FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Religion
Religion
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Haven't started a potentially controversial thread on here yet so here goes. If you were looking for a relationship, how much would your potential partners religion, or lack there of, affect your decision." I'm not religious but I am spiritual, so yes, it does matter to me, I would need to avoid a clash. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think it would. Shockingly enough, people who belong to particular religions are individuals and don't all share the same view points on particular issues, and I'd rather judge someone on their own individual merits rather than stereotypical labels. " Well indeed, though that does suggest there are some beliefs that would put you off someone | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It wouldn't... Im not after marrying them i just want to fuck them" In a relationship? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think it would. Shockingly enough, people who belong to particular religions are individuals and don't all share the same view points on particular issues, and I'd rather judge someone on their own individual merits rather than stereotypical labels. Well indeed, though that does suggest there are some beliefs that would put you off someone" Beliefs? Not particularly... I like to be respected for example, though lots of men aren't respectful to women regardless of their religious beliefs. I mean, look at some of the men on fab.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think it would. Shockingly enough, people who belong to particular religions are individuals and don't all share the same view points on particular issues, and I'd rather judge someone on their own individual merits rather than stereotypical labels. Well indeed, though that does suggest there are some beliefs that would put you off someone Beliefs? Not particularly... I like to be respected for example, though lots of men aren't respectful to women regardless of their religious beliefs. I mean, look at some of the men on fab. "I am here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It wouldn't... Im not after marrying them i just want to fuck them In a relationship?" Yes i am allergic to marriage | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think it would. Shockingly enough, people who belong to particular religions are individuals and don't all share the same view points on particular issues, and I'd rather judge someone on their own individual merits rather than stereotypical labels. "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It wouldn't... Im not after marrying them i just want to fuck them In a relationship? Yes i am allergic to marriage "It was the latter part of your post I was referring to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Haven't started a potentially controversial thread on here yet so here goes. If you were looking for a relationship, how much would your potential partners religion, or lack there of, affect your decision." As long as she accepted I would never have anything to do with it absolutely 0% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Haven't started a potentially controversial thread on here yet so here goes. If you were looking for a relationship, how much would your potential partners religion, or lack there of, affect your decision." If they wanna fuck off for an hour or two and wail in front of an icon, that's fine with me. just don't ask me to come with you. and if it makes you horny, so much the better - i'll be waiting!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't be with an entrenched Christian or Atheist as they're just flip sides of the same coin imo. Beyond that, I couldn't really be with anyone who felt deeply that I was wrong in my spirituality. I'd need tolerance. It would also be important that I can tolerate them. For that I'd need to be aware that there's some grounded critical thinking going on behind their views... a similar quest for truth to mine albeit going along perhaps a very different path. I'd have a deep respect for that difference of opinion. Ultimately, as long as whatever beliefs they held ended up manifesting in a heartfelt loving approach to life it'd be a case of "by their fruits" and I'd be won over to them " Not high maintenance at all been single for a while? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not high maintenance at all been single for a while? "Haha  Ironically I was trying to be more accommodating of religious people than those on the thread with zero tolerance. But the more I wrote it, the more I realised that my own tolerance only stretches so far haha I guess it ended up making me look like I'm a crazily complex character to satisfy when I was trying to say I'm quite chilled 
In the end if you're a lovely person who tries to do the right thing... and you aren't interested in trying to convert me... then that works for me  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't be with an entrenched Christian or Atheist as they're just flip sides of the same coin imo." How do you figure that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes 100%, jesus is our king "He's definitely mine haha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't be with an entrenched Christian or Atheist as they're just flip sides of the same coin imo. How do you figure that?" I was wondering that too. It's an odd claim that;s for sure | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't be with an entrenched Christian or Atheist as they're just flip sides of the same coin imo. How do you figure that? I was wondering that too. It's an odd claim that;s for sure" I have long conversations with him re his connections with God and I believe his argument goes thus : Hes one of those "spiritual" people who have a greater insight into the nature of God, the universe and being than any mere Christian or atheist. Hence as neither atheists nor Christians accept his home grown spirituality they are all the same sort of benighted dogmatists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It potentially could be irrelevant but just as likely could be a deal breaker. I'm an atheist and in some aspects I'm quite serious about it but in other ways I'm very relaxed and most definitely tolerant, I'm certainly not one for belittling religion or those that follow it. Atheism is a piece of piss really, we all choose our own moral codes and values and as far as I'm concerned it's not for me call other people out on their interpretation of religious values. But I'm also stubborn and I'm not for turning so if someone was religious the moment they tried to convert me I'd walk" I do religious people the compliment of taking their religion seriously and anyone who seriously believes in a religion would have values so different to mine that we wouldn't get on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't be with an entrenched Christian or Atheist as they're just flip sides of the same coin imo. How do you figure that? I was wondering that too. It's an odd claim that;s for sure I have long conversations with him re his connections with God and I believe his argument goes thus : Hes one of those "spiritual" people who have a greater insight into the nature of God, the universe and being than any mere Christian or atheist. Hence as neither atheists nor Christians accept his home grown spirituality they are all the same sort of benighted dogmatists. " Should I be questioning where other religions fit in to that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I don’t think anyone actually knows whether there is a god or not. I would find it difficult to be with someone that was certain about the existence or non existence of god. Both are just as dogmatic. " Atheists are only dogmatic in the sense they say that, on the evidence, it's extremely unlikely the Christian God exists in the same way it's extremely unlikely leprechauns exist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't be with an entrenched Christian or Atheist as they're just flip sides of the same coin imo. How do you figure that? I was wondering that too. It's an odd claim that;s for sure I have long conversations with him re his connections with God and I believe his argument goes thus : Hes one of those "spiritual" people who have a greater insight into the nature of God, the universe and being than any mere Christian or atheist. Hence as neither atheists nor Christians accept his home grown spirituality they are all the same sort of benighted dogmatists. Should I be questioning where other religions fit in to that?" I think he would throw Judaism and Islam in the same boat as Christianity. He's probably more sympathetic to Hinduism and Buddhism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I don’t think anyone actually knows whether there is a god or not. I would find it difficult to be with someone that was certain about the existence or non existence of god. Both are just as dogmatic. Atheists are only dogmatic in the sense they say that, on the evidence, it's extremely unlikely the Christian God exists in the same way it's extremely unlikely leprechauns exist. " We could never be together! Lol. You’ll be relieved to know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I don’t think anyone actually knows whether there is a god or not. I would find it difficult to be with someone that was certain about the existence or non existence of god. Both are just as dogmatic. Atheists are only dogmatic in the sense they say that, on the evidence, it's extremely unlikely the Christian God exists in the same way it's extremely unlikely leprechauns exist. We could never be together! Lol. You’ll be relieved to know. " You've shattered my dreams! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not high maintenance at all been single for a while?
Haha Ironically I was trying to be more accommodating of religious people than those on the thread with zero tolerance. But the more I wrote it, the more I realised that my own tolerance only stretches so far haha I guess it ended up making me look like I'm a crazily complex character to satisfy when I was trying to say I'm quite chilled
"I knew exactly what you meant - I find both extremes to be dogmatic and close minded, and that would not gel with me - they would be the high maintenance ones IMO. I know what I know, but I am very open to discovering new truth from all quarters, and I would like a partner who was, if not actually seeking truth, at least curious and open-minded about the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not taking the piss in any way way as each to there own n al that but its stories told to keep the mass populous in line with every king queen tirent or deiety was in power at at any one time religeon is man made faith to give comfort n guidence in times of need" Does not matter if it's real or not. It sets out a guideline of how to live and what values to hold. For example christians should be about forgiving, which I believe in trying to do. Satanists believe in a personal morality as in you decide what is moral and what is not, which I do not believe in. Atheists flip flop between christian values and satanic and muslim, and everything else to suit their agenda on any given day. So if someone says they would rather someone of their religion, they are saying they would rather someone share their values. Kind of like the way atheists probably wouldn't get in a relationship with a trump supporter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't be with an entrenched Christian or Atheist as they're just flip sides of the same coin imo. How do you figure that? I was wondering that too. It's an odd claim that;s for sure I have long conversations with him re his connections with God and I believe his argument goes thus : Hes one of those "spiritual" people who have a greater insight into the nature of God, the universe and being than any mere Christian or atheist. Hence as neither atheists nor Christians accept his home grown spirituality they are all the same sort of benighted dogmatists. " Can I convert patronising condescension into fuel? Because if I can that's the mother lode right there.
Western Atheism, as it exists in yawningly depressing prevalence online, is merely an anti-Christian satire. There is the generic claim that it applies to all the others. But it doesn't even apply properly to Christianity. It huddles in the shade of seeming legitimacy that Christian fundamentalism affords it, arguing against ridiculous ideas like creationism and old men in the sky and that religion is antiscience and antireason. Yet, ironically, it too thrives on misconceptions of science and religion and it too is divisive militant warring and fundamentalist just the same as the faiths it abhors. Atheists protest that they don't conduct real wars and kill real people like the faiths did and do. But that's only because they lack the power or the popular following (which they imagine they have). To see what atheists would do if they had either go take a look at the atheist De-Christianising project that swept France after the French revolution. While you're at it, go take a look at the atheist writings at the time. You may be surprised to see the arguments haven't changed very much at all. All the same old dusty fallacies in the same old dusty arguments. All the same old "because Christianity is wrong therefore we need to wipe religion from the earth in the name of science and reason". Then after that take a look at what Communism did around the world in continuing that eradication of freedom of thought and freedom of action in the name of eradicating religion.
The New Atheists poke fun at fools and debate Christians because that's the only place they can perform the sleight of hand required to make it seem as if their arguments have one iota of credibility. In this way the two are like drinking buddies. It's seeing through the mock intellectualism of it all that pisses off people like Kinky. It's because they've been shown the limits of their arguments, that they don't work outside a very small box of very dumb people, and so they reach for the nuclear button and try to present anyone who isn't a Christian fundamentalist as somehow eccentric and marginal, if not entirely irrelevant, to the debate. That's where that frustrated patronising condescension comes from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't be with an entrenched Christian or Atheist as they're just flip sides of the same coin imo. How do you figure that? I was wondering that too. It's an odd claim that;s for sure I have long conversations with him re his connections with God and I believe his argument goes thus : Hes one of those "spiritual" people who have a greater insight into the nature of God, the universe and being than any mere Christian or atheist. Hence as neither atheists nor Christians accept his home grown spirituality they are all the same sort of benighted dogmatists. Can I convert patronising condescension into fuel? Because if I can that's the mother lode right there.
Western Atheism, as it exists in yawningly depressing prevalence online, is merely an anti-Christian satire. There is the generic claim that it applies to all the others. But it doesn't even apply properly to Christianity. It huddles in the shade of seeming legitimacy that Christian fundamentalism affords it, arguing against ridiculous ideas like creationism and old men in the sky and that religion is antiscience and antireason. Yet, ironically, it too thrives on misconceptions of science and religion and it too is divisive militant warring and fundamentalist just the same as the faiths it abhors. Atheists protest that they don't conduct real wars and kill real people like the faiths did and do. But that's only because they lack the power or the popular following (which they imagine they have). To see what atheists would do if they had either go take a look at the atheist De-Christianising project that swept France after the French revolution. While you're at it, go take a look at the atheist writings at the time. You may be surprised to see the arguments haven't changed very much at all. All the same old dusty fallacies in the same old dusty arguments. All the same old "because Christianity is wrong therefore we need to wipe religion from the earth in the name of science and reason". Then after that take a look at what Communism did around the world in continuing that eradication of freedom of thought and freedom of action in the name of eradicating religion.
The New Atheists poke fun at fools and debate Christians because that's the only place they can perform the sleight of hand required to make it seem as if their arguments have one iota of credibility. In this way the two are like drinking buddies. It's seeing through the mock intellectualism of it all that pisses off people like Kinky. It's because they've been shown the limits of their arguments, that they don't work outside a very small box of very dumb people, and so they reach for the nuclear button and try to present anyone who isn't a Christian fundamentalist as somehow eccentric and marginal, if not entirely irrelevant, to the debate. That's where that frustrated patronising condescension comes from. "As I have said many times before all atheism is a belief that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a transcendent God. Atheism can go with any political position and Atheists have been conservatives (Hume and scruton for example), liberals and socialists, just as we have had many Christian, Islamic, Jewish and. "spiritual" conservatives, liberals and socialists. Blaming the excesses of the French revolution and the atrocities of communism on atheism makes as much sense as blaming religion for the deaths of world war one, given that everyone who ran that war was a religious believer. I have read a huge amount around the subject both for and against the god concept and have never seen a convincing argument for the existence of a god that exists otherwise than as a concept in the human mind. The only evidence you have been able to offer me is that you have a strong sense God is talking to you, but obviously there's no possibility of that conversation with God being empirically verified. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't be with an entrenched Christian or Atheist as they're just flip sides of the same coin imo. How do you figure that? I was wondering that too. It's an odd claim that;s for sure I have long conversations with him re his connections with God and I believe his argument goes thus : Hes one of those "spiritual" people who have a greater insight into the nature of God, the universe and being than any mere Christian or atheist. Hence as neither atheists nor Christians accept his home grown spirituality they are all the same sort of benighted dogmatists. Can I convert patronising condescension into fuel? Because if I can that's the mother lode right there.
Western Atheism, as it exists in yawningly depressing prevalence online, is merely an anti-Christian satire. There is the generic claim that it applies to all the others. But it doesn't even apply properly to Christianity. It huddles in the shade of seeming legitimacy that Christian fundamentalism affords it, arguing against ridiculous ideas like creationism and old men in the sky and that religion is antiscience and antireason. Yet, ironically, it too thrives on misconceptions of science and religion and it too is divisive militant warring and fundamentalist just the same as the faiths it abhors. Atheists protest that they don't conduct real wars and kill real people like the faiths did and do. But that's only because they lack the power or the popular following (which they imagine they have). To see what atheists would do if they had either go take a look at the atheist De-Christianising project that swept France after the French revolution. While you're at it, go take a look at the atheist writings at the time. You may be surprised to see the arguments haven't changed very much at all. All the same old dusty fallacies in the same old dusty arguments. All the same old "because Christianity is wrong therefore we need to wipe religion from the earth in the name of science and reason". Then after that take a look at what Communism did around the world in continuing that eradication of freedom of thought and freedom of action in the name of eradicating religion.
The New Atheists poke fun at fools and debate Christians because that's the only place they can perform the sleight of hand required to make it seem as if their arguments have one iota of credibility. In this way the two are like drinking buddies. It's seeing through the mock intellectualism of it all that pisses off people like Kinky. It's because they've been shown the limits of their arguments, that they don't work outside a very small box of very dumb people, and so they reach for the nuclear button and try to present anyone who isn't a Christian fundamentalist as somehow eccentric and marginal, if not entirely irrelevant, to the debate. That's where that frustrated patronising condescension comes from.
As I have said many times before all atheism is a belief that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a transcendent God. Atheism can go with any political position and Atheists have been conservatives (Hume and scruton for example), liberals and socialists, just as we have had many Christian, Islamic, Jewish and. "spiritual" conservatives, liberals and socialists.
Blaming the excesses of the French revolution and the atrocities of communism on atheism makes as much sense as blaming religion for the deaths of world war one, given that everyone who ran that war was a religious believer.
I have read a huge amount around the subject both for and against the god concept and have never seen a convincing argument for the existence of a god that exists otherwise than as a concept in the human mind. The only evidence you have been able to offer me is that you have a strong sense God is talking to you, but obviously there's no possibility of that conversation with God being empirically verified. "That has been sufficient to have folk certified. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't be with an entrenched Christian or Atheist as they're just flip sides of the same coin imo. How do you figure that? I was wondering that too. It's an odd claim that;s for sure I have long conversations with him re his connections with God and I believe his argument goes thus : Hes one of those "spiritual" people who have a greater insight into the nature of God, the universe and being than any mere Christian or atheist. Hence as neither atheists nor Christians accept his home grown spirituality they are all the same sort of benighted dogmatists. Can I convert patronising condescension into fuel? Because if I can that's the mother lode right there.
