RE: The dumbest interpretation

RE: The dumbest interpretation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 5:57:51 PM)
A magician admits its slight of hand or smoke and mirrors.

MrBukani -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 6:03:06 PM)
It would also be clarifying why anti semitism really started. Hebrews are forbidden to lend money to hebrews, they are allowed to lend money to none hebrews. The church outlawed moneylending of any kind. That was not an outrages thought, lookin at the world today.

njlauren -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 6:04:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael If there is a god responsible for all this, he is one evil sick monster and has a LOT to answer for. Christians are the same, considering the evils that have caused, its the most vile religion on the planet. What you are talking about is theodicity, and it is one of the fundamental dilemmas of religion, because you ask yourself, why does God allow a child to be tortured to death? Why does God make it so millions die of starvation? It is the fundamental problem of the omniscient and omnipotent God many have preached, because in there world, if things like that happened, God had the power and the intent to do that. If you say God couldn't prevent it, it takes away their security in believing in an all powerful God that can fix anything. Preachers make excuses, they tell you a tragedy was God's will or "God works in Mysterious ways", and that is nothing more then rationalization to bolster up their belief. I think the best explanation of God came from a wise old priest on a PBS show called "Faith and Doubt after 9/11".....he said that people saying this was God's will, that God allowed this to happen, that God wanted it, were dead wrong, that you don't see God in the act of what happened, you see God in the aftermath, Fireman risking their lives and losing them, people trying to help, someone staying with a handicapped employee rather than saving themselves, someone carrying another person down 78 floors, the people who were at the windows reaching out to another person, connecting, before jumping together, showed God in action, not what the douchebags who flew the planes did, not the assholes from the evangelical camp saying God allowed this to happen to punish us for our sins (and for all of you on here who love to defend the religious right, go back and read about when Falwell and Robertson and the head of the Southern Baptists made statements like that, and look for the wind cause you didn't hear too many protests from the evangelicals,they were amazingly silent, including Bush, who amazingly said nothing about that statement). Yeah you read the Ancient Jewish scripture and you are looking at God the monster, you look at what so called Christians have done, but what you have to remember is that the people doing that were human beings, and the God of the Old Testament reflects the views of those who wrote it as does the NT, and therefore is flawed, you don't see God in destroying a town so the jews could settle there (Jericho), you see God in rules and laws that say you should treat strangers kindly; you don't see it in the writings saying putting a Child to death for striking its parent, you see it in the writings that say all human beings are worth of respect and dignity and should be treated as such. As the great Rabbi H'Lel wrote in the 1st century, when someone told him he would convert if he coud recite the law while standing on one foot, and H'Lel supposedly raised his foot, and said "Do not unto others what is distasteful to yourself; all else is commentary" (no word on whether the guy converted). The problem with a lot of Christians is they stop right where they should begin, they think Christianity is a matter of believing the right things, Believing that Jesus died for their sins so they don't have to worry, or following the right Dogma, they think that trumps all, and the problem with that is you can go to church, nod that you are supposed to love one another and so forth, then spend the rest of the time acting towards others in ways Jesus wouldn't respect, I don't think Jesus would respect calling the poor lazy and shiftless, i don't think Jesus would appreciate condemning those of other beliefs to hell, I don't think Jesus would approve of some fat bitch on TV proclaiming how her faith in Jesus saved her 40% on her Kitchen...in part, Christian are supposed to spread the good news of Christ, not by holding a bible and yelling, but by living into the teachings, showing others kindmess and love, and bring them to the faith because it touches them; whereas the evangelicals and their ilk with their yelling and screaming and hate turn people away from the faith.

