|
BrandorKP posted:But you're ignoring the quotations, Donald Johnson's and Goldstein's words. That salvation business, that nature business, these people actually say these things! Christianity and all Christians are irredeemably evil though. As ironclad proof of this, I present a single Christian saying a thing 
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Christianity and all Christians are irredeemably evil though. As ironclad proof of this, I present a single Christian saying a thing Now now brother, we must go revere our sacred slogan of 'In Reason We Trust'
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Christianity and all Christians are irredeemably evil though. As ironclad proof of this, I present a single Christian saying a thing My point is that all people need to doubt the things they have faith in! Why might this image be supportive of my point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:My point is that all people need to doubt the things they have faith in! Why might this image be supportive of my point? Oh well doubt is pretty central to the scientific method, as all theories must be verified, experimental results must be repeatable, and all theories are in principle subject to falsification by future observations. So um, congratulations, you retroactively convinced methodological naturalists to agree with you 300 years ago? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:My point is that all people need to doubt the things they have faith in! Why might this image be supportive of my point? You don't seem very doubtful of your own faith, such as how you project it upon all others. Regardless, the difference between doubting science and reality versus doubting the divine and revered in religion is immense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh well doubt is pretty central to the scientific method, as all theories must be verified, experimental results must be repeatable, and all theories are in principle subject to falsification by future observations. I see: our ability to know is absolutely dependent upon this specific methodology which is a thing we came up with. Potato Potato Tomato Tomato. CommieGIR posted:Regardless, the difference between doubting science and reality versus doubting the divine and revered in religion is immense. Yeah the religious folk have a much longer documented history of doing peer review.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Yeah the religious folk have a much longer documented history of doing peer review. Either you are troll or this is literally one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Either you are troll or this is literally one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Yo the Catholics just did some of this poo poo. Didn't go the way I would want it to. They get together in a council and they talk at length about the things they believe, people make arguments for and against, then they vote and say we will go this way and not that way, will affirm these arguments and not those ones. Sometimes this happens between denominations, they come together go through a similiar process and then yeah we agree about enough to take communion at each others churches. There is close to two thousand of years of what is community, peer, review in Christianity and it's really well documented. Edit: and sometimes this happens at a really local level. The Lutheran Pietists would be a good example. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:As far as I can tell, all I'm leaving out is the "...and therefore, you can't judge him" at the end. That's subjective analysis, not an intrinsic property or reported action, just as "...and it was good" is an analysis. Again, if there's a quality of God you think I've missed that would redeem him inventing eternal torture, by all means correct me. Yes, but that is cheating. Because it is an intrinsic property. Not the statement, of course, but the basis for that conclusion. Ignoring the latter gets you nowhere by itself. What are the intrinsic properties and qualities of god, according to you? That's a good example. If the monarchist was to say: "Anarchism advocates heavily centralized property ownership, controlled by a strict hierarchy based on hereditary privilege" then his counterpart might jump to the conclusion that the monarchist either lacks understanding or is arguing in bad faith. Comparing God to a political ideology doesn't really make sense, but I hope the argument I'm trying to make here is clear. rudatron posted: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). I understand that you cut out the content of my posts in order to save space, but this becomes frustrating when you claim that I've changed my position, something you do very frequently. I can't tell what you base that on, and all we have to go on is you saying "first you said this, now you say that." The post you quoted here doesn't even seem to mention what you're talking about, let alone contain any admission to that effect. If I ignore some of your questions, it isn't necessarily because i assume they're rhetorical. Most of the time I'll ignore a question when you say something along the lines of "since you (now) say X, then how/why...", when I never said X. quote: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. For the sake of this discussion you're assuming a god that is omnipotent and omniscient as well as responsible for creating literally everything. But you need me to explain how this entity "needs special treatment?" If you can't see the problem here, then I honestly don't know what to tell you. If you're assuming Bacchus or something like that, then I can understand your incredulity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
