Intro -- from a Christian :)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-12-2012, 11:20 AM
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
(08-12-2012 11:13 AM)Phil_GA Wrote:  I will generally state this: I believe that one can neither prove nor disprove God (else there'd be no such things as faith and hope which, interestingly, I wonder if such qualities are rational, as in, "point to the existence of hope, love, peace, patience, etc. please") and I think that's because God is, by definition, outside of the natural realm.
You can keep your faith and your pathetic god (yes, if he existed, he would be the most horrible being to have ever existed), but hope, love and peace have nothing to do with a notion that has already run its course and outstayed its welcome, and is in its death throes. And yes, I meant the idea of god/s.

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarder├▓."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vera's post
08-12-2012, 11:22 AM
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
(08-12-2012 11:17 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(08-12-2012 11:13 AM)Phil_GA Wrote:  I will generally state this: I believe that one can neither prove nor disprove God (else there'd be no such things as faith and hope which, interestingly, I wonder if such qualities are rational, as in, "point to the existence of hope, love, peace, patience, etc. please") and I think that's because God is, by definition, outside of the natural realm.
Why do you believe in god if you have no way of verifying whether or not he exists? Why do you base part of your life upon that belief?

(08-12-2012 11:13 AM)Phil_GA Wrote:  Furthermore, I would absolutely *love* to see evidence that something outside the natural realm *cannot* invade the natural realm. Ok, so that's blurring the line of disproving a negative. Oh well.
Not only that, but you are also shifting the burden of proof. In it's most basic form, this is an argument from ignorance.
Hey you can't disprove my magic unicorn didn't at some point enter the realm of reality. Yeah! PROVE IT! Therefore unicorn. I'd love to see you disprove the magical realm of smurfs and unicorns. Then when you can't, you can't prove I'm not wrong. HAHAHAA! YOU SEE! I got you Vosur!

Disregard the fact that no one has proven they exist, or that the realm of the unicorn in itself exists in the first place. But you can't prove it doesn't!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 11:23 AM
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
(08-12-2012 10:49 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(08-12-2012 10:42 AM)Phil_GA Wrote:  I would further encourage anyone who reads this response that, should they disagree, they need to present evidence for why they think I'm wrong, because I think I'm pretty darn morally right on this one.
Morality is entirely subjective. There are objective tools that you can use to arrive at your set of morals, but the standard by which you judge the rightness and wrongness of an action remains an individual choice. Arguing about morality is akin to arguing about different tastes of music or art, as there are no facts to support either position, but merely the opinions of individuals. For this reason, it is impossible to present you with evidence to show that you're right or wrong.

Sure, you're "pretty darn morally right [sic]" on this issue according to your set of morality, but you sure as hell aren't according to mine and that of other people.

Ok. Then, I'd ask you to tell me from whence morals come. They can't come from society, because society is a collection of individuals, and we're back to saying that one's moral law is better than another's, and there has to be justification for someone's morals to rank supreme in order for a civil society to determine that, for example, unjustified killing is murder and worthy of punishment.

I don't buy the non-absolutes concept. That would be akin to saying, "There are no absolutes, including this statement," which is by definition, irrational by being self-defeating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 11:24 AM
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
(08-12-2012 02:29 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-12-2012 02:01 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  I could go for a Double Double right now. Too bad I don't live in Cali Anymore. Weeping
I always go and ask for one. A double vegie with no bun. They look at me like "WTF ?"
Bucky, you're so gay.



Speaking of which, my veggie friends in SoCal swear by In-n-Out's grilled cheese for veggies option. Not sure what makes it so good, but then I'm not sure what makes not eating meat so good. Consider

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 11:26 AM
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
(08-12-2012 10:51 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-12-2012 10:03 AM)Phil_GA Wrote:  10. I think the Bible is inspired.
The problem is not "inspiration". For Fundies the problem is canon formation. No author or early community ever claimed "inspiration" for their texts. There is no "mechanism" for "inspiration", and no legitimate scholar even talks about it. Every text that ended up in the Babble was VOTED, non-unanimously into the canon. Every line was written by humans, then translated and mis-translated.

As far as YEC goes, there are many dating methods, all which agree that that the Earth is billions of years old. For them all to agree both forwards and backwards is so improbable, that the number is astoundingly small. No legitimate scientist even begins to agree with this absolute crap. Any YEC'er would get laughed out of the room. This is too pathetic to even waste 5 seconds on. Anyone who espouses YECism in 2012 is a complete joke.

This is a forum for educated adults, not idiots.

As the Oracle said to Neo in The Matrix:

"Here, have a cookie. I promise... after you eat it, you'll feel right as rain."

Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 11:28 AM
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
(08-12-2012 11:23 AM)Phil_GA Wrote:  
(08-12-2012 10:49 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Morality is entirely subjective. There are objective tools that you can use to arrive at your set of morals, but the standard by which you judge the rightness and wrongness of an action remains an individual choice. Arguing about morality is akin to arguing about different tastes of music or art, as there are no facts to support either position, but merely the opinions of individuals. For this reason, it is impossible to present you with evidence to show that you're right or wrong.

Sure, you're "pretty darn morally right [sic]" on this issue according to your set of morality, but you sure as hell aren't according to mine and that of other people.

Ok. Then, I'd ask you to tell me from whence morals come. They can't come from society, because society is a collection of individuals, and we're back to saying that one's moral law is better than another's, and there has to be justification for someone's morals to rank supreme in order for a civil society to determine that, for example, unjustified killing is murder and worthy of punishment.