njlauren -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 6:19:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I don't see that though. I don't see Theist making derogatory topics about those that don't believe. I don't see any Theist insulting those that do not believe. Maybe I missed them. Could you possibly point some out in this topic? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf ~FR~ Why is it so important to Atheists that people of faith stop believing? That is the first thing that jumps to mind when I see discussions like this. Why is it so important to Theists that people of no faith start believing? That is the first thing that jumps to mind when I see discussions like this. I will give you a sterling example, candidates for office fall all over themselves showing how they are a person of faith, and a large majority of Americans say that it is important to them that a candidate has faith....which implies that somehow Atheists are not fit to hold office, that atheists 'lack something'. On forum after forum, the droolers show how evil Atheists are by pointing to the USSR, Cambodia and Mao's CHina as proof of the evils of Atheism (and when you point out the Germans and the people who collaborated with them were Christian, that the Kraut troops went into battle with the word "Mitt un Gans" on their belt buckles, they will tell you "the Nazis were not Christian" ....gag). And I can't tell you how many times I have heard earnest discussions that someone cannot be moral if they are atheist, that you need God/Jesus/Allah/etc to be a moral person, which says directly that no atheist can be moral (which is so fucking stupid it makes me want to scream, given the number of "Christians" and other religious people who have done horrible things, but of course, the droolers have the cutsey way of saying "but then they weren't Christian" *sigh). Most atheists (and I have known a lot of them) don't want people of faith to stop believing, that is a minority position, Dawkins et all are a rarity. Part of the answer is that Atheists, especially in the sciences, come into contact often with the born again Christians, the evangelicals, who are doing so much to trash science and reason in their quest to make 'their' faith the only one, a lot of the radical atheist stuff I have seen are more then likely a reaction to the overstepping of the BAC/evangelicals, who do in fact routinely denigrate atheists as I pointed out above. Just think a bit about what you hear from the religious right "Godless Liberals", "Immoral Atheists", the language of the hard right is littered with those, and some atheists react angrily. When droolers want to proclaim that dinosaurs lived int he Garden of Eden and want that taught as science, or want to ban teaching evolution and genetics because that 'contradicts' what a bunch of 3000 year old sheep herders believed, it is understandable to me that they would denigrate faith, it is like the cop who is faced with the underbelly of society and people wonder why they sometimes snap. Among other things, the Christian right is constantly on war footing, they don't see Atheists or liberal Christians as fellow human beings, they see them as the enemy and treat them as such, they see everything as a battle between God (what they believe) and everyone else (the Devil), and won't stop until they can force their beliefs down others throats, and the reality is, with some few exceptions, the trying to change people, force them, is on that sector of Religion. You don't see that kind of venom generally laid at the feet of Jews, in large part it is because Jews don't proslytize, and the fundamental base of their religion is each man has to find God himself/herself (a Rabbi is a teacher, not a priest), and they generally understand that God wears many cloaks.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 6:19:58 PM)
Kind of like the dumbest possible interpretation is being attributed in general? Got it. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Christians is as much a broad label as BDSM is. Dude, seriously, like everybody gets that not all Christians are the same. As someone who's actually lived under a rock, yeah even I get it. So when you're reading what people say you should probably presume that they understand that Christians aren't all the same. Hey maybe that could even lead to something other than the dumbest possible interpretation of our words.

njlauren -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 6:22:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrBukani quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Unless they had defibrillators and crash carts and cardiac monitors, ect ect ect, how did he rise from the dead? He did. And you should not ask so much. Have you ever asked a magician why there is no pool of blood under the box after he sawed his assistant in two parts? Did he answer? Sawing a Person in Half - Magic's Secrets 1 simsalabim[:D] google is your best friend. What if Christ knew some form of what we call CPR? There is evidence that artificial respiration and heart massage was known in the ancient world in different places, so what if Jesus knew that? Or what if Lazarus, if the story is true, wasn't dead but with what they had at the time, couldn't tell (think that is impossible? Gravestones often had bells attached to them, with the pull cord going into the casket, because there was evidence when graves were exhumed of people being buried alive, who revived to find themselves buried.Think people 2000 years ago had stethoscopes and heart monitors?

