|
Black Bones posted:You do not have to believe in Christ to be forgiven by him. He forgave ALL sin, not SOME. So not just my nasty-rear end grandma but poor misunderstood Hitler too! Wait, I'm forgiven for everything no matter what? No one goes to hell? I don't even have to be a CHRISTIAN?? Hoo-rah!!! I've finally found a version of Christianity I like! quote:Do the right thing because it's right to do, not out of desire for reward/fear of punishment (those would be sinful motivations!), I mean what kind of goofball would knowingly choose to be a pathetic loser if they could also choose to be cool and righteous?? Well I definitely agree with that, which is why I've always really hated the view that atheists are immoral because they don't have a God - like, excuse me? You're only doing "the right thing" so you can get into heaven and/or not get smited, I want to help people because I want them to be helped. If anyone's immoral, it's YOU (hypothetical fundie). I'm not actually saying it's a good lifestyle to not care about people or being right. I'm saying it follows from some of the religious tenants as I understand them to have been explained to me.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
Can we make up a more interesting backstory though? Its cool how religions have so much fluff but the canon stuff is pretty dull. I sorta get the argument that we don't need to prove facts cause maybe facts don't exist so anything is possible but why not go from "God made the universe" and apply what you see from the world to embellish that theory rather than copy some old book. What if the devil killed god ages ago and is pretending to be him? Then all us atheists are gonna be sitting pretty in corpse-heaven while you guys goes to hell. Or he's imprisoned Him in some castle and the tower of Babel was actually an operation to rescue him that got propaganda'd out by the satanic bible. I dunno if you're gonna lean on a belief system in order to handle an irrational universe then you may as well make it new and interesting. e: I can never tell if people are being ironic or not either. People who are really into Theology sound exactly like me explaining my theories on Game of Thrones lore. "Ah, but a dragon is a double-edged sword, as we can see from reading the prequel short story A Princess and Two Hares," I get faith, I don't get trusting old establishment books. Communist Thoughts fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
You interpret me-saying-you-saying it was literally impossible to say 'god is evil', but that's wrong: people can, of course, say something illogical, yet logic is still a valid objection. Why? Because, presumably, human beings value logic. There was a mistake in the formation of their own values onto a judgment. But you admit that a 'right' is not necessary for the formation of a judgment: that's more than just saying that 'people can say wrong things', because that lack of a necessity applies to the right judgments as well, ones that are consistent with their own standards (you'd have to argue that needing a 'right' is a human standard, which as I've made it clear with tyranny-talk, it's not, it's in fact inhuman to demand a right). So if it's not needed in the formation of a judgment, then where is a 'right' needed? (That's not a rhetorical question btw, and neither were the ones in your second quote of me). As with standards, the onus is on you to show how 'god' logically must have different standards applied to it, the onus is not on me to agree that god is needing special treatment. That's what special pleading is, it's not some obscure rule of Debate Club or whatever, it's you not showing your working. And as I said before, I'm assuming a theist god for the sake of this discussion. rudatron fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Wait, I'm forgiven for everything no matter what? No one goes to hell? I don't even have to be a CHRISTIAN?? Hoo-rah!!! I've finally found a version of Christianity I like!  This world is the only Hell that any of us will ever know, and God challenges us to turn it into Heaven.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:I mean what kind of goofball would knowingly choose to be a pathetic loser if they could also choose to be cool and righteous?? All kinds, evidently. (My own included)
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Catholic social teaching strongly opposes racism. The far left and the far right are two sides of the same coin. Both are willing to laugh about abhorrent violence and evil against their enemies out of hate. Please remember that, although it can be good to criticize someone's behavior, and even to act against it, that we must be charitable in doing so. Let us aspire not to be violent, or hypocritical, or vulgar, which lessens us. Let us remember that our words come from our heart, and defile us. We must seek atonement only through personal change and never through judgmental hypocrisy. Let us look at our brother and sister and neighbor and see ourselves, in a spirit of love. Christ did not die for one race of people. All people are disloyal sinners in his eyes, who without his mercy would be deserving of damnation. He died that all people's sins might be forgiven, that we might correct our misbehaviors and our bad thoughts, control our tongues, and that all people might come together in a constructive union in his name. Where the church must criticize, it must only do so constructively. And it must show tolerance and understanding to those who think differently, in the sincere hope that they might come around before their death. I want to apologize for my own failures in this regard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Christ did not die for one race of people. All people are disloyal sinners in his eyes, who without his mercy would be deserving of damnation. He died that all people's sins might be forgiven Hey, another question, which may sound flippant, but is actually sincere. How does the story actually make any sense? I mean, God sacrificed Himself to Himself to give Himself a loophole through which he could cheat