|
Crowsbeak posted:Also to all whining about God not proving to you that he is the creator. That's your fault you cannot see God's magnificence. Whine to God. Can I whine to Odin instead? Would that be more useful or less useful in seeing a grand design when all I see is nature and it's laws?
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
Fionordequester posted:Heh, well, I can always claim to have greater knowledge than you on the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern culture. I could ALWAYS pull rank on you that way
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 18:17
|
|
.
|
Majorian posted:My beliefs aren't causing you any harm, and they motivate me to do things that I think you would agree are good. I'm a potential ally of yours on a lot of issues, but you're dead-set on attacking me because I have the temerity to believe in a benevolent deity. That's a really narrow-minded worldview, if ever I saw one. This is a point which is frequently made in religion threads, editorials etc. by those who find themselves siding with secularists politically but also feel compelled to rhetorically defend a religious tradition. And on the face of it, it isn't exactly wrong; but I think there are good reasons that some of these supposedly hostile non-believers aren't convinced by it. I won't deny that some non-theists - including myself at times, no doubt - get overly bound up in metaphysics and focus too much on attacking the very idea of religion. While it is certainly true that believing in any specific god (note the exact wording here) is less rational than not believing in a god, no person can be perfectly rational about all subjects at all times, and it is very much possible for a person to hold to an irrational form of faith while being rational on many or even most other topics. However, there is a difference between being willing to work together in practice and pretending that philosophical differences do not exist, or worse, making discussion of those differences taboo. There seems to be a generalized, nonspecific grievance in such liberal religious apologetics against nonbelievers who insult and personally attack them for the mere act of believing in a god. To be frank, I see no evidence of this, at the very least not in this specific thread. I think anyone in one of these threads could claim that they believe in a non-specific, non-interventionist creator deity without ever encountering any particularly harsh criticism. What is far more common is that a specific belief system or organization is denounced with vitriolic terms, that that is taken to be a personal attack and responded against accordingly. It seems almost trite to mention that the inverse - thinking people with unrepented sins are bound for hell - is equally as unpleasant as someone claiming that holding a belief makes you an idiot. Even if you want to assume that only acts which are considered to be grievously wrong in a modern context (theft, slander, and so on), most people on this board have been guilty of it at least once - are they therefore doomed to hell? If not, why do you want to avoid discussing the question? Just say that isn't part of your belief system at all. More practically speaking, there's another reason the "golly gee you shouldn't criticize the religion of folks who are on your side" line of reasoning is unconvincing. Someone who is strongly committed to a scriptural, revealed belief system is often a crypto-conservative who supports modern conceptions of human rights and individual freedom for others right up until the point that freedom challenges something the believer feels nostalgia for. Call it the "Atticus Finch" effect, so beautifully illustrated by the recently published sequel to Harper Lee's novel where the narrator realizes that at the end of the day her father is actually kind of a bigoted rear end in a top hat and always was even though he happened to stand up against an injustice bad enough to bother him personally one time. Let's drill down on this a little bit, Majorian: Stem cell research. Abortion (including of disabled fetuses or sex-selective). Drug legalization. Transsexualism. Gender fluid identity. Adult incest. Bestiality. Human cloning. Genetic experimentation... I'm guessing there was at least one item in the aforementioned list that you reacted against and would advocate against politically, if not outright call for the banning of. Even if that isn't the case, surely you must acknowledge that the vast majority of self-declared liberal christians (or muslims, hindus, whatever) have at least one issue that will turn them into a traditionalist conservative if it's touched. While such people are definitely preferable neighbors to true hard-right fundamentalists - I don't think there's anyone here arguing they aren't - it's questionable to what degree they are modernists, and to what degree they are just conservatives who happen to be ahead of the curve and a bit more judicious in picking their battles. None of this is saying that people of different beliefs and worldviews cannot cooperate towards common goals, but pretending the differences don't exist and shushing anybody who mentions them is the wrong way to address the cracks in that cooperation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
blowfish posted:In Real Life™ I will let you be right for the wrong reason to get poo poo done, but since religion (being only a belief) can never be the evidence for evidence based policy, religious arguments for doing something will always have an undercurrent of "yeah here's what we tell the plebs and other assorted useful idiots That's not really the case at all when it comes to the religious left.  Do you think Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Desmond Tutu, or any other examples were just using religion cynically to motivate the plebs? No, they genuinely believed in what they were preaching, and that's why people followed them. They believed that their cause was right and just. One can say that things like morality and justice come from God, or that they're simply implicitly agreed-upon codes of behavior among humans, but either way, it's ridiculous to suggest that good religious people do good things for "the wrong reasons." They're not just doing it because of arbitrary commandments in ancient scriptures; they're doing it because they want to be good people and want to help their fellow man.
Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:26
|
|
".
|
DeusExMachinima posted:IIRC Crowsbeak tends to fall into the "if society makes you do it, then that's what your rights are" which I guess make sense in terms of stating what reality looks like. But he's always short on saying what should be. It was the gender pronoun thread. Crowsbeak posted:Only if the society as a whole allows it. If it doesn't well tough poo poo. Crowsbeak posted:Well you can try. But then starving children not proper pronouns is my priority. Crowsbeak posted:No you see because you don't think everyone is a special little unique snowflake you are a fascist. Crowsbeak posted:Not throughout the world. The individual is a rather recent creation of the west. He's scum. Incidentally, to all the religious apologists in this thread - since people love to accuse me of being this and that - how's it feel being on the same side of an argument as Crowsbeak?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:However, there is a difference between being willing to work together in practice and pretending that philosophical differences do not exist, or worse, making discussion of those differences taboo. There seems to be a generalized, nonspecific grievance in such liberal religious apologetics against nonbelievers who insult and personally attack them for the mere act of believing in a god. To be frank, I see no evidence of this, at the very least not in this specific thread. Have you read any of blowfish's posts? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Have you read any of blowfish's posts? To clarify, arguing for the existence of a specific, scriptural god who we (as a society) need to placate with our actions is not the same thing as stating belief in a nonspecific benevolent creator deity who wants us to be "good" to one another, whatever that happens to mean at the moment. Edit: And more to the point, even if blowfish or whoever else was making those attacks, the latter part of my post still stands; many self-proclaimed religious liberals are actually conservatives who just happen to have set the line of what they want to conserve a little bit farther back. Even if you want to bring in such august figures as Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X, both of them were atrociously sexist, whatever their other accomplishments may have been. If they were alive today, both men would, in some respects, be placed on the cultural right, and correctly so. Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:To clarify, arguing for the existence of a specific, scriptural god who we (as a society) need to placate with our actions is not the same thing as stating belief in a nonspecific benevolent creator deity who wants us to be "good" to one another, whatever that happens to mean at the moment. Yeah, but that's not what he's arguing. This is: blowfish posted:Explain why your super special beliefs in old stories and/or
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, but that's not what he's arguing. This is:
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:That seems to be specifically what they're arguing. They're talking about a scriptural god where people argue we need to do things because of its existence. He and Crowsbeak, sure. I have no interest in that argument, though - my objection is to him painting all religious and spiritual and theistic people with the same broad brush. And equating any sort of belief in a higher power with anti-vaxxers? That's pretty lovely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
What he's saying is that both positions arise from the same reasoning. Your personal belief isn't a good reason for someone else to do something. The fact that anti vaccine bullshit is harmful whereas your personal belief in god probably isnt has no bearing on how convincing your argument for it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Alright guys, I've managed to find some guys, very well educated guys, who fit this criteria...Who What Where posted:People who have neither any reason to explicitly support or deny your view... And now, I'm planning on interviewing them. So, any questions you wish for me to ask them? Anything at all? Obviously I have questions of my own, but as long as we're debating, you may as well have some input too, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:Alright guys, I've managed to find some guys, very well educated guys, who fit this criteria... Who?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:What he's saying is that both positions arise from the same reasoning. Your personal belief isn't a good reason for someone else to do something. The fact that anti vaccine bullshit is harmful whereas your personal belief in god probably isnt has no bearing on how convincing your argument for it is. I'm not arguing that anyone should believe as I do, though. I'm just asking blowfish and all other r/atheism types to stop being dicks towards religious/spiritual/theistic/whatever people, as if we're all Pat Robertson fans or whatever. That just helps convince people that left vs. right politics is the same as spirituality versus atheism, which it shouldn't be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm not arguing that anyone should believe as I do, though. I'm just asking blowfish and all other r/atheism types to stop being dicks towards religious/spiritual/theistic/whatever people, as if