My God it's almost like I put in a basic effort to check and make sure I'm not being an idiot before I post. I have my initial reactions, but I eventually look up almost everything. This ranges in seriousness. From as low effort as browsing a wiki before I post, to reading textbooks or scholarly works, to slogging through every single Koch industries internal corporate newsletter ever written. On the other hand I'm arguing with people who don't even bother to Google image search.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted: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. ARE YOU KIDDING???!!! The very reason we become atheists/agnostics is because we doubted what we trusted in. Arrival at "the scientific method is robust and will probably produce trustworthy results" is not a matter of religious faith, it's a matter seeing this demonstrated over and over again by scientific processes reaching correct conclusions. And when something appears to be suspect, we doubt, and we replicate the experiment, or at least examine it to find possible faults. You are arguing against the strawmanniest strawman that ever strawmanned. Truth is, you don't doubt. Sure, you might say "well there's one or two verses I'm still not sure of" but at the fundamental level you're sure God exists and that the basic tenants of Christianity are true. You're not willing to really say, "okay - let me examine scenario X beginning with the assumption that my beliefs are wrong. What could then be the explanation? And does that explanation make better sense and stand up better to scrutiny than my current beliefs?" And before you even try to throw that back on me: yes, science does this all the time. It's how science works. You mistake science for a set of beliefs that parallel Christianity. Science is a process, not a belief system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
But maybe every time it seemed like science worked that was actually just you imagining it happening. Face it, you only take penicillin on faith according to the tenets of the Church of Atheism as defined in the Atheist Holy Writings known as "random newspaper ads" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Science is a process, not a belief system. Faith is a process too. We should doubt our processes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
for reference this is the same idiot who has spent years trying to make literally every single goddamn post ever about some bullshit pseudointellectual wordsalad about Universals and other metaphysical garbage he's like a spiritual fishmech. never, in the history of his posting, has he ever admitted to being anything remotely resembling wrong or so much as conceded a single point. he can never ever be wrong and if you trap him it's only because you don't understand his genius e: he's what you'd get if you mashed up aquinas and deleuze and guattari and a whole truckload of metaphysical horseshit into a markov chain generator. i've suspected he'd a gimmick poster doing literally this with only limited editing for a while wheez the roux fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Faith is a process too. We should doubt our processes. That does not make religion 'peer-reviewed' BrandorKP posted:Yo the Catholics just did some of this poo poo. Didn't go the way I would want it to. They get together in a council and they talk at length about the things they believe, people make arguments for and against, then they vote and say we will go this way and not that way, will affirm these arguments and not those ones. Sometimes this happens between denominations, they come together go through a similiar process and then yeah we agree about enough to take communion at each others churches. There is close to two thousand of years of what is community, peer, review in Christianity and it's really well documented. This is not peer review. The Bible is not a study with verifiable results. BrandorKP posted:Faith is a process too. We should doubt our processes. The PROCESS is not the issue in the scientific process, the hypothesis being verified or disproved is the part being verified. wheez the roux posted:for reference this is the same idiot who has spent years trying to make literally every single goddamn post ever about some bullshit pseudointellectual wordsalad about Universals and other metaphysical garbage ...yeah, I'm starting to gather that. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:45
|
|
If you want an insight into his  belief system this is basically the long and short of it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_(metaphysics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:27% of the US population considers itself Evangelical Christian. That's less than 50%, so technically that's a minority. Kit Walker posted:Wait, seriously? Holy poo poo. Religion in America is rather fluid: one-third of Americans (35%) say they regularly (9%) or occasionally (26%) attend religious services at more than one place, and most of these (24% of the public overall) indicate that they sometimes attend religious services of a faith different from their own. Also among American Christians, 29% say they have felt in touch with someone who has already died, 23% believe in astrology, 17% say they have seen or been in the presence of ghosts, and 14% have consulted a fortuneteller or a psychic. But the biggest thing from that study: 22% of American Christians believe in reincarnation, despite reincarnation being incompatible with pretty much every major flavor of Christianity. You can't get much more "heretical" than that, but if you pick five Christians in America, one of them will believe in reincarnation; that's roughly 50,000,000 Americans total. Syncretism and cultural/religious appropriation is a proud American tradition, it's just what we do.  Hey, here's one of those  While Kyrie would probably tell me I'm going to hell if continue believing like this and don't sudo rm -rf posted:I wish universal reconciliation was more popular. Christianity would seem a lot nicer. Black Bones posted:It's one of the oldest teachings on salvation in Christianity 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! Black Bones posted:
fade5 fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:50
|
|
This world is the only Hell that any of us will ever know, and God challenges us to turn it into Heaven.