I don't buy the non-absolutes concept. That would be akin to saying, "There are no absolutes, including this statement," which is by definition, irrational by being self-defeating.
Morals are a social contract for the proper functioning of society so that we can all get along. In part driven by evolution (which is why we feel 'ick' when e.g. someone shags his sister), in part driven by the changing needs of society over the millennia. You're saying there's some kind of absolute somewhere saying 'killing is wrong' ? Do you really think the universe cares if I hit someone else over the head with a rock ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
08-12-2012, 11:34 AM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2012 11:46 AM by Atothetheist.)
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
You guys done tapping the glass?

You guys fucking know they hate that! Anyways. I had some questions, but do to my current mood right now, I will forego them for the customary "Welcome to the forum, buddy."

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
08-12-2012, 11:34 AM
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
(08-12-2012 10:59 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(08-12-2012 10:13 AM)Phil_GA Wrote:  Thx for the welcome. Love the questions. Looking forward to returning the favor.

A. I've concluded that homosexuality is an intensely personal and exceptionally self-gratifying version of sexuality that only ever accounts for itself. And while I'm veering into the controversial, this isn't any different than adultery for married couples in terms of negative impact on individuals involved.

To be perfectly blunt, I believe God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

And before anyone goes off on those blatant comments, just take a chill pill. I'm not homophobic - I don't fear anyone who's gay. I simply disagree with the lifestyle.

B. I'm the father of two kids, and observed each of them thru all three trimesters. Therefore I'm a bit biased. I'm pro-choice for life Smile

C. I'll try not to take up too much of anyone's personal space Smile
I have a friend who has almost this exact same position.

Based on your answers, would you
a. be friends with a gay man ?
b. support gay marriage ?
c. make homosexual acts illegal ?
d. make adultery illegal ?

Under what circumstances is abortion allowable? Rape, the life of the mother is threatened, for economic reasons, any other you can think of ? Under what circumstances is abortion a sin ? Under what circumstances would you think it's logical for it to be legal ?

I'm asking you nasty questions here... the kind that tend to get people riled if you give 'em an answer they don't like. I'd hope that you'd just say it like it is. I won't promise not to wail and gnash my teeth myself though... or at least to follow up with questions like 'why the hell would you think that ?' Wink

a. Yes, and am.
b. Nope.
c. Short answer: Marriage ought to remain as it has been for eons. Otherwise, let the States decide.
d. Can't. Adultery is a heck of a lot tougher to prove than is, say, sodomy.

On abortion, I'd split the difference and make it regulated/prescribed. As I mentioned in another post, if I had to make the decision between my wife's life or my unborn child's, I'd default to my wife every time. That should provide a slight window as to my view.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 11:36 AM
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
(08-12-2012 11:23 AM)Phil_GA Wrote:  Ok. Then, I'd ask you to tell me from whence morals come. They can't come from society, because society is a collection of individuals, and we're back to saying that one's moral law is better than another's, and there has to be justification for someone's morals to rank supreme in order for a civil society to determine that, for example, unjustified killing is murder and worthy of punishment.
It's an extensive field of study, but suffice to say that we currently do have a good grasp on where morality came from. I suggest you to read this article first and continue by working your way through its different sub-sections.

(08-12-2012 11:23 AM)Phil_GA Wrote:  I don't buy the non-absolutes concept. That would be akin to saying, "There are no absolutes, including this statement," which is by definition, irrational by being self-defeating.
I don't recall saying that there are no absolutes; I stated that morality is subjective. I could be wrong, of course, so feel free to quote the post in which I've propagated a "non-absolutes concept [sic]".

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2012, 11:42 AM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2012 11:56 AM by Atothetheist.)
RE: Intro -- from a Christian :)
(08-12-2012 11:34 AM)Phil_GA Wrote:  
(08-12-2012 10:59 AM)morondog Wrote:  I have a friend who has almost this exact same position.

Based on your answers, would you
a. be friends with a gay man ?
b. support gay marriage ?
c. make homosexual acts illegal ?
d. make adultery illegal ?

Under what circumstances is abortion allowable? Rape, the life of the mother is threatened, for economic reasons, any other you can think of ? Under what circumstances is abortion a sin ? Under what circumstances would you think it's logical for it to be legal ?

I'm asking you nasty questions here... the kind that tend to get people riled if you give 'em an answer they don't like. I'd hope that you'd just say it like it is. I won't promise not to wail and gnash my teeth myself though... or at least to follow up with questions like 'why the hell would you think that ?' Wink

a. Yes, and am.
b. Nope.
c. Short answer: Marriage ought to remain as it has been for eons. Otherwise, let the States decide.
d. Can't. Adultery is a heck of a lot tougher to prove than is, say, sodomy.

On abortion, I'd split the difference and make it regulated/prescribed. As I mentioned in another post, if I had to make the decision between my wife's life or my unborn child's, I'd default to my wife every time. That should provide a slight window as to my view.
You do realize that the first ever marriages were group marriages where guys CAN BE married to guys and so forth? Actually the first monogamous marriage was in Mesopotamia. It is quite logical to assume that monogamous marriage was EXTREMELY popular when the Genisis writer(s) (there were more than one) so they wrote it in as the normal state of marriage. Actually it is not hard to deduce that that's probably why the Yahwist created ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Also, children could be married to adults back then, are you saying that we should have left it that way? The current version of marriage has been revised so much that it does not even resemble what "traditional marriages" were.

How about you just say it fucking nice and clear, you don't want same-sex marriage. Not that you think marriage should be left alone, but you just don't want gays to marry.

My question(s) to you: How is same-sex marriage affecting you? Why do you have to deny gays to LEGALLY marry. Why not just allow them to get LEGALLY married, but not recognize them as a married couple SPIRITUALLY?

People deserve to be with whomever they want, granted that the partner is consenting and of age.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Atothetheist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: