quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Christian bashing is a big sport for many non-believers.
I wish one of the non-believers would tell me why they love to bash and trash Christians, but not Muslims.

Because, Marini, in the history of the United States and continuing even today, non-believers have been bashed and thrashed by Christians. You didn't know? Really? You have to be kidding.

To that I would say; any "Christian" that "bashed and thrashed" anyone, non-believer or not; is by definition is not a Christian.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Christian bashing is a big sport for many non-believers.
I wish one of the non-believers would tell me why they love to bash and trash Christians, but not Muslims.

Because, Marini, in the history of the United States and continuing even today, non-believers have been bashed and thrashed by Christians. You didn't know? Really? You have to be kidding.

To that I would say; any "Christian" that "bashed and thrashed" anyone, non-believer or not; is by definition is not a Christian.

Now, Miles we all fall short.
I still get a few good bashes in, but I am on the road to less bashing
[;)]
No one on this earth is perfect.
If you were perfect, you would not even be on this earth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

So ... you have mo more forgiveness than Christians... no moral high ground for you?

Butch, that's what they all do on here!!
They lump us all together, and try to blame shit that happened hundreds of years ago on us.

What makes it even crazier, is we are all different.
Christians run the gamut---the possibilities are limitless.

They throw us all in the same pot.

The only thing, MOST of us have in common, is we BELIEVE in a higher power.

Newsflash!
ALL BELIEVERS ARE NOT THE SAME!!!!!
We are not a monolithic group!!

hmmm but its ok to lump
ALL non believers....in the same 'pot'?

Lucy, I don't do that.
In real life, most people would not dare say the vile and hateful things to Christians,
that are written on here.


You just did... , that's what they all do on here!!
They lump us all together, and try to blame shit that happened hundreds of years ago on us.
Dont strawman me, in reality its more violent on the street. Have you seen all the horrible things that have been said about atheists and agnostics by christians here?
or have you conveniently missed it????

Please don't tell me you have not seen or read the vitriolic hateful things that have been written by people about Christians on here, for YEARS.
pages and pages, threads and threads of gleeful Christian bashing
Stay in truth
I am in truth, You are not, YOU dont SEE ALL THE BASHING and you certainly havent acknowledged it comes from all sides.

Some of the kindest people in the world are non-believers, and some of the most hateful people in the world can call themselves Christians.
I would NEVER lump ALL non-believers or believers in the same boat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

So ... you have mo more forgiveness than Christians... no moral high ground for you?

Butch, that's what they all do on here!!
They lump us all together, and try to blame shit that happened hundreds of years ago on us.

What makes it even crazier, is we are all different.
Christians run the gamut---the possibilities are limitless.

They throw us all in the same pot.

The only thing, MOST of us have in common, is we BELIEVE in a higher power.

Newsflash!
ALL BELIEVERS ARE NOT THE SAME!!!!!
We are not a monolithic group!!

hmmm but its ok to lump
ALL non believers....in the same 'pot'?

Lucy, I don't do that.
In real life, most people would not dare say the vile and hateful things to Christians,
that are written on here.


You just did... , that's what they all do on here!!
They lump us all together, and try to blame shit that happened hundreds of years ago on us.
Dont strawman me, in reality its more violent on the street. Have you seen all the horrible things that have been said about atheists and agnostics by christians here?
or have you conveniently missed it????

Please don't tell me you have not seen or read the vitriolic hateful things that have been written by people about Christians on here, for YEARS.
pages and pages, threads and threads of gleeful Christian bashing
Stay in truth
I am in truth, You are not, YOU dont SEE ALL THE BASHING and you certainly havent acknowledged it comes from all sides.

Some of the kindest people in the world are non-believers, and some of the most hateful people in the world can call themselves Christians.
I would NEVER lump ALL non-believers or believers in the same boat.

I dont disagree with you often, I havent posted on this thread because well, exactly because "religious threads" are mostly all the same, but this time, yes you did put non believers in the same pot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

So ... you have mo more forgiveness than Christians... no moral high ground for you?

Butch, that's what they all do on here!!
They lump us all together, and try to blame shit that happened hundreds of years ago on us.

What makes it even crazier, is we are all different.
Christians run the gamut---the possibilities are limitless.

They throw us all in the same pot.

The only thing, MOST of us have in common, is we BELIEVE in a higher power.

Newsflash!
ALL BELIEVERS ARE NOT THE SAME!!!!!
We are not a monolithic group!!

hmmm but its ok to lump
ALL non believers....in the same 'pot'?

Lucy, I don't do that.
In real life, most people would not dare say the vile and hateful things to Christians,
that are written on here.


