things happened a certain way, the idea of talking about why, I don't think it's worth killing each other because you don't agree about how you think things were done.
To give an example, we have reasons to believe Earth is spherical (or close to). So I understand saying that it's so all life is connected and there is no beginning and end, and so people are closer to one another, as opposed to the flat idea.
However I don't think it was worth torturing people over what shape they thought the Earth might be before we knew.
I'm atheist/agnostic. Regarding the content all the religions don't make sense at all as soon as you involve some common sense but it's understandable that some people came up with these if you're looking at the history, the fears, needs and hopes humans share(d). On the other side religions cause(d) so much pain, definately a bad invention. There is some truth in that religion is opium for the public and of course it is a handy tool for manipulating people.
Some believe in somekind of god, some in the hidden people, no problem if it makes you feel comfy personally but as history with all the wars based on religious differences and all the madness beeing involved have shown, it often just doesn't work out.
When I asked my teachers, there would always be this hilarious awkward pause before they would mumble something about people measuring time differently back then. All I have to say is that if that was the case their years must have been about two weeks long.
I'd prefer a personal statement, if you would please.
Alllriiiiiiiiiiight...
I believe in the Catholic God, and that Jesus was born, died and rose again. I also believe in Heaven and Hell. I do not believe that Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, eg. the Pentateuch actually happened, I believe they were stories meant to convey God's word and I believe in evolution.
=D That's a much better answer! But I am even more curious as to why you don't accept those certain books.
...
perhaps a further explanation?
Basically, I don't believe it happened in 7 days, etc. I think it was a lot of divine stories, that are still important to our lives but should not be taken literally.
I just meant that if the universe or Earth didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because we wouldn't exist, so I guess it's kind of important to us, personally, that it does exist?
But it was just a joke.
But why just at the end of Deuteronomy? Joshua picks up right where Deuteronomy ends.
it's like a blur tool in photoshop used on the bible... it extends past the pixel you want to blur, in this case the transition from the pentateuch to the more believable stuff, meaning some of the old testament after these 5 books get caught too. personally, i don't believe every fact in the whole old testament, just the more believable ones.
If you are offended that people believe in Christianity, that's your problem. People have the right to believe in what they believe. Just as the forums agnostics, atheists, Buddhists, Jews and Hindus have the right to believe what they like, so do the forum's Christians.
This is meant to be a discussion. No one has the right to tell any one else they're wrong for believing what they believe. No one has the right to make fun of someone's beliefs. No one has the right to attack any other forum user personally.
I still don't understand this. If I am offended when someone says I am going to die and then burn in a tortuous setting for eternity, it is my fault. If they are offended when I say they're wrong, it is also my fault?
(for the record, I don't say they're wrong, because they may be correct. I'm just assuming a role there.)
Actually you're only going to burn if you're a vampyre and getting into the sunlight. It also sounds more likely to me but i wouldn't mind getting a free ticket straight into a sun, woohooo! :O)
I like how anything in the bible that makes no sense whatsoever or blatantly contradicts itself or shows that god is a violent psychotic, is "just a story" but everything else is "totally true".
I think my favorite religious stories are ones where abstract concepts behave like physical substances. According to some Inuit traditions, bad things happen in the world because the sea goddess Sedna has no fingers with which to comb her hair, and so the evils of man often get caught and tangled up in it. It is among a traditional shaman's duties to astral project to the bottom the the ocean to help her comb out these tangled up evils so that they don't linger in the world.
I also like stories where inanimate objects behave like sentient entities. In Norse mythology, when Frigg learns the prophesy that her son Baldr will die, she makes every object in the universe promise not to harm him, and every object agrees, except for mistletoe, of course.
There's just something I find really intriguing and beautiful about the dream-like absurdity and simplicity of stories like this.
Also, on Pale Man's remark: You can do that for every religion, and for atheism:
"Atheism: The believe that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for so reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs."
It's not hard to make something sound ridiculous like that.
Comments
Dunno who that was directed at, but I cannot see many posts aiming to get a rise out of people. Indeed, I rarely see said posts anywhere. I think it would just be because atheists disagree with you, that you end up perceiving them as belligerent. For an atheist, it would likely be the other way around.
There is also that religions are pretty established, so often don't need to do much shouting to get noticed or heard.
Is it safe for everyone to assume that you didn't find the Jewish Zombie post offensive and that you actually consider that copied/pasted remark to be a valid contribution to an intelligent, rational discussion?
People, let's keep this civil, and by civil I mean do not belittle someone's beliefs. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't means you can make fun of their way of thinking. If you have issue with their statements or beliefs, state you issues in a non-aggressive way that invites a non-aggressive response.
I'm not the best Christian around as being a feisty redhead, learning to "turn the other cheek" is a big obstacle for me.
This is meant to be a discussion. No one has the right to tell any one else they're wrong for believing what they believe. No one has the right to make fun of someone's beliefs. No one has the right to attack any other forum user personally.