we're all Pat Robertson fans or whatever. "Not as bad as Pat Robertson" is a pretty loving low bar! Rick Warren isn't as bad as Pat Robertson either, does that mean those who you caricature as "r/atheism types" should be singing his praises? (I fear the answer that question might genuinely be "yes") It isn't an either/or question, of course, it is a matter of degrees. Every individual's stance is, in some small measure, unique. But there are such things as trends, and "The closer you are to the modernist, materialist end of the scale, and the further you are from the traditionalist, spiritual end of the scale, the better" is a value judgement I am pretty comfortable making. Intensity of religious feeling does not determine political alignment, but it strongly correlates, especially since - as I already pointed out - many great religious liberals of the 20th century would be conservatives by modern standards. Not because of the mere fact of them being religious and talking about it; because of their actual stances on issues aside from whichever injustice they became famous for opposing. In most cases of great religious leaders categorized onto "the left", the views of contemporary non-believing writers would have been closer to actual modern, mainstream progressive thought. The good press (among the left, at least) which these religious leaders got was largely by virtue of packaging criticism of one or two specific social injustices in such a way that it didn't spook the hicks of Middle America (or europe, or whatever) too much. If you want to make that argument, be my guest - but don't try to claim that your religion or any other is more likely to lead a person towards a virtuous philosophy, because the historical track record of most organized religions is extremely poor on that account. I feel like if you denounced organized religion, then most of the so-called "r/atheism types" wouldn't criticize you very energetically. I believe that even blowfish is being less of a stickler about this than you're making him out to be - what his statements have really amounted to is a stubborn refusal to countenance any degree of religious reasoning in matters of politics. By all means, criticize that stance. But intentionally or not, by making this all about the mere fact of belief in ANY god, no matter how distant, you are misdirecting the thread away from the real bone of contention here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:"Not as bad as Pat Robertson" is a pretty loving low bar! Where, exactly, did I say, "not as bad as Pat Robertson" should be the standard of behavior for Christians? Come on, don't be willfully obtuse.quote:Rick Warren isn't as bad as Pat Robertson either, does that mean those who you caricature as "r/atheism types" should be singing his praises? (I fear the answer that question might genuinely be "yes") No, Rick Warren's a right-wing rear end in a top hat. Why would I want people to praise him? Look, all I'm saying is that there are Desmond Tutus and Jim Wallises out there. Some religious people try to be more like them. I'm not saying you should praise anyone or believe anything. I'm just saying, don't paint people with a broad brush. Especially when "people who believe in the supernatural" makes up the vast majority of the human population. quote:But intentionally or not, by making this all about the mere fact of belief in ANY god, no matter how distant, you are misdirecting the thread away from the real bone of contention here. Oh BS. He compared belief in God to anti-vaxxer paranoia. That's what people hate about r/atheist types, and it's not helpful if you're trying to discredit the religious right and get religion out of politics. (which is what I want as well) Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
I believe that atheism is, in the aggregate, a childish and intellectually insipid family of beliefs. While I leave open the possibility that there might be an atheism which I can respect, I consistently attack any actual atheism that is outlined. Of course, I reassure people that I just want reactionary dickheads like Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens out of politics, and I would never be rude enough to say what I actually believed out loud. I consistently harp on particular clobber statements, insisting that as an atheist you must be arrogant enough to assume that you know all about the brain, making frequent, if obscure comparisons to Bertrand Russell's attempt to formulate all of mathematics in Principia Mathematica in the process. Am I describing someone who treats atheism fairly, or someone who's a prejudiced monomaniac with bizarre beliefs?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Who? 1) Oded Borrowski (Emory College of Arts and Sciences: Professor of Biblical Archeology and Hebrew) 2) Anthony J. Frendo (University of Malta: Oriental Studies, Classics, and Archeology) 3) Tim Langille (Middle Tennessee State University: Jewish and Holocaust Studies) Also, Oded Borrowski was born in Israel in 1939 before moving here. Will those credentials be satisfactory?