You just did... , that's what they all do on here!!
They lump us all together, and try to blame shit that happened hundreds of years ago on us.
Dont strawman me, in reality its more violent on the street. Have you seen all the horrible things that have been said about atheists and agnostics by christians here?
or have you conveniently missed it????

Please don't tell me you have not seen or read the vitriolic hateful things that have been written by people about Christians on here, for YEARS.
pages and pages, threads and threads of gleeful Christian bashing
Stay in truth
I am in truth, You are not, YOU dont SEE ALL THE BASHING and you certainly havent acknowledged it comes from all sides.

Some of the kindest people in the world are non-believers, and some of the most hateful people in the world can call themselves Christians.
I would NEVER lump ALL non-believers or believers in the same boat.

I dont disagree with you often, I havent posted on this thread because well, exactly because "religious threads" are mostly all the same, but this time, yes you did put non believers in the same pot.

I plead guilty of that on here, you have to admit, MOST of the non-believers that post on here, are very anti-Christian.
So, I will say many/most on here, not all.
[;)]

quote:

Vincent, guess what?
There are many, many, many, many different types of Believers.

We are really not a monolithic group, we don't all share the same beliefs.

To lump all people of faith/any faith into the same group is just wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

This just goes in circles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The "inconvenient truth" is that it is facile to argue that belief in "something" is better than belief in nothing. It all depends on what that "something" is, and how that "something" is interpreted and put into practice by believers. It's a case by case thing, and it's riddled with unavoidable value judgements. Generalising it, as you have done, at best only muddies the waters.

And yet you do it so well. The statement; "There's a long list of murderous ideologues who all believed in "something" when the entire world would have been far better off had they believed in nothing", is hardly a "case by case thing" is it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
So I am afraid that, if your intention is to advance a persuasive argument, you are going to have to do a lot better than: 'It's better to believe in something than nothing'. Perhaps it might be, but then again perhaps it might not be. So it neither adds weight to your argument nor does it advance the discussion an iota.

Oh okay, so, show me where the belief in nothing has advanced anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

So any of the atheists have anything more to advance their position than circular arguments? I'd be very interested in hearing them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I'm not sure that it's a clever argument to claim that it's better to believe in "something". There's a long list of murderous ideologues who all believed in "something" when the entire world would have been far better off had they believed in nothing. Self proclaimed believers in ideologies and belief systems that claim to be absolutely right have far more blood on their hands than nihilists.

I fail to see any merit in the argument that it's better to believe in one version of a fairy tale than to with hold judgement until the question is resolved. I do see a lot of potential dangers in this position, and am reminded of those dangers every time a religious fundamentalist (of whatever hue) insists against all reason that their particular fairy tale is the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth and threatens to kill anyone who disrupts their childish certainties.

Sure there is a "long list of murderous ideologues who all believed in "something"" but then what about the even longer list of those who believed in "something" and were not "murderous ideologues" and whose belief changed the world for the better? An inconvenient truth?

Examples ?

You're kidding right? [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So? Reasonable or not, "scientific" or not, as you say the "Big Bang" still suffers from the "First Cause Fallacy", which was the point I was making.

The distinction is that the Big Bang is based on empirical evidence and measurement which leave an open ended possibility as and when new data comes in. Whereas Creationism(acknowledging your concerns about the word but you gave me no alternative) is derived from the thoughts and perceptions of desert wanderers circa ten centuries BCE, and in competition with other creation mythologies from other parts of the world. The original conjurers of Genesis are not likely to come back and provide us with new data, not that they had any to begin with. So, Genesis is at a dead end. But we do not yet know the end of the story of the Big Bang. Bottom line is that you are unable to defend your position without pivoting off Evolution of the Universe and Evolution of Life in the Universe. Both are continuing adventures at the moment. In trying to defend your position you are obliged to either criticize science or borrow from science. That is an intellectually dishonest endeavor and no longer worthy engaging. Until you stop depending on the "god of the gaps" or the "god who could also do that" your arguments are no longer interesting. I hope we meet again in a different thread. I am convinced you are a pleasant enough fellow but we have exhausted the topic here. Cya!!![:)]

You ever stop to think how those “desert wanderers circa ten centuries BCE” without all your “empirical evidence and measurement“ and when all the other competing creation mythologies were talking about the backs of turtles, crocodiles and elephants and such, were able to come up with an order of creation that took “scientists” with all their “empirical evidence and measurement”, thousands of years to come up with and call “Evolution”? A lucky guess?

As for having to “either criticize science or borrow from science” to “defend my position”, you fail to realize that if God hadn’t put it there, there would be nothing for your “scientists” to measure, thus you and they are borrowing their “science” from God. Didn’t you say that was an “intellectually dishonest endeavor”?