|
BrandorKP posted:It would be. But new life, new being in Christ Jesus, is a right here and right now, an immediate sort of thing, fortunately. A thing isn't new just because you or someone else said it is new, hth. Bible and most Christian dogma makes it quite clear that the rewards of following the Word comes in the next life, not this one. In fact, following Jesus's teachings is supposed to catch you a world of poo poo and be super hard, hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
wheez the roux posted:If you want an insight into his Oh, yeah, I know. BrandorKP and Miltank tend to try to drag us into metaphysical discussions about reality a lot. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Universalism/universal reconciliation, the OG Christian afterlife theology, and pretty much the only one that doesn't make God into a mean, vengeful rear end in a top hat who tortures people for eternity. Universalism's cool, it's basically the backbone of the squishy, contradictory mess you could call my belief system. Universalism really should be a more popular theology/belief, but for some reason people prefer the ability to threaten nonbelievers with eternal punishment rather than assuring them that the afterlife will be better than their current one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
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. Hail Eris! Hail Discordia! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Faith is a process too. We should doubt our processes. Faith is ignorance put on a pedestal, and I can think of no better walking, talking example of that than you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That does not make religion 'peer-reviewed' Sure it does, you just redefine "peer-review" to mean "asking your peers what they think 'bout stuff". Much like how once "faith" is redefined as "reliance on any form of knowledge", and "religion" is redefined as "any organized human process" then bam! Atheism is a religion, science is a mystical faith ritual, and sitting around in an ecumenical council and voting to anathematize any Goldilocks who thinks the church's definition of Jesus' nature is too divine or too human is rigorous peer-review! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Oh I am definitely being honest, but I'm not being fair. Man can you let me know where you inspect boats so I can avoid those boats
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Man can you let me know where you inspect boats so I can avoid those boats I cannot picture Brandor out in the world functioning like an actual adult. What must it be like working with him? Do the people around him live in constant dread of saying something to set him off on another rant?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 03:32
|
|
SedanChair posted:Man can you let me know where you inspect boats so I can avoid those boats smuggling isn't real, because who is anyone to decide what belongs where, or if belonging is a meaningful term. hell, location means nothing and what is a boat if not a means of transferral and i would be insane to say a boat cannot do what it tautologically must do. my geiger counter blips madly but radiation is just a construct of a process that always has been and always will be. nothing changes, but god is real and loves the correct universe and thus i know my actions are correct because they cannot be otherwise because universal god decides the canon of my actions and existence. stop staring at me like that, it's very rude anyway mr baghdadi just sign the manifest for your cat litter shipment here and take your container. i must maintain the ability of the universal boat to fulfill its platonic ideal destiny. also why do you think cats are litterers? doesnt make sense. litter isn't real because all is from earth. you could've at least said goodbye wheez the roux fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
wheez the roux posted:smuggling isn't real, because who is anyone to decide what belongs where, or if belonging is a meaningful term. hell, location means nothing and what is a boat if not a means of transferral and i would be insane to say a boat cannot do what it tautologically must do. my geiger counter blips madly but radiation is just a construct of a process that always has been and always will be. nothing changes, but god is real and loves the correct universe and thus i know my actions are correct because they cannot be otherwise because universal god decides the canon of my actions and existence. stop staring at me like that, it's very rude anyway mr baghdadi just sign the manifest for your cat litter shipment here and take your container. i must maintain the ability of the universal boat to fulfill its platonic ideal destiny. also why do you think cats are litterers? doesnt make sense. litter isn't real because all is from earth. you could've at least said goodbye Just remember: There is no spoon. But Jesus loves you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
I've never heard a good explanation why Jesus is better than money as an object of worship.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Oh cool Joel Osteen joined the thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Oh cool Joel Osteen joined the thread. Well, it's not like Jesus is going to do more for you than money in any real respect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Well, it's not like Jesus is going to do more for you than money in any real respect. Money is actually worthless, give it all to the Church, they'll take it off your hands 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
The church does more good with money than any capitalist I know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:The church does more good with money than any capitalist I know. That's um, not the highest of bars there
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
True, but we had to start somewhere with the mammon worshipper. One thing at a time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