Western Atheism, as it exists in yawningly depressing prevalence online, is merely an anti-Christian satire. There is the generic claim that it applies to all the others. But it doesn't even apply properly to Christianity. It huddles in the shade of seeming legitimacy that Christian fundamentalism affords it, arguing against ridiculous ideas like creationism and old men in the sky and that religion is antiscience and antireason. Yet, ironically, it too thrives on misconceptions of science and religion and it too is divisive militant warring and fundamentalist just the same as the faiths it abhors. Atheists protest that they don't conduct real wars and kill real people like the faiths did and do. But that's only because they lack the power or the popular following (which they imagine they have). To see what atheists would do if they had either go take a look at the atheist De-Christianising project that swept France after the French revolution. While you're at it, go take a look at the atheist writings at the time. You may be surprised to see the arguments haven't changed very much at all. All the same old dusty fallacies in the same old dusty arguments. All the same old "because Christianity is wrong therefore we need to wipe religion from the earth in the name of science and reason". Then after that take a look at what Communism did around the world in continuing that eradication of freedom of thought and freedom of action in the name of eradicating religion.
The New Atheists poke fun at fools and debate Christians because that's the only place they can perform the sleight of hand required to make it seem as if their arguments have one iota of credibility. In this way the two are like drinking buddies. It's seeing through the mock intellectualism of it all that pisses off people like Kinky. It's because they've been shown the limits of their arguments, that they don't work outside a very small box of very dumb people, and so they reach for the nuclear button and try to present anyone who isn't a Christian fundamentalist as somehow eccentric and marginal, if not entirely irrelevant, to the debate. That's where that frustrated patronising condescension comes from.
As I have said many times before all atheism is a belief that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a transcendent God. Atheism can go with any political position and Atheists have been conservatives (Hume and scruton for example), liberals and socialists, just as we have had many Christian, Islamic, Jewish and. "spiritual" conservatives, liberals and socialists.
Blaming the excesses of the French revolution and the atrocities of communism on atheism makes as much sense as blaming religion for the deaths of world war one, given that everyone who ran that war was a religious believer.
I have read a huge amount around the subject both for and against the god concept and have never seen a convincing argument for the existence of a god that exists otherwise than as a concept in the human mind. The only evidence you have been able to offer me is that you have a strong sense God is talking to you, but obviously there's no possibility of that conversation with God being empirically verified.
That has been sufficient to have folk certified."You only get sectioned if you are a danger to yourself or others. I agree though that saying God talks to you is something that most people would regard as a little strange... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't be with an entrenched Christian or Atheist as they're just flip sides of the same coin imo. How do you figure that? I was wondering that too. It's an odd claim that;s for sure I have long conversations with him re his connections with God and I believe his argument goes thus : Hes one of those "spiritual" people who have a greater insight into the nature of God, the universe and being than any mere Christian or atheist. Hence as neither atheists nor Christians accept his home grown spirituality they are all the same sort of benighted dogmatists. Can I convert patronising condescension into fuel? Because if I can that's the mother lode right there.
Western Atheism, as it exists in yawningly depressing prevalence online, is merely an anti-Christian satire. There is the generic claim that it applies to all the others. But it doesn't even apply properly to Christianity. It huddles in the shade of seeming legitimacy that Christian fundamentalism affords it, arguing against ridiculous ideas like creationism and old men in the sky and that religion is antiscience and antireason. Yet, ironically, it too thrives on misconceptions of science and religion and it too is divisive militant warring and fundamentalist just the same as the faiths it abhors. Atheists protest that they don't conduct real wars and kill real people like the faiths did and do. But that's only because they lack the power or the popular following (which they imagine they have). To see what atheists would do if they had either go take a look at the atheist De-Christianising project that swept France after the French revolution. While you're at it, go take a look at the atheist writings at the time. You may be surprised to see the arguments haven't changed very much at all. All the same old dusty fallacies in the same old dusty arguments. All the same old "because Christianity is wrong therefore we need to wipe religion from the earth in the name of science and reason". Then after that take a look at what Communism did around the world in continuing that eradication of freedom of thought and freedom of action in the name of eradicating religion.
The New Atheists poke fun at fools and debate Christians because that's the only place they can perform the sleight of hand required to make it seem as if their arguments have one iota of credibility. In this way the two are like drinking buddies. It's seeing through the mock intellectualism of it all that pisses off people like Kinky. It's because they've been shown the limits of their arguments, that they don't work outside a very small box of very dumb people, and so they reach for the nuclear button and try to present anyone who isn't a Christian fundamentalist as somehow eccentric and marginal, if not entirely irrelevant, to the debate. That's where that frustrated patronising condescension comes from.
As I have said many times before all atheism is a belief that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a transcendent God. Atheism can go with any political position and Atheists have been conservatives (Hume and scruton for example), liberals and socialists, just as we have had many Christian, Islamic, Jewish and. "spiritual" conservatives, liberals and socialists.
Blaming the excesses of the French revolution and the atrocities of communism on atheism makes as much sense as blaming religion for the deaths of world war one, given that everyone who ran that war was a religious believer.
I have read a huge amount around the subject both for and against the god concept and have never seen a convincing argument for the existence of a god that exists otherwise than as a concept in the human mind. The only evidence you have been able to offer me is that you have a strong sense God is talking to you, but obviously there's no possibility of that conversation with God being empirically verified.
That has been sufficient to have folk certified.
You only get sectioned if you are a danger to yourself or others. I agree though that saying God talks to you is something that most people would regard as a little strange... "And yet millions expect it as a normal daily occurrence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't be with an entrenched Christian or Atheist as they're just flip sides of the same coin imo. How do you figure that? I was wondering that too. It's an odd claim that;s for sure I have long conversations with him re his connections with God and I believe his argument goes thus : Hes one of those "spiritual" people who have a greater insight into the nature of God, the universe and being than any mere Christian or atheist. Hence as neither atheists nor Christians accept his home grown spirituality they are all the same sort of benighted dogmatists. Can I convert patronising condescension into fuel? Because if I can that's the mother lode right there.
Western Atheism, as it exists in yawningly depressing prevalence online, is merely an anti-Christian satire. There is the generic claim that it applies to all the others. But it doesn't even apply properly to Christianity. It huddles in the shade of seeming legitimacy that Christian fundamentalism affords it, arguing against ridiculous ideas like creationism and old men in the sky and that religion is antiscience and antireason. Yet, ironically, it too thrives on misconceptions of science and religion and it too is divisive militant warring and fundamentalist just the same as the faiths it abhors. Atheists protest that they don't conduct real wars and kill real people like the faiths did and do. But that's only because they lack the power or the popular following (which they imagine they have). To see what atheists would do if they had either go take a look at the atheist De-Christianising project that swept France after the French revolution. While you're at it, go take a look at the atheist writings at the time. You may be surprised to see the arguments haven't changed very much at all. All the same old dusty fallacies in the same old dusty arguments. All the same old "because Christianity is wrong therefore we need to wipe religion from the earth in the name of science and reason". Then after that take a look at what Communism did around the world in continuing that eradication of freedom of thought and freedom of action in the name of eradicating religion.
The New Atheists poke fun at fools and debate Christians because that's the only place they can perform the sleight of hand required to make it seem as if their arguments have one iota of credibility. In this way the two are like drinking buddies. It's seeing through the mock intellectualism of it all that pisses off people like Kinky. It's because they've been shown the limits of their arguments, that they don't work outside a very small box of very dumb people, and so they reach for the nuclear button and try to present anyone who isn't a Christian fundamentalist as somehow eccentric and marginal, if not entirely irrelevant, to the debate. That's where that frustrated patronising condescension comes from.
As I have said many times before all atheism is a belief that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a transcendent God. Atheism can go with any political position and Atheists have been conservatives (Hume and scruton for example), liberals and socialists, just as we have had many Christian, Islamic, Jewish and. "spiritual" conservatives, liberals and socialists.
Blaming the excesses of the French revolution and the atrocities of communism on atheism makes as much sense as blaming religion for the deaths of world war one, given that everyone who ran that war was a religious believer.