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, I don't think they invented Simon Zealot, though. I'm talking as much as possible about historical Jesus, there, or else I'd be getting into the conflicting theologies. Historical Jesus scholarship can be as conflicting. Any image of a historical Jesus is a construction in a particular context. Zealot, cynic, radical egalitarian, ascetic, queer, apocalyptic jew, etc the conclusions regarding the story of the life of Jesus are often contextual to the scholar and what is going on at the time the work was completed. That needs to be understood about Historical Jesus scholarship in the same way it is understood about the Gospels themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Historical Jesus scholarship can be as conflicting. Any image of a historical Jesus is a construction in a particular context. Zealot, cynic, radical egalitarian, ascetic, queer, apocalyptic jew, etc the conclusions regarding the story of the life of Jesus are often contextual to the scholar and what is going on at the time the work was completed. That needs to be understood about Historical Jesus scholarship in the same way it is understood about the Gospels themselves. I think it should be non-controversial to say that the message of the historical Jesus was attractive enough to Zealots that they were part of his inner circle of followers, though, which was what I was attempting to convey.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I believe that atheism is, in the aggregate, a childish and intellectually insipid family of beliefs. While I leave open the possibility that there might be an atheism which I can respect, I consistently attack any actual atheism that is outlined. Of course, I reassure people that I just want reactionary dickheads like Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens out of politics, and I would never be rude enough to say what I actually believed out loud. I consistently harp on particular clobber statements, insisting that as an atheist you must be arrogant enough to assume that you know all about the brain, making frequent, if obscure comparisons to Bertrand Russell's attempt to formulate all of mathematics in Principia Mathematica in the process. What makes you consider Dawkins, specifically, a reactionary alongside the other two? Has he ever advocated any specific reactionary political policy? Or does he fall under that label solely because he criticizes Islam without having come from an Islamic background? I suspect it's the latter. Furthermore, I think you'd need to elaborate a little bit more about what exactly you mean by "childish". I'm guessing it is either or all of these three: 1)Because it denies any non-materialist explanations for the existence and behavior of the universe [there is and cannot be any evidence to refute this denial, so the only real counterargument you can make is based around personal preference] 2) Inductive reasoning which considers industrialized society inherently sinful and, since atheism is currently most prominent in the west, atheism must be terrible, selfish, hedonistic, or what have you, and asserts that poorer populations in underdeveloped parts of the world have special metaphysical insight on account of their impoverished state [judging by the way you brought in a bizarre tangent about global warming despite the fact that it hadn't been mentioned in the thread makes me suspect this one is your reason, and also despite the fact that religious doctrine's current impact on climate stability is overwhelmingly negative] 3) (Closely related to #2) Crass, shameless argumentum ad populum, whereby because atheists are a minority, globally speaking, they are considered to be childish by virtue of refusing to go along with the beliefs of the majority just for the sake of social harmony. Another similar line of argumentation amounts to "It's more effective to convince people to do good things with a lie than with a truth that may not offer them sufficient levels of comfort and social reinforcement". [Which is a horribly cynical attitude to approach metaphysics with, and usually just ends up producing a vision of "good" that is oppressive and anti-individualist at best and totally self-serving at worst] There's my guesses. What is your explanation for why atheism is "childish"? Edit: Oh, there's also a combination of #1 and #3 that says religion has credibility beyond what its present-day incarnation should grant it because of this here great big list of intelligent and charismatic dead people from hundreds of years ago who bought into it. Usually this takes the form of dropping names rather than actually reproducing these supposedly persuasive arguments from these geniuses of the past. Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Apr 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:What makes you consider Dawkins, specifically, a reactionary alongside the other two? Has he ever advocated any specific reactionary political policy? Or does he fall under that label solely because he criticizes Islam without having come from an Islamic background? I suspect it's the latter. Please come back when you are smart enough to realize that the first paragraph is a hypothetical, as indicated by the second paragraph.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Please come back when you are smart enough to realize that the first paragraph is a hypothetical, as indicated by the second paragraph. Well, in that case, don't post hypothetical arguments that are coming from the same position you've been arguing from in the thread, if you want to prevent confusion. Edit: Or you could just not be such a smartass and clarify the intent behind your  hypothetical description of atheism there?
Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Apr 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Well, in that case, don't post hypothetical arguments that are coming from the same position you've been arguing from in the thread, if you want to prevent confusion. The intent is right in the post. Go back to snarling at Lebanese restaurants under your breath. Nor have I been arguing from that position in this thread. You're bad at lying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
If you say there is no God, have you tried salvia divinorum, if only once? It is legal and considered to be an entheogen. Look below the surface of the mundane- sentience is a spark of mind that has culminated from eons of churning life-force, humans are animals with a capacity for divinity. This state of mind isn't a religious thing with monks and incense, it's practical. Consider how in a way the piece of rock we call earth is a substrate for a highly-complex, uniquely singular (you could say miraculous) set of chemical reactions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7H00OUf1lA
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
McDowell posted:If you say there is no God, have you tried salvia divinorum, if only once? It is legal and considered to be an entheogen. Look below the surface of the mundane- sentience is a spark of mind that has culminated from eons of churning life-force, humans are animals with a capacity for divinity. This state of mind isn't a religious thing with monks and incense, it's practical. Consider how in a way the piece of rock we call earth is a substrate for a highly-complex, uniquely singular (you could say miraculous) set of chemical reactions. I'm shocked you, who thinks that the senses are the path that the devil uses to steal men's eternal souls, would advocate the taking of sense-altering drugs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Fionordequester posted:Oded Borrowski was born in Israel in 1939 Majorian posted:I'm not arguing that anyone should believe as I do, though. I'm just asking blowfish and all other r/atheism types to stop being dicks towards religious/spiritual/theistic/whatever people, as if we're all Pat Robertson fans or whatever. It's disrespectful to lie to people, and that's still the case when telling them the truth could make them angry or upset- you're just demonstrating that you only care what they think about you. If that is what you want, if that is how you think human beings should talk to each other, behind fake smiles, then by all means, leave D&D. Why bother arguing anything? Go find a serene park bench, sit down, and wither away. If you don't want that, then stop complaining about people being 'dicks' just because they think other beliefs might be wrong or stupid. Life is suffering. We can compare scars later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Not that I'm against you posting anything interesting you get, but uh, I'm not sure this is accurate. Life isn't suffering, and if you feel that way, please call the following number: 1 (800) 273-8255. There are people out there who can help. Nothing is as bad as it seems, I promise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:What makes you consider Dawkins, specifically, a reactionary alongside the other two? Has he ever advocated any specific reactionary political policy? Or does he fall under that label solely because he criticizes Islam without having come from an Islamic background? I suspect it's the latter. Don't defend Dick "a little bit of mild pedophilia never hurt anybody" Dorkins.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Don't defend Dick "a little bit of mild pedophilia never hurt anybody" Dorkins. What's this referencing?? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Peta posted:What's this referencing?? I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can't find it in me to condemn it
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Why don't we all put a moratorium on referencing that and instead use his latent lactation fetish from the foreword to Unweaving the Rainbow as an example of how he's kind of a creep instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can't find it in me to condemn it ... "He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: 'I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.'" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