I believe that the blackberry ice cream I made today is going to be heavenly
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus
As for Epicurus, I personally love that quote. But, as far as philosophers go, I prefer Bentham. He's stuffed.:D
Everybody's got a water buffalo
Yours is fast but mine is slow
Oh, where do you get them I don't know
But everyone's got a water buffalo-oooooooooo
I took my buffalo to the store
Got his head stuck in the door
Spilled some lima beans on the floor
Oh everybody's got a water buffalo...
I understand why that post would be shocking, but I see no reason to turn it into
Which I personally found confrontational, addressing agnostics and atheists as a whole ("you") and making a blanket statement (the agnostics and atheists).
I feel if you want to respond to Pale Man's post instead of ignoring him, then do so, but I really don't see why you should turn that into "the atheists and agnostics". It seems to me most people here, no matter what their beliefs are, have been keeping it civil.
On topic, for the record I don't believe that the Earth is only ~10,000 years old, nor do I believe that everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally (eg. the Adam and Eve creation story.)
I do have specific beliefs on the subject, but with that being said, I also believe that God could have created the universe and everything in it in any manner that he wanted to. If he wanted to create the universe in 6 24-hour time periods, he could have. If he wanted create everything over the span of hundreds of billions of years (or more) then he could have. Either way, I would say the important thing is that he did.
For societies to literally get into wars and stuff over how he did it (or other similar doctrinal minutia) seems absurd to me.
I find it strange that some christians are so intent on unconditionally believing this claim. Were bishops hundreds of years ago infallible? Really?
Thanks
Because otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation?
More seriously, from a theoretical point of view, I can see how the details might not matter. On the other hand, if God is all powerful and did create the universe, and we end up having an idea of how, it might be interesting to analyse. I mean, he could do it in any possible way, maybe he did it that way for a reason.
This being said, I don't think we can randomly come up with the way he did it, or say that because it's written that way it has to be that way even if there seems to be evidence against it. As Chyron said, it could be a metaphor. There is also the possibility that the Bible being written by men, they misinterpreted things. And finally, some things could have been lost in translation. So while I'd understand, once there is a reason to believe things happened a certain way, the idea of talking about why, I don't think it's worth killing each other because you don't agree about how you think things were done.
To give an example, we have reasons to believe Earth is spherical (or close to). So I understand saying that it's so all life is connected and there is no beginning and end, and so people are closer to one another, as opposed to the flat idea.
However I don't think it was worth torturing people over what shape they thought the Earth might be before we knew.
I wanted to hear what he believed in greater detail.
This was always kinda weird to me.
There ya go!
Some believe in somekind of god, some in the hidden people, no problem if it makes you feel comfy personally but as history with all the wars based on religious differences and all the madness beeing involved have shown, it often just doesn't work out.
When I asked my teachers, there would always be this hilarious awkward pause before they would mumble something about people measuring time differently back then. All I have to say is that if that was the case their years must have been about two weeks long.
Alllriiiiiiiiiiight...
I believe in the Catholic God, and that Jesus was born, died and rose again. I also believe in Heaven and Hell. I do not believe that Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, eg. the Pentateuch actually happened, I believe they were stories meant to convey God's word and I believe in evolution.
...
perhaps a further explanation?
Basically, I don't believe it happened in 7 days, etc. I think it was a lot of divine stories, that are still important to our lives but should not be taken literally.
I just meant that if the universe or Earth didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because we wouldn't exist, so I guess it's kind of important to us, personally, that it does exist?
But it was just a joke.
The end of the pentateuch
it's like a blur tool in photoshop used on the bible... it extends past the pixel you want to blur, in this case the transition from the pentateuch to the more believable stuff, meaning some of the old testament after these 5 books get caught too. personally, i don't believe every fact in the whole old testament, just the more believable ones.
if you would like we can do this in a pm thing. im just a curious fellow, is all.
Also, I'm fine here. I don't physically know any of these people. Why have a thread if we can't discuss it?
that's all good
I still don't understand this. If I am offended when someone says I am going to die and then burn in a tortuous setting for eternity, it is my fault. If they are offended when I say they're wrong, it is also my fault?
(for the record, I don't say they're wrong, because they may be correct. I'm just assuming a role there.)
I also like stories where inanimate objects behave like sentient entities. In Norse mythology, when Frigg learns the prophesy that her son Baldr will die, she makes every object in the universe promise not to harm him, and every object agrees, except for mistletoe, of course.
There's just something I find really intriguing and beautiful about the dream-like absurdity and simplicity of stories like this.
To be fair, the new testament does say a lot of good things to say[URL="1 peter 4:9"] as well [/URL](and so does the old testament, for that matter), however to truly believe (which I'm not accusing you of) that the New Testament is all good seems a bit... well... unsettling. You know what I'm saying?
"Atheism: The believe that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for so reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs."
It's not hard to make something sound ridiculous like that.