The lack of...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-03-2013, 01:24 PM
RE: The lack of...
(10-03-2013 01:19 PM)Matthew Laramore Wrote:  It's really about getting to leveled ground and not exactly putting more weight on your end of the seesaw, at least for me.
Fair enough. Smile

~Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2013, 12:59 PM
RE: The lack of...
(10-03-2013 01:11 PM)kellyrm Wrote:  
(10-03-2013 01:08 PM)Matthew Laramore Wrote:  It's not a wasted effort when you can use historical events that have actually happened to do it.
It is when the people you are talking to aren't open to your position. It's a waste of effort to talk to someone who is not truly listening.
The main benefit to me is for those that are not yet committed or fully committed to religion. It is rare to change the mind of someone who is committed, but other people read posts or listen to conversations and maybe some of those are undecided. Discussing politely with even the most stubborn religious people helps me to find flaws in my own arguments, hear more viewpoints so I'm less likely to be caught off guard in future discussions, and hopefully ultimately be able to provide solid reasoning for the uncommitted ones with whom it just might make some difference.

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." --Gene Roddenberry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
12-03-2013, 05:10 PM
RE: The lack of...
(10-03-2013 01:11 PM)kellyrm Wrote:  
(10-03-2013 01:08 PM)Matthew Laramore Wrote:  It's not a wasted effort when you can use historical events that have actually happened to do it.
It is when the people you are talking to aren't open to your position. It's a waste of effort to talk to someone who is not truly listening.
You dont get change without talking about things. Its all about planting the seed of doubt and hoping the people we talk to, actually try to defend their religions by educating themselves of the history and what science actually says about it (or actually reading their scriptures) .

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2013, 08:12 PM
RE: The lack of...
(10-03-2013 01:52 AM)Ironwall Wrote:  We all have opinions while we might feel like ours are based on truths so do they. For they truly belief in a God and therefore there opinions are based on there being a God. But this is where the its your body do with it as you wish needs to come in. They might believe in God and want to go to church every week. You might be atheist and want to relax every week instead. But when either side starts to force and say why arnt you doing this that these problems result.

The existence of God is not based on opinion -- either a god exists or it doesn't (factually). However, to your larger point, of course Christians ought to have their freedom of religion and speech, just as we atheists do. But we're not infringing on their freedom by pointing out Christianity's flaws, and we're exercising our own freedom of speech in the process.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2013, 09:44 PM
RE: The lack of...
(10-03-2013 01:52 AM)Ironwall Wrote:  If homosexuals could marry without the political argument that it is against God. For this is not a political argument but a religious one but yet treated as it is politics.

I have to disagree with this point. In a secular society with a secular government, the issue of a secular marriage being recognized as legal by the state, is political. The problem is with people trying to impose their religious belief on others through the secular state. If someone wants to put forward a sound secular argument against marriage equality for same sex couples, then we can have that discussion. But I've yet to hear of one that doesn't stem from religious dogma, and that in and of itself is not good enough cause in a secular government.



(10-03-2013 01:52 AM)Ironwall Wrote:  We all have opinions while we might feel like ours are based on truths so do they. For they truly belief in a God and therefore there opinions are based on there being a God.

Yeah, but there is a difference between belief and knowledge. Scientist don't just 'believe' in evolution, and the big bang, and gravity. Everyone has opinions, but not everyone has informed opinions. It is an important distinction.



(10-03-2013 01:52 AM)Ironwall Wrote:  But this is where the its your body do with it as you wish needs to come in. They might believe in God and want to go to church every week. You might be atheist and want to relax every week instead. But when either side starts to force and say why arnt you doing this that these problems result.

If I call out a Catholic on their implicit support of a doctrine that stigmatized condom use in the most AIDS infested countries in Africa, then for the sake of my fellow human beings, I have every right to call them out for it. Their beliefs are quite clearly leading to a needless increase in human suffering and death.



(10-03-2013 01:52 AM)Ironwall Wrote:  I define Christians as those who are not trying to fight with science but those who embrace it.

Okay? You're definition of a 'Christian' would exclude fundamentalists like Kent Hovind and Ken Hamn, people who are quite clearly Christians. If you want the defining characteristic of your label to be 'those who embrace science', we already have a label for them, 'science enthusiasts'; and professional 'science enthusiasts' are often known as 'scientists'.



(10-03-2013 01:52 AM)Ironwall Wrote:  For they see that the bible has some stories in it.

We have no reason to believe they are anything but stories.



(10-03-2013 01:52 AM)Ironwall Wrote:  But I think atheist and theists can both agree that the defining moment of how this universe was made is not something that is proven with logic or science as of this point. So if they want to believe in a God that does these thing or no God as long as you do not try to force your opinions on the other side then this problem would not be such a problem.

The problem is, 'God did it' is a useless and lazy answer. If they are happy with a useless and lazy answer, fine. My problem is with others trying to force their shitty answer on everyone else. If someone wants think God did it then good for them, get out of the laboratory, because they're useless to science. Those who want the lazy answer need to get out of the way, and stop interfering with those attempting to figure shit out.

Yep, KC is a lying douche-bag; he promised me hookers and blow, but all I got was this stupid signature...
[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
12-03-2013, 10:01 PM
RE: The lack of...
(10-03-2013 01:52 AM)Ironwall Wrote:  Most of us here are very concerned about disproving the bible.

Nope. I don't need to show the bible is innocent of being the truth. Not how that works Smile

(10-03-2013 01:52 AM)Ironwall Wrote:  For this is not a political argument but a religious one but yet treated as it is politics.

True story.

(10-03-2013 01:52 AM)Ironwall Wrote:  I define Christians as those who are not trying to fight with science but those who embrace it. For they see that the bible has some stories in it. But I think atheist and theists can both agree that the defining moment of how this universe was made is not something that is proven with logic or science as of this point. So if they want to believe in a God that does these thing or no God as long as you do not try to force your opinions on the other side then this problem would not be such a problem.

There are a multitude of definitions for what a christian is, no one can agree to any great extent Tongue
Moderate christians create communities that will make the literal christians feel more at home.

"These people believe in my god, but they don't see that what he says is THE WORD, THE TRUTH"

as opposed to

"No one here believes in my god? Why...?"

I think all organized religion is bad. Basically having any moderate groups will increase the chances of having more people that take the bible literally, word for word. Moderate is still better than literalists, but neither is good.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: