RE: Any atheists here? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 1:03:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Again - it comes down to what 'proof' is needed.  If someone walked up to you one day, maybe even someone you know and care about - and they told you they were gay.  Would you want proof?  Now, the same question again only this time substitute it with angel(as an example seeing as most people focus on christianity of some sort in these discussions).  Would you want proof?  Why is their word not enough for you - unless you are attempting to be converted or be introduced into a gay relationship depending on the scenarios above, it shouldn't matter and their word accepted.
 
the.dark.


These are two different things. The first is a preference: "I like ice cream." / "I love sweaty basketball players." / "I like fuzzy sweaters, especially blue ones.". The second is an assertion: "Invisible pink unicorns are real." / "Eris loves you, and wants you to be happy. You'll be sorry once you understand what that means." / "Angels are watching over my children."

Do you see the distinction between statements of the first kind and statements of the second kind?



meatcleaver -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 1:04:18 PM)

General point

The fact that religions can be found in great geographical blocks shows most people don't think, they just adopt the religion of their parents which makes religion like patriotism, it depends where you're born. If most people really thought hard about religion you wouldn't find great population blocks of one religion, you would expect to find religions more evenly spread. If you are born in the US, the biggest chance is that you will be a christian unless you have Jewish parents, if you are born in Pakistan you are going to be a muslim. Religion for most people is a badge of identity rather than a belief. At least the badge of identity business is more down to earth than being up there with the fairies which real belief in a supernatural being is. And even the most ardent Christian wouldn't be a christian if s/he had been born into a culture where Jesus was totally unknown.



RCdc -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 1:16:54 PM)

Hello Ialdabaoth
I don't see them as different at all.  I am gay.  I am Jesus.  I am an angel.  I am submissive.  I am pink.  I am brown.  I am tall.  I am god.  I am evil.  I am nothing.  All of these are subjective and discriptive.
 
the.dark.



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 1:58:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Again - it comes down to what 'proof' is needed.  If someone walked up to you one day, maybe even someone you know and care about - and they told you they were gay.  Would you want proof?  Now, the same question again only this time substitute it with angel(as an example seeing as most people focus on christianity of some sort in these discussions).  Would you want proof?  Why is their word not enough for you - unless you are attempting to be converted or be introduced into a gay relationship depending on the scenarios above, it shouldn't matter and their word accepted.
 
the.dark.



If I may be so bold, in my mind, a person can call hirself anything that xhe wants, however, if said person were attempting to make an argument on which hir status (gay, green, angelic, whatever) depended, I -would- expect to see some proof that the person were who/what xhe claimed. As you said, if what they are claiming to be has no relevance or importance to me, then whether they are or not is irrelevant... however, when one uses one's identity to prove, in this case, the existence of a divine being that we must all, supposedly, obey, that -does- have an impact on me. If someone is trying to claim hir angelic status in order to prove the point that God and angels -do- exist, I would -have- to see some evidence that the being is what xhe claims to be -- some evidence of angelic powers or some proof that xhe is not of maculate origin. That's how 'evidence' works -- it isn't evidence if it isn't independently verifiable.

Calla Firestorm





variation30 -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 2:17:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

claiming to be an anti-theist

Which I have not done.


then perhaps you shouldn't be so defensive.

quote:

You think Hitchens is the only source of information on Mother Teresa (I suspect, that's what you were referencing as that is what he is most famous for)? You don't think historians...even her peers, admit she viewed suffering as necessary?


I was not talking about mother theresa.

quote:

What title? I mentioned no title for you to make nonsensical, irrelevant presumptions from.


again...if you haven't used such a title, then odds are I'm not speaking to you. so again I'm going to have to suggest that you not be so defensive.



variation30 -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 2:20:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

No, it doesn't. The VOTER assumes the promise, and, unburdened by closer examination, responds by blind affiliation.


for one, there is no category called 'the voter'. this 'voter' doesn't have universal attributes that all people in this group share...so let's stop thinking along those lines and let's be more precise with our language.

but I will simplify this for you a bit.

the people who are responsible for actions are those who commit them.



kdsub -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 2:24:15 PM)

As I've said before...Science is an attempt to measure the Universe...Religion is an attempt the explain the Universe. So far neither is doing a very good job..and neither will ever be conclusive. There is no way to measure infinity..or time without a beginning or end. Infinity takes a leap of faith from the scientist because it can't be measured .