I have read a huge amount around the subject both for and against the god concept and have never seen a convincing argument for the existence of a god that exists otherwise than as a concept in the human mind. The only evidence you have been able to offer me is that you have a strong sense God is talking to you, but obviously there's no possibility of that conversation with God being empirically verified.
That has been sufficient to have folk certified.
You only get sectioned if you are a danger to yourself or others. I agree though that saying God talks to you is something that most people would regard as a little strange...
And yet millions expect it as a normal daily occurrence."Indeed, but in the words of Super Hand, millions like Coldplay and voted for the Maria. You can't trust people! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't be with an entrenched Christian or Atheist as they're just flip sides of the same coin imo. How do you figure that? I was wondering that too. It's an odd claim that;s for sure I have long conversations with him re his connections with God and I believe his argument goes thus : Hes one of those "spiritual" people who have a greater insight into the nature of God, the universe and being than any mere Christian or atheist. Hence as neither atheists nor Christians accept his home grown spirituality they are all the same sort of benighted dogmatists. Can I convert patronising condescension into fuel? Because if I can that's the mother lode right there.
Western Atheism, as it exists in yawningly depressing prevalence online, is merely an anti-Christian satire. There is the generic claim that it applies to all the others. But it doesn't even apply properly to Christianity. It huddles in the shade of seeming legitimacy that Christian fundamentalism affords it, arguing against ridiculous ideas like creationism and old men in the sky and that religion is antiscience and antireason. Yet, ironically, it too thrives on misconceptions of science and religion and it too is divisive militant warring and fundamentalist just the same as the faiths it abhors. Atheists protest that they don't conduct real wars and kill real people like the faiths did and do. But that's only because they lack the power or the popular following (which they imagine they have). To see what atheists would do if they had either go take a look at the atheist De-Christianising project that swept France after the French revolution. While you're at it, go take a look at the atheist writings at the time. You may be surprised to see the arguments haven't changed very much at all. All the same old dusty fallacies in the same old dusty arguments. All the same old "because Christianity is wrong therefore we need to wipe religion from the earth in the name of science and reason". Then after that take a look at what Communism did around the world in continuing that eradication of freedom of thought and freedom of action in the name of eradicating religion.
The New Atheists poke fun at fools and debate Christians because that's the only place they can perform the sleight of hand required to make it seem as if their arguments have one iota of credibility. In this way the two are like drinking buddies. It's seeing through the mock intellectualism of it all that pisses off people like Kinky. It's because they've been shown the limits of their arguments, that they don't work outside a very small box of very dumb people, and so they reach for the nuclear button and try to present anyone who isn't a Christian fundamentalist as somehow eccentric and marginal, if not entirely irrelevant, to the debate. That's where that frustrated patronising condescension comes from.
As I have said many times before all atheism is a belief that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a transcendent God. Atheism can go with any political position and Atheists have been conservatives (Hume and scruton for example), liberals and socialists, just as we have had many Christian, Islamic, Jewish and. "spiritual" conservatives, liberals and socialists.
Blaming the excesses of the French revolution and the atrocities of communism on atheism makes as much sense as blaming religion for the deaths of world war one, given that everyone who ran that war was a religious believer.
I have read a huge amount around the subject both for and against the god concept and have never seen a convincing argument for the existence of a god that exists otherwise than as a concept in the human mind. The only evidence you have been able to offer me is that you have a strong sense God is talking to you, but obviously there's no possibility of that conversation with God being empirically verified.
That has been sufficient to have folk certified.
You only get sectioned if you are a danger to yourself or others. I agree though that saying God talks to you is something that most people would regard as a little strange...
And yet millions expect it as a normal daily occurrence.
Indeed, but in the words of Super Hand, millions like Coldplay and voted for the Maria. You can't trust people!
"Least of all closed minded people I'd say! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't be with an entrenched Christian or Atheist as they're just flip sides of the same coin imo. How do you figure that? I was wondering that too. It's an odd claim that;s for sure I have long conversations with him re his connections with God and I believe his argument goes thus : Hes one of those "spiritual" people who have a greater insight into the nature of God, the universe and being than any mere Christian or atheist. Hence as neither atheists nor Christians accept his home grown spirituality they are all the same sort of benighted dogmatists. Can I convert patronising condescension into fuel? Because if I can that's the mother lode right there.
Western Atheism, as it exists in yawningly depressing prevalence online, is merely an anti-Christian satire. There is the generic claim that it applies to all the others. But it doesn't even apply properly to Christianity. It huddles in the shade of seeming legitimacy that Christian fundamentalism affords it, arguing against ridiculous ideas like creationism and old men in the sky and that religion is antiscience and antireason. Yet, ironically, it too thrives on misconceptions of science and religion and it too is divisive militant warring and fundamentalist just the same as the faiths it abhors. Atheists protest that they don't conduct real wars and kill real people like the faiths did and do. But that's only because they lack the power or the popular following (which they imagine they have). To see what atheists would do if they had either go take a look at the atheist De-Christianising project that swept France after the French revolution. While you're at it, go take a look at the atheist writings at the time. You may be surprised to see the arguments haven't changed very much at all. All the same old dusty fallacies in the same old dusty arguments. All the same old "because Christianity is wrong therefore we need to wipe religion from the earth in the name of science and reason". Then after that take a look at what Communism did around the world in continuing that eradication of freedom of thought and freedom of action in the name of eradicating religion.
The New Atheists poke fun at fools and debate Christians because that's the only place they can perform the sleight of hand required to make it seem as if their arguments have one iota of credibility. In this way the two are like drinking buddies. It's seeing through the mock intellectualism of it all that pisses off people like Kinky. It's because they've been shown the limits of their arguments, that they don't work outside a very small box of very dumb people, and so they reach for the nuclear button and try to present anyone who isn't a Christian fundamentalist as somehow eccentric and marginal, if not entirely irrelevant, to the debate. That's where that frustrated patronising condescension comes from.
As I have said many times before all atheism is a belief that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a transcendent God. Atheism can go with any political position and Atheists have been conservatives (Hume and scruton for example), liberals and socialists, just as we have had many Christian, Islamic, Jewish and. "spiritual" conservatives, liberals and socialists.
Blaming the excesses of the French revolution and the atrocities of communism on atheism makes as much sense as blaming religion for the deaths of world war one, given that everyone who ran that war was a religious believer.
I have read a huge amount around the subject both for and against the god concept and have never seen a convincing argument for the existence of a god that exists otherwise than as a concept in the human mind. The only evidence you have been able to offer me is that you have a strong sense God is talking to you, but obviously there's no possibility of that conversation with God being empirically verified.
That has been sufficient to have folk certified.
You only get sectioned if you are a danger to yourself or others. I agree though that saying God talks to you is something that most people would regard as a little strange...
And yet millions expect it as a normal daily occurrence.
Indeed, but in the words of Super Hand, millions like Coldplay and voted for the Maria. You can't trust people!
"Wasn’t that a show Graham Norton did? To find the west end star of the sound of music? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't be with an entrenched Christian or Atheist as they're just flip sides of the same coin imo. How do you figure that? I was wondering that too. It's an odd claim that;s for sure I have long conversations with him re his connections with God and I believe his argument goes thus : Hes one of those "spiritual" people who have a greater insight into the nature of God, the universe and being than any mere Christian or atheist. Hence as neither atheists nor Christians accept his home grown spirituality they are all the same sort of benighted dogmatists. Can I convert patronising condescension into fuel? Because if I can that's the mother lode right there.
Western Atheism, as it exists in yawningly depressing prevalence online, is merely an anti-Christian satire. There is the generic claim that it applies to all the others. But it doesn't even apply properly to Christianity. It huddles in the shade of seeming legitimacy that Christian fundamentalism affords it, arguing against ridiculous ideas like creationism and old men in the sky and that religion is antiscience and antireason. Yet, ironically, it too thrives on misconceptions of science and religion and it too is divisive militant warring and fundamentalist just the same as the faiths it abhors. Atheists protest that they don't conduct real wars and kill real people like the faiths did and do. But that's only because they lack the power or the popular following (which they imagine they have). To see what atheists would do if they had either go take a look at the atheist De-Christianising project that swept France after the French revolution. While you're at it, go take a look at the atheist writings at the time. You may be surprised to see the arguments haven't changed very much at all. All the same old dusty fallacies in the same old dusty arguments. All the same old "because Christianity is wrong therefore we need to wipe religion from the earth in the name of science and reason". Then after that take a look at what Communism did around the world in continuing that eradication of freedom of thought and freedom of action in the name of eradicating religion.