What the gently caress, man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But what is 'being dicks' here? Dancing around the obvious for the sake of appearances? Or failing to flower up the truth with enough obfuscating garbage to so save your precious pride from being damaged? "Oh mister, I'm sure you're well informed and educated, a good person, a community leader and really swell guy, and I hate to interrupt you here, but I must say that, despite whatever feelings you may have, that you could possibly maybe perhaps be mistaken on the sky being green?" Mmmm, I think there's a bit of a difference between being needlessly rear end-kissy like that, and flat-out comparing someone's deepest, most cherished beliefs with anti-vaxxer-ism. And I think you know that. Asking that someone be civil isn't asking that much. quote:If you don't want that, then stop complaining about people being 'dicks' just because they think other beliefs might be wrong or stupid. Life is suffering. We can compare scars later. No, that's not how this works. This isn't your, or blowfish's, personal livejournal. If you say something that deserves criticism, it's going to get criticized. I'll try to do it civilly, as I've been trying to do here, but still, you don't have a right to be free of criticism when you say something bigoted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Not that I'm against you posting anything interesting you get, but uh, I'm not sure this is accurate. Ah, shoot, you're right. The man was born in Palestine, not Israel. rudatron posted:But what is 'being dicks' here? Dancing around the obvious for the sake of appearances? Or failing to flower up the truth with enough obfuscating garbage to so save your precious pride from being damaged? "Oh mister, I'm sure you're well informed and educated, a good person, a community leader and really swell guy, and I hate to interrupt you here, but I must say that, despite whatever feelings you may have, that you could possibly maybe perhaps be mistaken on the sky being green?" Well, to be fair, that's what I've been doing since I started posting in this thread. If anything, getting the other guy mad is just going to make them LESS likely to listen to you, right? But yeah, I do think Brainiac Five is taking it too far with the vitriol, as is "Blowfish". Not that they're the only ones guilty of course. Fionordequester fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Apr 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm shocked you, who thinks that the senses are the path that the devil uses to steal men's eternal souls, would advocate the taking of sense-altering drugs. I did not make a habit of Salvia - but that is a risk in overcoming - being aware of your potential and your choices. Also you are completely mutilating my statements about sensuality - Do refers to lower vibrations and animal drives - being less than human. Animals can get high or drunk and they can form habits - but can they break them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I did not make a habit of Salvia - but that is a risk in overcoming - being aware of your potential and your choices. Humans are animals. So yes, animals can because humans can.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Peta posted:Nope, that's not remotely what I'm saying. Genesis says humans resemble God. You have explain how this is possible in light of your claim that the worldly mechanisms underlying our characteristics do not apply to God, given that God supposedly exists beyond the scope of the cosmos. 1. Yeah not really being that its about Man being like the spiritual nature of God. 2. What determines determinism? 3. Yes Origen living in 2nd century Alexandria is very modern. Lol. DeusExMachinima posted:IIRC Crowsbeak tends to fall into the "if society makes you do it, then that's what your rights are" which I guess make sense in terms of stating what reality looks like. But he's always short on saying what should be. Liberal_L33t posted:It was the gender pronoun thread. J.A.B.C. posted:Can I whine to Odin instead? Would that be more useful or less useful in seeing a grand design when all I see is nature and it's laws? You could. Don't know if it would do you any good. As the Eddas are clear he is rather limited. But all power to you. Rakosi posted:Every thread about religion collapses into bullshit because there is a fundamental cognitive dishonesty that is almost universal among those who have faith. If you're Christian, you have to face up to the reality that every justification and reason you can possibly give to refute, say, the Qu'ran, as the one true word of God, is equally applicable to your own religion for others. You are only one god out of many away from being complete atheists. Well I am willing to consider lesser beings exist. Doesn't mean that they should be worshiped. But people do worship them. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Apr 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Mmmm, I think there's a bit of a difference between being needlessly rear end-kissy like that, and flat-out comparing someone's deepest, most cherished beliefs with anti-vaxxer-ism. And I think you know that. Asking that someone be civil isn't asking that much. Beliefs held without any good evidence (bad evidence: e.g. Andrew Wakefield writing down random ideas about vaccines, random bronze age nomad stories being compiled by committee and sold as the word of god) don't get better because someone really really wants them to be true. "This is my most deeply held, most cherished belief" is not a counterargument to "you are dumb and wrong".
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 09:55
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!