quote:This thread is for discussing Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Incarnation, the Son of Man, the Word, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the Lord, the Light of the World, the Resurrection, the King of the Jews, the Messiah, the Savior, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Can't tell if serious. Also said without irony. Given the track record of prophets & saints throughout history (and contemporary times), my money would be on Jesus being a good matchstick man (and this also being the reason for running afoul of the Roman authorities - not that this, or anything else, could justify torturing him to death via crucifixion). Everyone - everyone - that we know enough about to write definitive biographies of who has claimed divine guidance & servitude has been a charlatan at best. Most of them were / are crooks stealing the money of elderly & ill people, some of them were trying to wiggle their way out of debt, all of them leveraged their cult following to gain political capital (or tried to). The idea that the Bible (whether you consider the definitive edition the OT, NT, Book of Mormon, Torah or whatever else is loving out there these days) is a book authored by anyone other than men with a very poor understanding of the world - even for the times they lived in - is a non-starter. I mean, if a benign deity were going to write a book, wouldn't it have been nice for that deity to tell us about germ theory? Maybe about how to manufacture penicillin or develop vaccines? Wouldn't it have been glorifying for said deity to write down the human genome for us in the magic book, so we wouldn't have to spend so much time, money & effort on that endeavor for ourselves? Perhaps said deity might also have imparted into that volume the language later used by Hobbes or Paine to describe universal human rights? Perhaps said deity could've told us to abolish slavery, that it was both immoral and unsustainable - or, at the very least, not embrace the concept and tell us to partake in it as a rite of initiation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
I think kyrie eleison is actually a deep-cover gimmick poster that attempts to get people to move away from Christianity by making really weak arguments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh, yeah, I know. BrandorKP and Miltank tend to try to drag us into metaphysical discussions about reality a lot. I only know a little about BrandorKP's favored author, Paul Tillich, who from what I gather tried to reinterpret Christianity in a more postmodern/existential manner. Whereas traditional theologians defined God as a being which is presumed to exist, Tillich instead works from a definition of "God" that is very... esoteric. “... the question of the existence of God can be neither asked nor answered. If asked, it is a question about that which by its very nature is above existence, and therefore the answer—whether negative or affirmative—implicitly denies the nature of God. It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being-itself, not a being... ...God as the ground of being infinitely transcends that of which he is the ground. He stands against the world, in so far as the world stands against him, and he stands for the world, thereby causing it to stand for him. ... Only in this sense can we speak of “transcendent” with respect to the relation of God and the world.” Basically, Tillich's theology depends entirely on a series of linguistic contortions which Walter Kaufmann called “conversion by definition.” It's like... have you ever been at a party and are having a conversation with someone? Say, about a cake recipe or something. You're going in detail and tossing ideas back and forth about clever techniques using meat thermometers and flour-to-liquid ratios and frosting or whatever, when suddenly a dude butts in yammering on about time cubes or whatever unrelated abstraction and acting as if it's totally relevant to your direct and focused conversation about baked goods. Maybe he's brilliant, maybe he's just got a legit case of Aspergers and he's off his meds. You can't quite tell because nothing makes a lick of sense and he's refusing to relate to your conversation or frame of reference in any way. That's what BrandorKP's posts read like. Seriously, even if Tillich/BrandorKP are right and there's no distinction between atheism and theism because there's an umbrella definition big enough to encompass both... where do we go from there? What's the point? Because when you step out of the muddled realm of overly broad definitions, you immediately find that there are substantive differences in both epistemic and metaphysical beliefs between atheists and theists, and the conversation starts over again. Yes, both atheists and theists express some form of "trust" or "dedication" in their beliefs, and they are similar in that respect. But the fact remains that there are substantive differences between how atheists and theists exercise that trust/dedication. Whereas atheists base their trust and dedication on things like evidence and consistency, theists base their trust on the opposite in many ways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Seriously, even if Tillich/BrandorKP are right and there's no distinction between atheism and theism because there's an umbrella definition big enough to encompass both... where do we go from there? What's the point? Because when you step out of the muddled realm of overly broad definitions, you immediately find that there are substantive differences in both epistemic and metaphysical beliefs between atheists and theists, and the conversation starts over again. Wouldn't you call not automatically believing in things, in a way like automatically believing in things?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:The church does more good with money than any capitalist I know. Like hiding pedophiles from the law. Wait...
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Wouldn't you call not automatically believing in things, in a way like automatically believing in things? Really isn't everything you do, in one way or another, exactly like accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior? Can you really claim not to have faith when you ate a bagel this morning with faith that it would fill your tummy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 06:48
|
|