As for; “Until you stop depending on the "god of the gaps" or the "god who could also do that" your arguments are no longer interesting.”; so, you want me to stop believing in God so I can be interesting to you?

Thanks but no thanks, being interesting to you is not that important

Most if not all of the non-believers/atheists/etc. here do not want to really discuss why we ARE believers.
They just want to either put believers down, ask for proof, or ridicule believers.
It is a tad fascinating.
Why do so many non-believers get upset over believers?
Often the mantra is, "There is no GOD, there is no GOD, you must PROVE there is a GOD to me."
At that point, I just laugh.

I am not going to get upset because someone does not "believe", why should I?
I for one, could not make it without my faith in GOD.
Keep the faith.
[sm=mrpuffy.gif]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So? Reasonable or not, "scientific" or not, as you say the "Big Bang" still suffers from the "First Cause Fallacy", which was the point I was making.

The distinction is that the Big Bang is based on empirical evidence and measurement which leave an open ended possibility as and when new data comes in. Whereas Creationism(acknowledging your concerns about the word but you gave me no alternative) is derived from the thoughts and perceptions of desert wanderers circa ten centuries BCE, and in competition with other creation mythologies from other parts of the world. The original conjurers of Genesis are not likely to come back and provide us with new data, not that they had any to begin with. So, Genesis is at a dead end. But we do not yet know the end of the story of the Big Bang. Bottom line is that you are unable to defend your position without pivoting off Evolution of the Universe and Evolution of Life in the Universe. Both are continuing adventures at the moment. In trying to defend your position you are obliged to either criticize science or borrow from science. That is an intellectually dishonest endeavor and no longer worthy engaging. Until you stop depending on the "god of the gaps" or the "god who could also do that" your arguments are no longer interesting. I hope we meet again in a different thread. I am convinced you are a pleasant enough fellow but we have exhausted the topic here. Cya!!![:)]

You ever stop to think how those “desert wanderers circa ten centuries BCE” without all your “empirical evidence and measurement“ and when all the other competing creation mythologies were talking about the backs of turtles, crocodiles and elephants and such, were able to come up with an order of creation that took “scientists” with all their “empirical evidence and measurement”, thousands of years to come up with and call “Evolution”? A lucky guess?

As for having to “either criticize science or borrow from science” to “defend my position”, you fail to realize that if God hadn’t put it there, there would be nothing for your “scientists” to measure, thus you and they are borrowing their “science” from God. Didn’t you say that was an “intellectually dishonest endeavor”?

As for; “Until you stop depending on the "god of the gaps" or the "god who could also do that" your arguments are no longer interesting.”; so, you want me to stop believing in God so I can be interesting to you?

Thanks but no thanks, being interesting to you is not that important

Most if not all of the non-believers/atheists/etc. here do not want to really discuss why we ARE believers.
They just want to either put believers down, ask for proof, or ridicule believers.
It is a tad fascinating.
Why do so many non-believers get upset over believers?
Often the mantra is, "There is no GOD, there is no GOD, you must PROVE there is a GOD to me."
At that point, I just laugh.

I am not going to get upset because someone does not "believe", why should I?
I for one, could not make it without my faith in GOD.
Keep the faith.
[sm=mrpuffy.gif]

I don't agree with your assessment of atheists as I don't and have never seen anyone put people down and in fact most often have been witness to quite the opposite. It is the believers I've run into that call disbelievers heathens, uncivilized and even immoral.

I simply have more faith in me and secular humanism than any faith relying upon fealty to a dogma passed down by men, written by men that is merely a conglomeration of plagiarism and hearsay from stone age illiterates.

These dogmas (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and tales of the past, are not new, they are adaptations of past societies culminating in...just the latest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So? Reasonable or not, "scientific" or not, as you say the "Big Bang" still suffers from the "First Cause Fallacy", which was the point I was making.

The distinction is that the Big Bang is based on empirical evidence and measurement which leave an open ended possibility as and when new data comes in. Whereas Creationism(acknowledging your concerns about the word but you gave me no alternative) is derived from the thoughts and perceptions of desert wanderers circa ten centuries BCE, and in competition with other creation mythologies from other parts of the world. The original conjurers of Genesis are not likely to come back and provide us with new data, not that they had any to begin with. So, Genesis is at a dead end. But we do not yet know the end of the story of the Big Bang. Bottom line is that you are unable to defend your position without pivoting off Evolution of the Universe and Evolution of Life in the Universe. Both are continuing adventures at the moment. In trying to defend your position you are obliged to either criticize science or borrow from science. That is an intellectually dishonest endeavor and no longer worthy engaging. Until you stop depending on the "god of the gaps" or the "god who could also do that" your arguments are no longer interesting. I hope we meet again in a different thread. I am convinced you are a pleasant enough fellow but we have exhausted the topic here. Cya!!![:)]

You ever stop to think how those “desert wanderers circa ten centuries BCE” without all your “empirical evidence and measurement“ and when all the other competing creation mythologies were talking about the backs of turtles, crocodiles and elephants and such, were able to come up with an order of creation that took “scientists” with all their “empirical evidence and measurement”, thousands of years to come up with and call “Evolution”? A lucky guess?