GotSteel -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 6:30:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren For most Christians there is no conflict, because they realize science and religion operate on two different planes. Science strives to say "how", religion is supposed to be more concerned with 'why'. I'll contest that. Non-overlapping magisteria is a very recent concept, the phrase was coined in 1997 and considering how few Americans believe in evolution I think you're vastly overestimating it's number of adherents.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 6:31:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I don't see that though. I don't see Theist making derogatory topics about those that don't believe. I don't see any Theist insulting those that do not believe. Maybe I missed them. Could you possibly point some out in this topic? On this thread sure http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4488028 Not one in that. quote: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4489196 Calling atheist god haters is about the only derogatory thing I saw there, and it seemed more like a phrase to describe how they come across and non-specific. Not like calling someone an idiot or saying their belief is idiocy. Does not seem to match up well. quote: As to making entire topics http://www.collarchat.com/m_4306358/mpage_1/tm.htm This one seems more of trolling and not really derogatory. quote: http://www.collarchat.com/m_3449811/mpage_1/tm.htm I see someone posting that the two extreme sides share something that cannot be proven or disproven scientifically. I see no derogatory comment in that post. quote: http://www.collarchat.com/m_2792449/mpage_1/tm.htm This one seem derogatory as it calls atheism wacky. I did not read through the entire topics, don't have the time. Well it does look like Deist post stuff just to rile up the atheist and it is tit for tat. Hope that works for everyone, but....... if atheism is logic based, why would you resort to tit for tat or injecting comments to illicit emotional responses? If atheism is all logic and common sense, it seems the last thing you would want to do is inject emotion into the argument.

MrBukani -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 6:39:27 PM)
quote: What if Christ knew some form of what we call CPR? There is evidence that artificial respiration and heart massage was known in the ancient world in different places, so what if Jesus knew that? Or what if Lazarus, if the story is true, wasn't dead but with what they had at the time, couldn't tell (think that is impossible? Gravestones often had bells attached to them, with the pull cord going into the casket, because there was evidence when graves were exhumed of people being buried alive, who revived to find themselves buried.Think people 2000 years ago had stethoscopes and heart monitors? In your own words, it does not matter. It is his teachings wich matter not his death. What does matter is people tend to believe more in his examples of doing good then miracles. The miracles were in dire need at that time because people believed in miracles. Today we know most miracles are simple science. I recommend machines of the gods on youtube for you to see. great stuff. To me it's blaspemy to revolve the essence of a religion around the cruel death of a great man. I celebrate his life not his death.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 6:39:35 PM)
Ah, I see, two polar extremes screaming at each other. Not sure what good that will do atheist or deist, but it seems to keep them angry.... I mean happy being angry..... or something like that.

DomKen -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 6:41:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I did not read through the entire topics, don't have the time. Well it does look like Deist post stuff just to rile up the atheist and it is tit for tat. Hope that works for everyone, but....... if atheism is logic based, why would you resort to tit for tat or injecting comments to illicit emotional responses? If atheism is all logic and common sense, it seems the last thing you would want to do is inject emotion into the argument. It's often that people who are not members of a group being attacked claim they simply cannot see the attacks. Do you really think any atheist really wants to deal with a theist on any level? We know there is unlikely to be anything we could say or do to convince anyone. We get involved in these sorts of discussions when the lies and attacks just get to be too much. When an atheists states a completely true fact such as "there is no evidence for any supernatural event or entity" we don't get back reason we get back personal attacks and every logical fallacy under the sun.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 6:46:48 PM)
So how do you feel that labeling any group as idiots does anything more than make the discussion more volatile and it just disentigrates further into bickering and name calling? What about when you label an entire group delusional? If two sides are both going to have frothing at the mouth types. then what really separates them other than differing view points, that boil down to belief or non-belief? This is what I don't understand. Like I said, I would address when they use religion to make public policy, rather than attack the entire belief structure which goes no where. That is if logic, problem solving and an actual intent to address the problem is the main concern.