The New Atheists poke fun at fools and debate Christians because that's the only place they can perform the sleight of hand required to make it seem as if their arguments have one iota of credibility. In this way the two are like drinking buddies. It's seeing through the mock intellectualism of it all that pisses off people like Kinky. It's because they've been shown the limits of their arguments, that they don't work outside a very small box of very dumb people, and so they reach for the nuclear button and try to present anyone who isn't a Christian fundamentalist as somehow eccentric and marginal, if not entirely irrelevant, to the debate. That's where that frustrated patronising condescension comes from.
As I have said many times before all atheism is a belief that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a transcendent God. Atheism can go with any political position and Atheists have been conservatives (Hume and scruton for example), liberals and socialists, just as we have had many Christian, Islamic, Jewish and. "spiritual" conservatives, liberals and socialists.
Blaming the excesses of the French revolution and the atrocities of communism on atheism makes as much sense as blaming religion for the deaths of world war one, given that everyone who ran that war was a religious believer.
I have read a huge amount around the subject both for and against the god concept and have never seen a convincing argument for the existence of a god that exists otherwise than as a concept in the human mind. The only evidence you have been able to offer me is that you have a strong sense God is talking to you, but obviously there's no possibility of that conversation with God being empirically verified.
That has been sufficient to have folk certified.
You only get sectioned if you are a danger to yourself or others. I agree though that saying God talks to you is something that most people would regard as a little strange...
And yet millions expect it as a normal daily occurrence.
Indeed, but in the words of Super Hand, millions like Coldplay and voted for the Maria. You can't trust people!
Wasn’t that a show Graham Norton did? To find the west end star of the sound of music? "Indeed. I'm not sure how I got Maria for nazis! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't be with an entrenched Christian or Atheist as they're just flip sides of the same coin imo. How do you figure that? I was wondering that too. It's an odd claim that;s for sure I have long conversations with him re his connections with God and I believe his argument goes thus : Hes one of those "spiritual" people who have a greater insight into the nature of God, the universe and being than any mere Christian or atheist. Hence as neither atheists nor Christians accept his home grown spirituality they are all the same sort of benighted dogmatists. Can I convert patronising condescension into fuel? Because if I can that's the mother lode right there.
Western Atheism, as it exists in yawningly depressing prevalence online, is merely an anti-Christian satire. There is the generic claim that it applies to all the others. But it doesn't even apply properly to Christianity. It huddles in the shade of seeming legitimacy that Christian fundamentalism affords it, arguing against ridiculous ideas like creationism and old men in the sky and that religion is antiscience and antireason. Yet, ironically, it too thrives on misconceptions of science and religion and it too is divisive militant warring and fundamentalist just the same as the faiths it abhors. Atheists protest that they don't conduct real wars and kill real people like the faiths did and do. But that's only because they lack the power or the popular following (which they imagine they have). To see what atheists would do if they had either go take a look at the atheist De-Christianising project that swept France after the French revolution. While you're at it, go take a look at the atheist writings at the time. You may be surprised to see the arguments haven't changed very much at all. All the same old dusty fallacies in the same old dusty arguments. All the same old "because Christianity is wrong therefore we need to wipe religion from the earth in the name of science and reason". Then after that take a look at what Communism did around the world in continuing that eradication of freedom of thought and freedom of action in the name of eradicating religion.
The New Atheists poke fun at fools and debate Christians because that's the only place they can perform the sleight of hand required to make it seem as if their arguments have one iota of credibility. In this way the two are like drinking buddies. It's seeing through the mock intellectualism of it all that pisses off people like Kinky. It's because they've been shown the limits of their arguments, that they don't work outside a very small box of very dumb people, and so they reach for the nuclear button and try to present anyone who isn't a Christian fundamentalist as somehow eccentric and marginal, if not entirely irrelevant, to the debate. That's where that frustrated patronising condescension comes from. "I haven't read all that but are you saying there are 2 types of atheist? As I don't really associate with either description of atheism that you describe dies that mean I'm not actually an atheist? Or am I doing atheism wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No simplicity of mind, no obscurity of station, can escape the universal duty of questioning all that we believe. Who said that ?" A sound mind I think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I go to church for weddings, christenings and funerals, I’m not sure what I believe religion wise, I am technically CofE, and like most people when faced with life’s troubles and grief I automatically find myself praying to someone.... however, I am more a believer of life after death, so I think in my minds eye I’m talking to my parents when I pray, at least THEY are what’s on my mind... As for meeting, why would I ask what religion they are? It’s the person that catches my attention and engages my mind.... there is good and bad in ALL religions.. am not here to judge what god they believe in (if any). I’m here to connect mentally and physically with nice genuine people who choose this lifestyle to enrich their lives and get lots of nooky in the process. Happy swinging x "It’s funny but the bible doesn’t mention life after death very much at all. And where it does it isn’t very clear. It doesn’t seem to be all that bothered about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I go to church for weddings, christenings and funerals, I’m not sure what I believe religion wise, I am technically CofE, and like most people when faced with life’s troubles and grief I automatically find myself praying to someone.... however, I am more a believer of life after death, so I think in my minds eye I’m talking to my parents when I pray, at least THEY are what’s on my mind... As for meeting, why would I ask what religion they are? It’s the person that catches my attention and engages my mind.... there is good and bad in ALL religions.. am not here to judge what god they believe in (if any). I’m here to connect mentally and physically with nice genuine people who choose this lifestyle to enrich their lives and get lots of nooky in the process. Happy swinging x "It all depends if you think religion is important and reflects a person's values. Like I say, for casual sex I don't care what someone's attitude to religion is. However, for a relationship I have sufficient respect for a religious person to assume they take their religion seriously and that it influences how they live their lives. That being the case, it's very unlikely a seriously religious person and I would be compatible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I couldn't be with an entrenched Christian or Atheist as they're just flip sides of the same coin imo. How do you figure that? I was wondering that too. It's an odd claim that;s for sure I have long conversations with him re his connections with God and I believe his argument goes thus : Hes one of those "spiritual" people who have a greater insight into the nature of God, the universe and being than any mere Christian or atheist. Hence as neither atheists nor Christians accept his home grown spirituality they are all the same sort of benighted dogmatists. Can I convert patronising condescension into fuel? Because if I can that's the mother lode right there.
Western Atheism, as it exists in yawningly depressing prevalence online, is merely an anti-Christian satire. There is the generic claim that it applies to all the others. But it doesn't even apply properly to Christianity. It huddles in the shade of seeming legitimacy that Christian fundamentalism affords it, arguing against ridiculous ideas like creationism and old men in the sky and that religion is antiscience and antireason. Yet, ironically, it too thrives on misconceptions of science and religion and it too is divisive militant warring and fundamentalist just the same as the faiths it abhors. Atheists protest that they don't conduct real wars and kill real people like the faiths did and do. But that's only because they lack the power or the popular following (which they imagine they have). To see what atheists would do if they had either go take a look at the atheist De-Christianising project that swept France after the French revolution. While you're at it, go take a look at the atheist writings at the time. You may be surprised to see the arguments haven't changed very much at all. All the same old dusty fallacies in the same old dusty arguments. All the same old "because Christianity is wrong therefore we need to wipe religion from the earth in the name of science and reason". Then after that take a look at what Communism did around the world in continuing that eradication of freedom of thought and freedom of action in the name of eradicating religion.
The New Atheists poke fun at fools and debate Christians because that's the only place they can perform the sleight of hand required to make it seem as if their arguments have one iota of credibility. In this way the two are like drinking buddies. It's seeing through the mock intellectualism of it all that pisses off people like Kinky. It's because they've been shown the limits of their arguments, that they don't work outside a very small box of very dumb people, and so they reach for the nuclear button and try to present anyone who isn't a Christian fundamentalist as somehow eccentric and marginal, if not entirely irrelevant, to the debate. That's where that frustrated patronising condescension comes from.