So there is really no difference between a scientist and a priest. They both are required to have faith in something that can't be proved. So it is silly for one to say the other is wrong in their belief.

Butch



philosophy -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 2:27:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

for one, there is no category called 'the voter'. this 'voter' doesn't have universal attributes that all people in this group share...


...yes there is. And they only need one attribute in common to be grouped as a category. That attribute is the ability to vote.

Not all Daisies are identical....they grow in different places, at different rates and with differing results. However, we use the general category of Daisies in order to handle the attributes they do share.

You seem to feel that categories are, in essence, invalid descriptors of reality. And in a sense they are. However, unless you are going to name every Daisy in the world individually you can't use language effectively to describe reality without the use of categories.

Language is a map, not the territory......but maps are useful.



philosophy -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 2:33:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Science is an attempt to measure the Universe...Religion is an attempt the explain the Universe.


....not really. Science is incremental. It doesn't simply measure things, it attempts to provide hypotheses that can be used to predict specific mechanisms in the universe.......sometimes a hypothesis is superceded by a new and more accurate hypothesis. 
Religion attempts to explain the why of the universe......it absolutely is conclusive in its own terms.
You may be confusing religion with theology.......technically a social science.



Rule -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 2:53:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW
I would -have- to see some evidence that the being is what xhe claims to be -- some evidence of angelic powers

Angelic powers? And those are? The ability to suck up soup with their big toe?



Musicmystery -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 2:55:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

No, it doesn't. The VOTER assumes the promise, and, unburdened by closer examination, responds by blind affiliation.


for one, there is no category called 'the voter'. this 'voter' doesn't have universal attributes that all people in this group share...so let's stop thinking along those lines and let's be more precise with our language.

but I will simplify this for you a bit.

the people who are responsible for actions are those who commit them.



Perhaps, when you're done shifting your premises and covering the act by patronizing, you'll bother to learn something about rhetorical figures.

In the meantime, you feel voters have no responsibility for their government. I disagree. "It wasn't me!" is childish and simplistic.



kdsub -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 2:55:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Science is an attempt to measure the Universe...Religion is an attempt the explain the Universe.


....not really. Science is incremental. It doesn't simply measure things, it attempts to provide hypotheses that can be used to predict specific mechanisms in the universe.......sometimes a hypothesis is superceded by a new and more accurate hypothesis. 
Religion attempts to explain the why of the universe......it absolutely is conclusive in its own terms.
You may be confusing religion with theology.......technically a social science.


To get the measure of something is to explain it...lets not argue over words...My meaning is clear.

There is no difference in theology and religion so how can I be confused...Theology is just the study of religion.

Butch



Musicmystery -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 2:56:38 PM)

No, he's right----you're confused.

measure

n.

Dimensions, quantity, or capacity as ascertained by comparison with a standard.
A reference standard or sample used for the quantitative comparison of properties: The standard kilogram is maintained as a measure of mass.
A unit specified by a scale, such as an inch, or by variable conditions, such as a day's march.
A system of measurement, such as the metric system.
A device used for measuring.
The act of measuring.
An evaluation or a basis of comparison: “the final measure of the worth of a society” (Joseph Wood Krutch). See synonyms at standard.
Extent or degree: The problem was in large measure caused by his carelessness.
A definite quantity that has been measured out: a measure of wine.
A fitting amount: a measure of recognition.
A limited amount or degree: a measure of good-will.
Limit; bounds: generosity knowing no measure.
Appropriate restraint; moderation: “The union of . . . fervor with measure, passion with correctness, this surely is the ideal” (William James).
An action taken as a means to an end; an expedient. Often used in the plural: desperate measures.
A legislative bill or enactment.
Poetic meter.
Music. The metric unit between two bars on the staff; a bar.

v., -ured, -ur·ing, -ures.
v.tr.
To ascertain the dimensions, quantity, or capacity of: measured the height of the ceiling.
To mark, lay out, or establish dimensions for by measuring: measure off an area.
To estimate by evaluation or comparison: “I gave them an account . . . of the situation as far as I could measure it” (Winston S. Churchill).
To bring into comparison: She measured her power with that of a dangerous adversary.
To mark off or apportion, usually with reference to a given unit of measurement: measure out a pint of milk.
To allot or distribute as if by measuring; mete: The revolutionary tribunal measured out harsh justice.
To serve as a measure of: The inch measures length.
To consider or choose with care; weigh: He measures his words with caution.
Archaic. To travel over: “We must measure twenty miles today” (Shakespeare).
v.intr.
To have a measurement of: The room measures 12 by 20 feet.
To take a measurement.
To allow of measurement: White sugar measures more easily than brown.