people into heaven? That makes it seem like God is subject to certain laws of goodness outside of his control. It reads like the plot of LOST. He's God, right? Couldn't he just say "woah, like almost no one is getting into heaven by trying to strictly follow Hebrew law. Guess that's not working. Hey, I know...I'll just change the rules! Boop! Now people can get into heaven for the low low price of faith (or even nothing, if you're right). Wow, that feels good!" And even more, why would God have to have tried so many methods that didn't work? "Oh no, Adam ate from the tree, gotta kick him out of Eden. Oh no, too many sinners, better flood the world and kill everyone but Noah. Oh no, these two cities are sinning too much, gonna level them with fire and brimstone. drat, this still isn't working. What else haven't I tried? Ooh, I know, how about Jesus?" Why not start with Jesus, if he knows that's where he's gotta end up? Like, God doesn't change, and God doesn't make mistakes. Or does He? Again, this is the doctrine as I understand it. If Christianity were a movie, there's be a BuzzFeed article in an hour: "11 Gaping Plotholes in The Bible You Could Drive A Mack Truck Through" coupled with gifs of Michael Scott looking frazzled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:How does the story actually make any sense? I mean, God sacrificed Himself to Himself to give Himself a loophole through which he could cheat people into heaven? That makes it seem like God is subject to certain laws of goodness outside of his control. This is the great Catholic heresy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOUGR1SsTD0
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:To doubt his words on Joshua is to doubt his words on everything else. Doubt is function of reason, of thought, and skeptism, skeptomai, - to look at, is an act of love! Critical examination of our texts does not threaten faith! I don't believe the Logos can be threatened by logos. And even if we doubt, to doubt is not to lose our faith! But what can happen if we don't doubt? And if we don't doubt we don't think. We can have scales on our eyes and hard hearts and miss truth right in front of us. Kyrie eleison posted:Let us look at our brother and sister and neighbor and see ourselves, in a spirit of love And this, I think is the only way forward. Trent posted:I can't believe we're still stuck on "atheists have faith too"  This month's FFRF ad. "Let's reinvent a reverence for our real creator Nature", even capitalized "Nature." If they aren't anthropomorphized can they still be put in a pantheon? And since Zizek got posted, some Hegel: "After its battle with religion the best reason could manage was to take a look at itself and come to self-awareness. Reason, having in this way become mere intellect, acknowledges its own nothingness by placing that which is better than it in a faith outside and above itself, as a Beyond to be believed in. This is what has happened in the philosophies of Kant, Jacobi and Fichte. Philosophy has made itself the handmaiden of a faith once more. " Black Bones posted:I mean what kind of goofball would knowingly choose to be a pathetic loser if they could also choose to be cool and righteous?? I mean who wouldn't choose all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor right? Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
I'll give you great blessings and eternal life if you give yourself and all you have wholly over to me, but only after you're dead. Sounds like a scam to me OP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
e: nvm
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:This month's FFRF ad. The Freedom From Religion Foundation is not the church of atheism and does not represent all or even a majority of atheists, HTH.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I'll give you great blessings and eternal life if you give yourself and all you have wholly over to me, but only after you're dead. It would be. But new life, new being in Christ Jesus, is a right here and right now, an immediate sort of thing, fortunately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:
 FFRF is not a church, and your attempts to frame them as such is really annoying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The Freedom From Religion Foundation is not the church of atheism and does not represent all or even a majority of atheists, HTH. I know and what I'm doing with it is probably not entirely fair, and not necessarily only about the the arguments of the thread. But it is illustrative of that the meta issues often blamed on "religion" are more universal (which I respond to by thinking about all of it as religion) and are problems that any group centered around any ideology have to deal with and confront. CommieGIR posted:
Then they should stop appealing to Reason, Nature, etc. Then they shouldn't run public advertisements talking about salvation? The problem is not my framing, it's the actual things they are doing. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Then they should stop appealing to Reason, Nature, etc. Then they shouldn't run public advertisements talking about salvation? The problem is not my framing, it's the actual things they are doing. Nope, that doesn't make them a church. You are making assumptions that reason and nature are religious in order. Not to mention, you are glossing over the entire point of the FFRF: To enforce separation of church and state, which actually helps reinforce religious freedoms  So, does that make biology a religious experience? Should evolutionary biology involve daily prayer? Also: Please highlight where it says or refers to salvation? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I know and what I'm doing with it is probably not entirely fair, and not necessarily only about the the arguments of the thread. But it is illustrative of that the meta issues often blamed on "religion" are more universal (which I respond to by thinking about all of it as religion) and are problems that any group centered around any ideology have to deal with and confront. So you admit that it's unfair but you aren't going to stop. Fantastic, good to know that you care more about the meta-narrative of your posting career than with being intellectually honest. You were doing so well for awhile, I'm disappointed in you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Hey brandor can you give as concisely as possible your definitions for 'god', 'religion' and 'church' as you can because they obviously aren't the same as anyone else's and it's confusing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nope, that doesn't make them a church. You are making assumptions that reason and nature are religious in order. Nature is certainly a religious concept. It is something our culture believes in and values despite the fact that it objectively doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
How can trees be real if our eyes aren't real.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Miltank posted:nature is a religious concept. It is something our culture believes in and values despite the fact that it objectively doesn't exist. No, its not. At least not in the way the FFRF is using it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Nature?s=t Also: Miltank posted:It is something our culture believes in and values despite the fact that it objectively doesn't exist. It describe a whole concept and a functional system. What the hell. Nature is something that would exist REGARDLESS of cultural or religious aspect. It would exist if we were not even here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Trees exist and so does grass and deer. That doesn't mean nature is real though.
Miltank fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Trees exist and so does grass and deer. That doesn't mean nature is real though. Take the loving metaphysics elsewhere. You KNOW that is not what the FFRF is talking about. That is a bad faith argument if ever I heard one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Talking about 'salvation' is really dodgy (and even the christian idea of salvation is iffy), but it's necessary to appeal to something if you're trying to convince someone else, right? rudatron fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Take the loving metaphysics elsewhere. You KNOW that is not what the FFRF is talking about. That is a bad faith argument if ever I heard one. There is no functional system that can be called nature- it is all chaos. The distinction which nature suggests between "us" and "everything else" is entirely arbitrary. e: "Nature as our real creator", that is religion plain and simple. Miltank fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Language is arbitrary, the definition of 'grass' is arbitrary, the exact boundaries of forums poster Miltank is arbitrary (your bodies' cells do continuously replace themselves after all). I think when most people talk about nature, they just mean something not man-made, so it exists in as much as any other category exists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Miltank posted:There is no functional system that can be called nature- it is all chaos. The distinction which nature suggests between "us" and "everything else" is entirely arbitrary. Also: Nature is not chaos, there is an ordered system in nature overall, despite having the appearance of chaos. Nature is a word used to describe the interactions of multiple natural systems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
what's a natural system edit. if you're not going to do metaphysics, just don't
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:what's a natural system Weather. down with slavery posted:edit. if you're not going to do metaphysics, just don't The FFRF was not using the metaphysics definition of nature. Therefore, its really poor debating to bring it up. Since we are arguing about the FFRF article, its pertinent we frame it as such. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Its literally the opposite. An appearance of order where there is actually chaos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
yeah Weather/Climate is a great example of chaos theory
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Its literally the opposite. An appearance of order where there is actually chaos. I don't think you quite grasp this yet: Nature has the appearance of chaos, but in actuality is still a deterministic system. The APPEARANCE of chaos does not imply no order, simply an order that is not yet clearly defined or cannot be defined outside of a set period of time. This is why people arguing about climate change get confused between climate and weather. quote:Chaos theory concerns deterministic systems whose behavior can in principle be predicted. Chaotic systems are predictable for a while and then appear to become random. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The FFRF was not using the metaphysics definition of nature. Therefore, its really poor debating to bring it up. Since we are arguing about the FFRF article, its pertinent we frame it as such. quote:"Let's reinvent a reverence for our real creator, Nature
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I don't think you quite grasp this yet: Nature has the appearance of chaos, but in actuality is still a deterministic system. The APPEARANCE of chaos does not imply no order, simply an order that is not yet clearly defined or cannot be defined outside of a set period of time. S = kb log omega Where s is entropy, kb is Boltzmann's constant, and omega is the number of configurations. Hope that helps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:(which I respond to by thinking about all of it as religion) Yeah, so...stop doing that? Because it isn't. Your belief in God and my general trust in the accuracy of the scientific method are not both "religions". You may think they are comparable, but that is because you are mistaken. It must be that your understanding of the non-religious world is faulty; I would be happy to clear up any misconceptions you have but just because your perceptions have led to a wrong conclusion does not redefine science as a "faith".