Rule -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 6:53:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren What you are talking about is theodicity, and it is one of the fundamental dilemmas of religion, because you ask yourself, why does God allow a child to be tortured to death? Why does God make it so millions die of starvation? It is the fundamental problem of the omniscient and omnipotent God many have preached, because in there world, if things like that happened, God had the power and the intent to do that. If you say God couldn't prevent it, it takes away their security in believing in an all powerful God that can fix anything. All things have their limits, even the Divine and even the pagan gods. Athena or Aphrodite or Hera can teach persons A, B and C in Athens, but they cannot teach simultaneously a million other people in a million other locations. (Unless they are on a broadcast, of course.) The Divine has no choice but to be apathetic, as acting on its own volition - if it has any - would negate the free will of the creatures in our universe. Our consequences are caused by our actions or inactions. Are we sufficiently mature that we are able to acknowledge our own responsability? quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren I think the best explanation of God came from a wise old priest on a PBS show called "Faith and Doubt after 9/11".....he said that people saying this was God's will, that God allowed this to happen, that God wanted it, were dead wrong, that you don't see God in the act of what happened, you see God in the aftermath, Fireman risking their lives and losing them, people trying to help, someone staying with a handicapped employee rather than saving themselves, someone carrying another person down 78 floors, the people who were at the windows reaching out to another person, connecting, before jumping together, showed God in action That was sweet. But let us take responsability here as well: it are human beings, many of whom have been born with the Holy Spirit, who were doing these good works. What they did was divine, but it was not the Divine doing it. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren Yeah you read the Ancient Jewish scripture and you are looking at God the monster, you look at what so called Christians have done, but what you have to remember is that the people doing that were human beings, and the God of the Old Testament reflects the views of those who wrote it as does the NT, and therefore is flawed, you don't see God in destroying a town so the jews could settle there (Jericho), you see God in rules and laws that say you should treat strangers kindly; you don't see it in the writings saying putting a Child to death for striking its parent, you see it in the writings that say all human beings are worth of respect and dignity and should be treated as such. If that pagan god deemed it necessary for Jericho to be destroyed, he doubtlessly had good reasons. If a child strikes his parent, he likely is an animal. (I notice that lots of female Muslims are being struck by their male relatives.) quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren you see it in the writings that say all human beings are worth of respect and dignity and should be treated as such. I disagree with that statement. Some human beings are animals. Now I will treat an animal with respect and dignity - but I will not treat it as a human being. In any case: respect and dignity in my opinion are not a given, they must be earned. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren As the great Rabbi H'Lel wrote in the 1st century, when someone told him he would convert if he coud recite the law while standing on one foot, and H'Lel supposedly raised his foot, and said "Do not unto others what is distasteful to yourself; all else is commentary" (no word on whether the guy converted). He forgot something equally important "Do not unto others what is distasteful to them". quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren The problem with a lot of Christians is they stop right where they should begin, they think Christianity is a matter of believing the right things, Believing that Jesus died for their sins so they don't have to worry, or following the right Dogma, they think that trumps all That was the spiritual part of his message: do not feel guilt, forgive yourself. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren I don't think Jesus would respect calling the poor lazy and shiftless, i don't think Jesus would appreciate condemning those of other beliefs to hell, I don't think Jesus would approve of some fat bitch on TV proclaiming how her faith in Jesus saved her 40% on her Kitchen I do not know what Jesus thought. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren in part, Christian are supposed to spread the good news of Christ, not by holding a bible and yelling, but by living into the teachings, showing others kindmess and love, and bring them to the faith because it touches them Quite. But if necessary war will help as well.

Rule -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 7:15:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren I will give you a sterling example, candidates for office fall all over themselves showing how they are a person of faith, and a large majority of Americans say that it is important to them that a candidate has faith....which implies that somehow Atheists are not fit to hold office, that atheists 'lack something'. Motivating the politicians, most of whom were born without the Holy Spirit, to lie - if non religious - that they have faith and are good church-goers. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren On forum after forum, the droolers show how evil Atheists are by pointing to the USSR, Cambodia and Mao's CHina as proof of the evils of Atheism (and when you point out the Germans and the people who collaborated with them were Christian, that the Kraut troops went into battle with the word "Mitt un Gans" on their belt buckles, they will tell you "the Nazis were not Christian" ....gag). One has to consider that Russia was one of the last European territories to be Christianized, so one cannot expect many of them to have acquired the Holy Spirit gene already. As for China and much of Asia: they are beyond the Pale. Many of them may be expected to lack the Holy Spirit. As for the Nazi's: people will do what their leaders - who usually are without the Holy Spirit - tell them to do. Besides: in my opinion the Nazi's were mostly puppets and their puppet masters mostly resided in England and in the USA. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren And I can't tell you how many times I have heard earnest discussions that someone cannot be moral if they are atheist, that you need God/Jesus/Allah/etc to be a moral person, which says directly that no atheist can be moral (which is so fucking stupid it makes me want to scream, given the number of "Christians" and other religious people who have done horrible things, but of course, the droolers have the cutsey way of saying "but then they weren't Christian" sigh). Of course people who are without the Holy Spirit can behave morally, but that is an acquired morality, developed by philosophers, or if they are religious it is provided to them by means of their religious doctrines. In contrast, those who are born with the Holy Spirit are inherently moral. quote:* ORIGINAL: njlauren it is understandable to me that they would denigrate faith Quite. Religious nuts are crazy. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren in large part it is because Jews don't proselytize There is more than one way to go to Rome.