explain

v.., -plained, -plain·ing, -plains.
v.tr.
To make plain or comprehensible.
To define; expound: We explained our plan to the committee.
To offer reasons for or a cause of; justify: explain an error.
To offer reasons for the actions, beliefs, or remarks of (oneself).
v.intr.
To make something plain or comprehensible: Let me explain.

theology

n. pl. the·ol·o·gies
The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.


religion

n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.



philosophy -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:00:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

There is no difference in theology and religion so how can I be confused...Theology is just the study of religion.



....so there is no difference between the Grand Canyon and an understanding of geomorphology?  They are surely related, and an understanding of the latter may enhance ones appreciation of the former........but one needs no understanding of the latter to enjoy the former or be swayed by the wonder of it.
You confuse a systematic understanding of the principles behind a subject with a specific example of a subject.



philosophy -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:01:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

No, she's right----you're confused.



......she? she? harumph


(wanders off rubbing his beard in a mock annoyed manner)



Musicmystery -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:06:42 PM)

*fires the typist*



philosophy -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:07:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

*fires the typist*


[:D]



RCdc -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:08:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Again - it comes down to what 'proof' is needed.  If someone walked up to you one day, maybe even someone you know and care about - and they told you they were gay.  Would you want proof?  Now, the same question again only this time substitute it with angel(as an example seeing as most people focus on christianity of some sort in these discussions).  Would you want proof?  Why is their word not enough for you - unless you are attempting to be converted or be introduced into a gay relationship depending on the scenarios above, it shouldn't matter and their word accepted.
 
the.dark.



If I may be so bold, in my mind, a person can call hirself anything that xhe wants, however, if said person were attempting to make an argument on which hir status (gay, green, angelic, whatever) depended, I -would- expect to see some proof that the person were who/what xhe claimed. As you said, if what they are claiming to be has no relevance or importance to me, then whether they are or not is irrelevant... however, when one uses one's identity to prove, in this case, the existence of a divine being that we must all, supposedly, obey, that -does- have an impact on me. If someone is trying to claim hir angelic status in order to prove the point that God and angels -do- exist, I would -have- to see some evidence that the being is what xhe claims to be -- some evidence of angelic powers or some proof that xhe is not of maculate origin. That's how 'evidence' works -- it isn't evidence if it isn't independently verifiable.

Calla Firestorm


Greetings to Lady Calla
 
I believe the complication arises in this discussion because I am focusing on people who aren't attempting to convert another.  I am personally trying to focus on those that have a faith or non faith who aren't attempting conversion either way, but who are simply defining themselves.  I absolutely get that during any attempt of conversion, that some kind of proof would be required.  But I am attempting to focus on personal faith/non belief in my examples.
 
As for proof of say, angelic evidence, what is that evidence?  What can be the proof?  Wings?  Halos?  No belly button?  Even if one is witness to a miracle - do they even see it?  Could they comprehend it as a miracle?  Could they accept it as one?
 
The big issue, isn't whether proof exists.  It is whether a person can form a personal relationship with such a deity or deities even if they had the proof.
 
As always, much respect to you and yours
the.dark.



kdsub -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:17:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

There is no difference in theology and religion so how can I be confused...Theology is just the study of religion.



....so there is no difference between the Grand Canyon and an understanding of geomorphology?  They are surely related, and an understanding of the latter may enhance ones appreciation of the former........but one needs no understanding of the latter to enjoy the former or be swayed by the wonder of it.
You confuse a systematic understanding of the principles behind a subject with a specific example of a subject.


I've noticed something about you...when you can't directly refute an idea that you don't agree with...your try and confuse things with silly tangents...like the exact meaning of a word or phrase. You do this rather than make an argument against the heart of the idea.

You are acting just like a politician you so dearly like to criticize.

PS...he or her...its all in the mind...just like everything in the universe...nothing is absolute or provable.

Butch



NumberSix -> RE: Any atheists here? (10/3/2008 3:22:17 PM)

I am a heathen, simply because it is eversomuch easier to spell.

6



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875