As for having to “either criticize science or borrow from science” to “defend my position”, you fail to realize that if God hadn’t put it there, there would be nothing for your “scientists” to measure, thus you and they are borrowing their “science” from God. Didn’t you say that was an “intellectually dishonest endeavor”?

As for; “Until you stop depending on the "god of the gaps" or the "god who could also do that" your arguments are no longer interesting.”; so, you want me to stop believing in God so I can be interesting to you?

Thanks but no thanks, being interesting to you is not that important

Most if not all of the non-believers/atheists/etc. here do not want to really discuss why we ARE believers.
They just want to either put believers down, ask for proof, or ridicule believers.
It is a tad fascinating.
Why do so many non-believers get upset over believers?
Often the mantra is, "There is no GOD, there is no GOD, you must PROVE there is a GOD to me."
At that point, I just laugh.

I am not going to get upset because someone does not "believe", why should I?
I for one, could not make it without my faith in GOD.
Keep the faith.
[sm=mrpuffy.gif]

I don't agree with your assessment of atheists as I don't and have never seen anyone put people down and in fact most often have been witness to quite the opposite. It is the believers I've run into that call disbelievers heathens, uncivilized and even immoral.

I simply have more faith in me and secular humanism than any faith relying upon fealty to a dogma passed down by men, written by men that is merely a conglomeration of plagiarism and hearsay from stone age illiterates.

These dogmas (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and tales of the past, are not new, they are adaptations of past societies culminating in...just the latest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Vincent, guess what?
There are many, many, many, many different types of Believers.

We are really not a monolithic group, we don't all share the same beliefs.

To lump all people of faith/any faith into the same group is just wrong.

I understand that, Marini, do not assume I am stupid. When we are debating ideas on here we have neither the time, patience or ability to preface all our remarks to exclude this or that varieties of Christians. That would be a Herculian task and an impossible burden. We are talking here about ideas. It is unfortunate that some people personalize and associate the idea with their opposite poster, but that is not license for all other Christians of different categories to assume that they are personally being bashed or trashed. That is on you, the reader, not on the writer. I see some religious champion making ridiculous comments about "scientism" or "evolution is a religion" or "science is a religion" I can read that without personal affront, especially if I am not engaged in the conversation. Your complaints of atheists engaged in thrashing and bashing of Christians probably have some merit as do the opposite complaints about atheist bashing, but as I see it any complaints and whining of that sort have a chilling affect on free expression of ideas, even those that are distasteful. I cannot go into every debate worried that what I say will be taken personally by some non-engaged person of religion. That is a shackle on speech I cannot tolerate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
So? Reasonable or not, "scientific" or not, as you say the "Big Bang" still suffers from the "First Cause Fallacy", which was the point I was making.

Well then you make our point too. With observable phenomena, with measurable distinctions of its nature always being researched, we have a cause to celebrate...the scientific research into the origin of existence.

What point might that be?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
When stipulating instead that a god created all of this (6000 years ago ?) and as told only by historical hearsay, then there is little cause to celebrate. Nothing to see...observe.

Show me where I have ever in any forum anywhere, not just this one, that I have said the universe is only 6000 years old.

Now I have said philosophically speaking that God being God could have created everything 5 mins ago and we would never know the difference but I don’t believe he did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Wait, I just thought. A whole new profile 'God of kinky pleasure'..yea, that's the ticket. I'll be Phallus, the God of kinky, sexual pleasure. Thoughts already spring to mass quantities of virginal nuns coming to my neighborhood for 'spiritual' gatherings to learn the pleasures of God. (me)
Better to believe in something...rather than nothing. It just might work.

As far as I’m concerned you can believe anything you want and since there are many called gods, even the stomach, you might even pull it off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

So ... you have mo more forgiveness than Christians... no moral high ground for you?

Butch, that's what they all do on here!!
They lump us all together, and try to blame shit that happened hundreds of years ago on us.

What makes it even crazier, is we are all different.
Christians run the gamut---the possibilities are limitless.

They throw us all in the same pot.

The only thing, MOST of us have in common, is we BELIEVE in a higher power.

Newsflash!
ALL BELIEVERS ARE NOT THE SAME!!!!!
We are not a monolithic group!!