I haven't read all that but are you saying there are 2 types of atheist? As I don't really associate with either description of atheism that you describe dies that mean I'm not actually an atheist? Or am I doing atheism wrong?"I'd try to explain that to you, but given I am an atheist, I don't have time what with the five year plan I have to draw up and the kulaks I have to liquidate... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The bible strictly forbids wearing fabric of two different substances mixed. " That's mosaic law - would apply to Jews only. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I go to church for weddings, christenings and funerals, I’m not sure what I believe religion wise, I am technically CofE, and like most people when faced with life’s troubles and grief I automatically find myself praying to someone.... however, I am more a believer of life after death, so I think in my minds eye I’m talking to my parents when I pray, at least THEY are what’s on my mind... As for meeting, why would I ask what religion they are? It’s the person that catches my attention and engages my mind.... there is good and bad in ALL religions.. am not here to judge what god they believe in (if any). I’m here to connect mentally and physically with nice genuine people who choose this lifestyle to enrich their lives and get lots of nooky in the process. Happy swinging x
It’s funny but the bible doesn’t mention life after death very much at all. And where it does it isn’t very clear. It doesn’t seem to be all that bothered about it. "Haha, I think you need to study a bit more - that's kinda the whole point of Christianity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"God botheres and I don't mix well. I'd foresee problems if I wanted to watch Xhamster and him Songs of Praise say. "Haha . Hilarious | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I go to church for weddings, christenings and funerals, I’m not sure what I believe religion wise, I am technically CofE, and like most people when faced with life’s troubles and grief I automatically find myself praying to someone.... however, I am more a believer of life after death, so I think in my minds eye I’m talking to my parents when I pray, at least THEY are what’s on my mind... As for meeting, why would I ask what religion they are? It’s the person that catches my attention and engages my mind.... there is good and bad in ALL religions.. am not here to judge what god they believe in (if any). I’m here to connect mentally and physically with nice genuine people who choose this lifestyle to enrich their lives and get lots of nooky in the process. Happy swinging x
It’s funny but the bible doesn’t mention life after death very much at all. And where it does it isn’t very clear. It doesn’t seem to be all that bothered about it.
Haha, I think you need to study a bit more - that's kinda the whole point of Christianity. "I’ve studied it for years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I go to church for weddings, christenings and funerals, I’m not sure what I believe religion wise, I am technically CofE, and like most people when faced with life’s troubles and grief I automatically find myself praying to someone.... however, I am more a believer of life after death, so I think in my minds eye I’m talking to my parents when I pray, at least THEY are what’s on my mind... As for meeting, why would I ask what religion they are? It’s the person that catches my attention and engages my mind.... there is good and bad in ALL religions.. am not here to judge what god they believe in (if any). I’m here to connect mentally and physically with nice genuine people who choose this lifestyle to enrich their lives and get lots of nooky in the process. Happy swinging x
It’s funny but the bible doesn’t mention life after death very much at all. And where it does it isn’t very clear. It doesn’t seem to be all that bothered about it.
Haha, I think you need to study a bit more - that's kinda the whole point of Christianity.
I’ve studied it for years. "Hense the “technically” I’m CofE, I’ve been christened, sent to Sunday school as a child, went to CofE schools, but I wouldn’t say I follow my religion, although yes I got all 3 of my children christened Like I was. I’m not sure enough about me “faith” to know is being a Christian means your allowed to believe in life after death, spirits, ghosts.. or not, and to be honest if it doesn’t I don’t care, all I know is .... I get to see a medium who allows me to spend a hour with my mum that I will never get for myself till I join her (wherever she is) and if it wasn’t for him and his GIFT I’d have lost my parents and had a gaping grief stricken hole in my chest till the day I die... at least twice a year I get to hear her voice through his.. that’s all that matters to me. X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I go to church for weddings, christenings and funerals, I’m not sure what I believe religion wise, I am technically CofE, and like most people when faced with life’s troubles and grief I automatically find myself praying to someone.... however, I am more a believer of life after death, so I think in my minds eye I’m talking to my parents when I pray, at least THEY are what’s on my mind... As for meeting, why would I ask what religion they are? It’s the person that catches my attention and engages my mind.... there is good and bad in ALL religions.. am not here to judge what god they believe in (if any). I’m here to connect mentally and physically with nice genuine people who choose this lifestyle to enrich their lives and get lots of nooky in the process. Happy swinging x
It’s funny but the bible doesn’t mention life after death very much at all. And where it does it isn’t very clear. It doesn’t seem to be all that bothered about it.
Haha, I think you need to study a bit more - that's kinda the whole point of Christianity.
I’ve studied it for years. "Then I don't see how you could say such a thing? I agree not much about actually what happens 'up there' but it's kinds the whole point of Christianity, so I don't think you can say it's 'not bothered' about it lol! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I go to church for weddings, christenings and funerals, I’m not sure what I believe religion wise, I am technically CofE, and like most people when faced with life’s troubles and grief I automatically find myself praying to someone.... however, I am more a believer of life after death, so I think in my minds eye I’m talking to my parents when I pray, at least THEY are what’s on my mind... As for meeting, why would I ask what religion they are? It’s the person that catches my attention and engages my mind.... there is good and bad in ALL religions.. am not here to judge what god they believe in (if any). I’m here to connect mentally and physically with nice genuine people who choose this lifestyle to enrich their lives and get lots of nooky in the process. Happy swinging x
It’s funny but the bible doesn’t mention life after death very much at all. And where it does it isn’t very clear. It doesn’t seem to be all that bothered about it.
Haha, I think you need to study a bit more - that's kinda the whole point of Christianity.
I’ve studied it for years.
Then I don't see how you could say such a thing? I agree not much about actually what happens 'up there' but it's kinds the whole point of Christianity, so I don't think you can say it's 'not bothered' about it lol!"Well for example ‘up there’ isn’t really mentioned. What is talked about is a resurrection of the dead, and the earth made new. But it doesn’t go into details. It just leaves it hanging as if the details don’t matter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I go to church for weddings, christenings and funerals, I’m not sure what I believe religion wise, I am technically CofE, and like most people when faced with life’s troubles and grief I automatically find myself praying to someone.... however, I am more a believer of life after death, so I think in my minds eye I’m talking to my parents when I pray, at least THEY are what’s on my mind... As for meeting, why would I ask what religion they are? It’s the person that catches my attention and engages my mind.... there is good and bad in ALL religions.. am not here to judge what god they believe in (if any). I’m here to connect mentally and physically with nice genuine people who choose this lifestyle to enrich their lives and get lots of nooky in the process. Happy swinging x
It’s funny but the bible doesn’t mention life after death very much at all. And where it does it isn’t very clear. It doesn’t seem to be all that bothered about it.
Haha, I think you need to study a bit more - that's kinda the whole point of Christianity.
I’ve studied it for years.
Then I don't see how you could say such a thing? I agree not much about actually what happens 'up there' but it's kinds the whole point of Christianity, so I don't think you can say it's 'not bothered' about it lol!
Well for example ‘up there’ isn’t really mentioned. What is talked about is a resurrection of the dead, and the earth made new. But it doesn’t go into details. It just leaves it hanging as if the details don’t matter.
"What ever the Bible might say, it's pretty clear that every Christian denomination posits a life after death. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll ." I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? I used to commute by train and the Jehovah Witnesses would be at the station in all weathers. I'd always say hello and often exchange pleasantries - its nice to be nice. And part of me quite respects their commitment to their beliefs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What ever the Bible might say, it's pretty clear that every Christian denomination posits a life after death. " It is in most Christian doctrine statements. I think the Quakers are pretty undogmatic about it though. I'm not saying that the bible has nothing to say about life after death. I'm just saying it doesn't major on it. It seems to talk much more about getting on and living this life. If more religious people did the same it wouldn't be a bad thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Haven't started a potentially controversial thread on here yet so here goes. If you were looking for a relationship, how much would your potential partners religion, or lack there of, affect your decision." it wouldn't affect me..... If they're religious fine, hopefully if they are here religion is on the back burner considering this lifestyles moral issues, I'm not religious but if that their thing and we get on why would it affect anything | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What ever the Bible might say, it's pretty clear that every Christian denomination posits a life after death. It is in most Christian doctrine statements. I think the Quakers are pretty undogmatic about it though. I'm not saying that the bible has nothing to say about life after death. I'm just saying it doesn't major on it. It seems to talk much more about getting on and living this life. " But the whole point of 'salvation' is to secure eternal life, there's plenty of references to not worrying about suffering now for instance because they belong in the next place etc. The entire emphasis of the New Testament is on salvation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll . I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? " Everyone takes the mickey out of the poor JW, but that's just unecessarily disrespectful. They are sincere people, and trying their best, and at least I feel safe when I open my door to them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll . I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? Everyone takes the mickey out of the poor JW, but that's just unecessarily disrespectful. They are sincere people, and trying their best, and at least I feel safe when I open my door to them."I don't think we should necessarily respect beliefs just because they are sincerely held. The JWs are prepared to let their children die because of an idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture. I don't think that's a belief worthy of respect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll . I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? I used to commute by train and the Jehovah Witnesses would be at the station in all weathers. I'd always say hello and often exchange pleasantries - its nice to be nice. And part of me quite respects their commitment to their beliefs. " I never said I wasn't nice to them . I too exchange pleasantries if they knock on my door , but the leaflet thingy goes straight into the recycling box . I am not religious, except that I don't go knocking on people's doors in the middle of their dinner to tell people so . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll . I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? Everyone takes the mickey out of the poor JW, but that's just unecessarily disrespectful. They are sincere people, and trying their best, and at least I feel safe when I open my door to them.
I don't think we should necessarily respect beliefs just because they are sincerely held. The JWs are prepared to let their children die because of an idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
I don't think that's a belief worthy of respect. "I did not say respect their beliefs, I said respect them as humans. There's no need for childish vulgarity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I go to church for weddings, christenings and funerals, I’m not sure what I believe religion wise, I am technically CofE, and like most people when faced with life’s troubles and grief I automatically find myself praying to someone.... however, I am more a believer of life after death, so I think in my minds eye I’m talking to my parents when I pray, at least THEY are what’s on my mind... As for meeting, why would I ask what religion they are? It’s the person that catches my attention and engages my mind.... there is good and bad in ALL religions.. am not here to judge what god they believe in (if any). I’m here to connect mentally and physically with nice genuine people who choose this lifestyle to enrich their lives and get lots of nooky in the process. Happy swinging x
It’s funny but the bible doesn’t mention life after death very much at all. And where it does it isn’t very clear. It doesn’t seem to be all that bothered about it.
Haha, I think you need to study a bit more - that's kinda the whole point of Christianity.
I’ve studied it for years.
Hense the “technically” I’m CofE, I’ve been christened, sent to Sunday school as a child, went to CofE schools, but I wouldn’t say I follow my religion, although yes I got all 3 of my children christened Like I was.
I’m not sure enough about me “faith” to know is being a Christian means your allowed to believe in life after death, spirits, ghosts.. or not, and to be honest if it doesn’t I don’t care, all I know is .... I get to see a medium who allows me to spend a hour with my mum that I will never get for myself till I join her (wherever she is) and if it wasn’t for him and his GIFT I’d have lost my parents and had a gaping grief stricken hole in my chest till the day I die... at least twice a year I get to hear her voice through his..
that’s all that matters to me. X". I think yours is a perfect example of childhood indoctrination, providing you get the child young no matter what follows they'll always get they're own children christened despite not following the religion themselves. All the rest from mediums to afterlife and such forth is I'm sorry to say a part of being indoctrinated as a child. One of the great sadnesses of religion is it takes us (homosapiens) away from our very natural life and death and into the (supernatural) of "hope" and "wishing"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll . I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? Everyone takes the mickey out of the poor JW, but that's just unecessarily disrespectful. They are sincere people, and trying their best, and at least I feel safe when I open my door to them.
I don't think we should necessarily respect beliefs just because they are sincerely held. The JWs are prepared to let their children die because of an idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
I don't think that's a belief worthy of respect.
I did not say respect their beliefs, I said respect them as humans. There's no need for childish vulgarity."You did suggest that the sincerity of their beliefs was something to be admired. I would say that with pernicious beliefs, the more sincerely they are held, the worse it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll . I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? Everyone takes the mickey out of the poor JW, but that's just unecessarily disrespectful. They are sincere people, and trying their best, and at least I feel safe when I open my door to them.
I don't think we should necessarily respect beliefs just because they are sincerely held. The JWs are prepared to let their children die because of an idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
I don't think that's a belief worthy of respect.
I did not say respect their beliefs, I said respect them as humans. There's no need for childish vulgarity.
You did suggest that the sincerity of their beliefs was something to be admired. "I said nothing of the kind, your bias is distorting my words in your head it seems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll . I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? Everyone takes the mickey out of the poor JW, but that's just unecessarily disrespectful. They are sincere people, and trying their best, and at least I feel safe when I open my door to them.
I don't think we should necessarily respect beliefs just because they are sincerely held. The JWs are prepared to let their children die because of an idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
I don't think that's a belief worthy of respect.
I did not say respect their beliefs, I said respect them as humans. There's no need for childish vulgarity."I like to think I can strenuously disagree with someone and still be polite. As for religion and JWs I argue my point (of a plague on all your houses) and they have yet to counter with a solid argument. I am an ex Catholic who went to a Catholic Grammar School and was abused for my troubles. Something that blighted my life until I faced the emotions down and realised I was the victim not the cause. I see wars and terrorism perpetrated simply because of religion. So while I am polite to everyone of belief or none (except Catholic priests) I will always believe that religion, paradoxically, is the real source of evil in our world.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll . I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? Everyone takes the mickey out of the poor JW, but that's just unecessarily disrespectful. They are sincere people, and trying their best, and at least I feel safe when I open my door to them.
I don't think we should necessarily respect beliefs just because they are sincerely held. The JWs are prepared to let their children die because of an idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
I don't think that's a belief worthy of respect.
I did not say respect their beliefs, I said respect them as humans. There's no need for childish vulgarity.
I like to think I can strenuously disagree with someone and still be polite. As for religion and JWs I argue my point (of a plague on all your houses) and they have yet to counter with a solid argument.
I am an ex Catholic who went to a Catholic Grammar School and was abused for my troubles. Something that blighted my life until I faced the emotions down and realised I was the victim not the cause. I see wars and terrorism perpetrated simply because of religion.
So while I am polite to everyone of belief or none (except Catholic priests) I will always believe that religion, paradoxically, is the real source of evil in our world...." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll . I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? Everyone takes the mickey out of the poor JW, but that's just unecessarily disrespectful. They are sincere people, and trying their best, and at least I feel safe when I open my door to them.
I don't think we should necessarily respect beliefs just because they are sincerely held. The JWs are prepared to let their children die because of an idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
I don't think that's a belief worthy of respect.
I did not say respect their beliefs, I said respect them as humans. There's no need for childish vulgarity.
You did suggest that the sincerity of their beliefs was something to be admired.
I said nothing of the kind, your bias is distorting my words in your head it seems."So what was the point of mentioning that they are sincere people who tried their best, if it wasn't to suggest those qualities in them are admirable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll . I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? Everyone takes the mickey out of the poor JW, but that's just unecessarily disrespectful. They are sincere people, and trying their best, and at least I feel safe when I open my door to them.
I don't think we should necessarily respect beliefs just because they are sincerely held. The JWs are prepared to let their children die because of an idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
I don't think that's a belief worthy of respect.
I did not say respect their beliefs, I said respect them as humans. There's no need for childish vulgarity.