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Miltank posted:What does 'nature' mean according to you in this quote? You can have reverence for the natural world without religious belief. The same feelings religion evokes: Awe, Humility, and compassion can be evoked just as easily buy studying the physical. Trying to twist that into: "Well, its a religion" is trying hard to imply a theistic belief where none is needed nor found is a poor argument. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Yeah, so...stop doing that? Because it isn't. Your belief in God and my general trust in the accuracy of the scientific method are not both "religions". You may think they are comparable, but that is because you are mistaken. It must be that your understanding of the non-religious world is faulty; I would be happy to clear up any misconceptions you have but just because your perceptions have led to a wrong conclusion does not redefine science as a "faith". CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I don't think you quite grasp this yet: Nature has the appearance of chaos, but in actuality is still a deterministic system. The APPEARANCE of chaos does not imply no order, simply an order that is not yet clearly defined or cannot be defined outside of a set period of time. Your definition of order would be useless even if this were true. CommieGIR posted:You can have reverence for the natural world without religious belief. The same feelings religion evokes: Awe, Humility, and compassion can be evoked just as easily buy studying the physical. You don't understand that the 'natural world' is a human construct the same way religion is. Nature as a concept is just the distinction of all other poo poo on the planet as separate from us. You can't have reverence for a human construction while at the same time claiming rationality. You can claim that naturalism or whatever you want to call it is harmless or positive but don't pretend its not magical thinking. Miltank fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Miltank posted:You don't understand that the 'natural world' is a human construct the same way religion is. Nature as a concept is just the distinction of all other poo poo on the planet as separate from us. You can't have reverence for a human construction while at the same time claiming rationality. No, its not. We didn't invent nature, we are more an invention of nature. Seriously, you'd have to throw out the Theory of Evolution and all of Biology to make that argument stick. Miltank posted:You can claim that naturalism or whatever you want to call it is harmless or positive or whatever but don't pretend its not magical thinking. 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, its not. 'Nature' as it is used means specifically what we are not. The fallacy isn't that the 'natural' world exists, it is that we are somehow separated from it. We are not an invention or creation of nature, we are and everything we do still is nature. e: skyscrapers and garbage dumps are just as 'natural' as forests and rivers. Miltank fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:So you admit that it's unfair but you aren't going to stop. Fantastic, good to know that you care more about the meta-narrative of your posting career than with being intellectually honest. You were doing so well for awhile, I'm disappointed in you. Oh I am definitely being honest, but I'm not being fair. rudatron posted:Talking about 'salvation' is really dodgy (and even the christian idea of salvation is iffy), but it's necessary to appeal to something if you're trying to convince someone else, right? Right, and one is always, always, offering an alternative. Sometimes those alternatives are obvious eg. Nature, Reason, etc. But the whole line of well we aren't like that, we don't believe in gods, it's nonsense because there is always an alternative (accepted by faith) being offered. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:my general trust in the accuracy of the scientific method are not both "religions". What is an alternative being offered here? Gaining weight trusts in something concrete and specifically defined. This is what consistently bothers me. A profession of faith in X, paired with an assertion that the profession of faith in X is not religious. This is where I'm not being fair. An alternative is always being offered. The FFRF ads I'm posting, the offered alternative is transparent in those ads. It's easy to see. It's not as easy to see in the posters in this thread. But it's there, because it's always there. Because "it's it's necessary to appeal to something if you're trying to convince someone else. There is always an object of faith, there is always something being presented as you should trust in this as opposed to trusting in that. I'm posting a case (the FFRF ads) where it is drat easy to see, illustrative of this point, and I'm being pretty harsh about it. Am I'm being less harsh to Christians? ( I think not) Thing is, what I'm saying is can be simplified to: It's ok and necessary to doubt whatever we trust in! And it is ironic for atheists to not acknowledge that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 18:33
|
|