GotSteel -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 8:16:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Kind of like the dumbest possible interpretation is being attributed in general? Got it. Would you care to elaborate?

thishereboi -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 8:30:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu [snip] If you're secure in your belief, it's not going to scare you that other people don't share it. Hence; the reason why so many "atheists" go on crusades (yes, I chose that word, specifically) to eridicate *any kind* of belief in a higher power/great spirit. They're just soooo secure in their beliefs. It's obvious. I see a lot of Christians make this claim, and yet.... I don't see how atheists working to try to keep Christians from imposing their beliefs on them is any kind of crusade. Neither is responding to attacks from Christians, or accepting requests for debates from Christians. Very, very few atheists go around complaining about Christians or trying to bother people into quitting Christianity unprovoked. Pretty much just Richard Dawkins, really. Compare the number of threads started by athiests bashing christians to the number of religious threads started. Then add in the endless cracks about the imaginary guy in the sky and the logic of your post falls apart.

DomKen -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 8:31:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf So how do you feel that labeling any group as idiots does anything more than make the discussion more volatile and it just disentigrates further into bickering and name calling? What about when you label an entire group delusional? If two sides are both going to have frothing at the mouth types. then what really separates them other than differing view points, that boil down to belief or non-belief? This is what I don't understand. Like I said, I would address when they use religion to make public policy, rather than attack the entire belief structure which goes no where. That is if logic, problem solving and an actual intent to address the problem is the main concern. If the theists would leave the atheists alone we would leave them alone. I never even think about religion except when it is thrust upon me nonconsensually or I, or my group, is attacked simply for existing. As to labeling a group as delusional, for someone who does not believe in any deity or other supernatural entity people who claim to have contact with such seem delusional. How else should we view them?

thishereboi -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 8:34:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf ~FR~ Why is it so important to Atheists that people of faith stop believing? That is the first thing that jumps to mind when I see discussions like this. Why is it so important to Theists that people of no faith start believing? That is the first thing that jumps to mind when I see discussions like this. I haven't seen a single post implying that anyone cares what you believe or don't believe. Maybe you could point it out.

Extravagasm -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 10:04:01 PM)
quote: njlauren post 103: Why does God make it so millions die of starvation? It is the fundamental problem of the omniscient and omnipotent God many have preached, because in their world, if things like that happened, God had the power and the intent to do that. If you say God couldn't prevent it, it takes away their security in believing in an all powerful God that can fix anything. A semi-powerful god is a notion that can repair the logical contradictions of most theism. (Contradictions don't refer to the list of earthly tragedies. But that too.) My honest question is, The semi-powerful god you are left with, njlauren. Where would you rate his power on a scale of 1 to 10? Would it be more than the total capacity of all humans at once? Or could god be all-powerful, but only semi-good? Where would we then rate his morality on 1 to 10? Or could god fall short of being all-knowing and foresighted? Forward and backward. It's staggeringly difficult to imagine a situation where unintended consequences cease to exist, as they don't seem an earthly-dependent concept. Unless god altogether lacks intention. Once we have made these three ratings (Power, Goodness, Foresight) we'd reconsider if and why we should worship god? Unfortunately 'belief' doesn't get us past any of these things. Not where they run into logical contradictions. These are challenges for the private theist . . . every bit as much as they are to organized religion. Put another way, we cannot get around this basic triad (Power, Goodness, Foresight) by just saying, Oh I don't (or do) accept the religious party line on specifics or doctrine.

Rule -> RE: The dumbest interpretation (7/6/2013 10:06:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen As to labeling a group as delusional, for someone who does not believe in any deity or other supernatural entity people who claim to have contact with such seem delusional. How else should we view them? Ever consider that labeling a group as delusional is comparable to labeling a group of four legged animals as wildebeests? I.E. inaccurate.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125