I like to think I can strenuously disagree with someone and still be polite. "That's what I am suggesting. The JW came to my door the other day whilst I was cooking dinner, I popped my head out the door and said 'Sorry, I am cooking' and the smiled and thanked me and were respectful and pleasant. I see no need for animosity just because I do not share their belief - seems to me the non-spiritual are the aggressive ones. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The bible strictly forbids wearing fabric of two different substances mixed. That's mosaic law - would apply to Jews only." You generally really know your stuff Frisky but I thought this was just an element of the Old Testament and the Torah, which included direction to the Jews but has more recently had its scope widened to include Christians and believers in the bible, as the word of God. Most of the gay bashers, using the bible as source material rely on Leviticus. I'm inclined to see the meaning from the context of the world at the time of its written production - as well as relevant to the people of that area and era. As for dating, I'd probably struggle with someone who devoted much of their time to religious activities, such as worship and find that we'd probably disagree on too much, for a relationship to have a great chance of success. But, I'm still open to the possibilities. I'm atheist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll . I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? Everyone takes the mickey out of the poor JW, but that's just unecessarily disrespectful. They are sincere people, and trying their best, and at least I feel safe when I open my door to them.
I don't think we should necessarily respect beliefs just because they are sincerely held. The JWs are prepared to let their children die because of an idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
I don't think that's a belief worthy of respect.
I did not say respect their beliefs, I said respect them as humans. There's no need for childish vulgarity.
You did suggest that the sincerity of their beliefs was something to be admired.
I said nothing of the kind, your bias is distorting my words in your head it seems.
So what was the point of mentioning that they are sincere people who tried their best, if it wasn't to suggest those qualities in them are admirable? "Their sincerity is admirable, as is the amount of effort they put into to doing what they think is best to help their fellow man. You don't have to admire, accept or agree with their beliefs to applaud their manner or their virtues. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The bible strictly forbids wearing fabric of two different substances mixed. That's mosaic law - would apply to Jews only. You generally really know your stuff Frisky but I thought this was just an element of the Old Testament and the Torah, which included direction to the Jews but has more recently had its scope widened to include Christians and believers in the bible, as the word of God. Most of the gay bashers, using the bible as source material rely on Leviticus. I'm inclined to see the meaning from the context of the world at the time of its written production - as well as relevant to the people of that area and era. As for dating, I'd probably struggle with someone who devoted much of their time to religious activities, such as worship and find that we'd probably disagree on too much, for a relationship to have a great chance of success. But, I'm still open to the possibilities. I'm atheist. " A cynic might say that people. "Interpret" religious books to allow them to do the stuff they want to do and not do the stuff they don't want to do... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll . I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? Everyone takes the mickey out of the poor JW, but that's just unecessarily disrespectful. They are sincere people, and trying their best, and at least I feel safe when I open my door to them.
I don't think we should necessarily respect beliefs just because they are sincerely held. The JWs are prepared to let their children die because of an idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
I don't think that's a belief worthy of respect.
I did not say respect their beliefs, I said respect them as humans. There's no need for childish vulgarity.
You did suggest that the sincerity of their beliefs was something to be admired.
I said nothing of the kind, your bias is distorting my words in your head it seems.
So what was the point of mentioning that they are sincere people who tried their best, if it wasn't to suggest those qualities in them are admirable?
Their sincerity is admirable, as is the amount of effort they put into to doing what they think is best to help their fellow man. You don't have to admire, accept or agree with their beliefs to applaud their manner or their virtues. "They have a sincere belief that one should let children die rather than give them a blood transfusion. That's not admirable. It's disgusting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
I too have read extremely widely Kinky. And I've yet to meet an atheist argument that isn't based upon fallacious, straw man, or circular thinking... even in a Christian context.
Even the whole notion of the burden being on the theist is flawed. We simply don't know if there's a god or not. There's no evidence for it. Yet there's also no evidence against it. Given this, the only rational defensible stance is 50/50 agnosticism... not the non-existence claim of atheism. As such, the burden lies on both atheism and theism to make a case for either the existence or non-existence of god. In this theism clearly has the lead as atheism spent most of the 20th century evading even making the case and I don't see that stopping any time soon. So atheism is basically the aggressive assertion that the atheist's view is the default normal view without ever having shown that's the case. As such it's just bullying under the guise of being intellectually superior. But I suspect many of us knew that already
Upon reflection perhaps it's this superiority that I couldn't live with... in whatever form, religious, anti-religious, intellectual, etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The bible strictly forbids wearing fabric of two different substances mixed. That's mosaic law - would apply to Jews only. You generally really know your stuff Frisky but I thought this was just an element of the Old Testament and the Torah, which included direction to the Jews but has more recently had its scope widened to include Christians and believers in the bible, as the word of God. " No, it's complicated, but Christians are not under law, but under Grace - it's a whole different deal for them, that's kind of the point. They are not bound to follow Old Testament law, only Christ (it's a spirit of the law vs letter of the law kind of thing). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I didn't really need to make the assertion atheists and religious fundamentalists are joined at the hip... both equally dogmatic and intent on the destruction of each other did I really. I could've just stepped back and let the atheists on this thread prove the point for me
I too have read extremely widely Kinky. And I've yet to meet an atheist argument that isn't based upon fallacious, straw man, or circular thinking... even in a Christian context.
Even the whole notion of the burden being on the theist is flawed. We simply don't know if there's a god or not. There's no evidence for it. Yet there's also no evidence against it. Given this, the only rational defensible stance is 50/50 agnosticism... not the non-existence claim of atheism. As such, the burden lies on both atheism and theism to make a case for either the existence or non-existence of god. In this theism clearly has the lead as atheism spent most of the 20th century evading even making the case and I don't see that stopping any time soon. So atheism is basically the aggressive assertion that the atheist's view is the default normal view without ever having shown that's the case. As such it's just bullying under the guise of being intellectually superior. But I suspect many of us knew that already
Upon reflection perhaps it's this superiority that I couldn't live with... in whatever form, religious, anti-religious, intellectual, etc "There's plenty of evidence against the existence of a transcendent God just as there is plenty of evidence against the existence of fairies, leprechauns, vampires and so on. All those beings may possibly exist but no reasonable person things the chance of them existing is fifty fifty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I didn't really need to make the assertion atheists and religious fundamentalists are joined at the hip... both equally dogmatic and intent on the destruction of each other did I really. I could've just stepped back and let the atheists on this thread prove the point for me
I too have read extremely widely Kinky. And I've yet to meet an atheist argument that isn't based upon fallacious, straw man, or circular thinking... even in a Christian context.
Even the whole notion of the burden being on the theist is flawed. We simply don't know if there's a god or not. There's no evidence for it. Yet there's also no evidence against it. Given this, the only rational defensible stance is 50/50 agnosticism... not the non-existence claim of atheism. As such, the burden lies on both atheism and theism to make a case for either the existence or non-existence of god. In this theism clearly has the lead as atheism spent most of the 20th century evading even making the case and I don't see that stopping any time soon. So atheism is basically the aggressive assertion that the atheist's view is the default normal view without ever having shown that's the case. As such it's just bullying under the guise of being intellectually superior. But I suspect many of us knew that already
Upon reflection perhaps it's this superiority that I couldn't live with... in whatever form, religious, anti-religious, intellectual, etc
There's plenty of evidence against the existence of a transcendent God just as there is plenty of evidence against the existence of fairies, leprechauns, vampires and so on.
All those beings may possibly exist but no reasonable person things the chance of them existing is fifty fifty. "^This
Of course the burden of proof is on the believer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll . I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? Everyone takes the mickey out of the poor JW, but that's just unecessarily disrespectful. They are sincere people, and trying their best, and at least I feel safe when I open my door to them.
I don't think we should necessarily respect beliefs just because they are sincerely held. The JWs are prepared to let their children die because of an idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
I don't think that's a belief worthy of respect.
I did not say respect their beliefs, I said respect them as humans. There's no need for childish vulgarity.
You did suggest that the sincerity of their beliefs was something to be admired.
I said nothing of the kind, your bias is distorting my words in your head it seems.
So what was the point of mentioning that they are sincere people who tried their best, if it wasn't to suggest those qualities in them are admirable?
Their sincerity is admirable, as is the amount of effort they put into to doing what they think is best to help their fellow man. You don't have to admire, accept or agree with their beliefs to applaud their manner or their virtues.
They have a sincere belief that one should let children die rather than give them a blood transfusion. That's not admirable. It's disgusting. "You need to learn to differentiation between people, their beliefs, their behaviour and their humanity. I might find plenty of things you believe, say, or do disgusting, but I hope I would still speak with respect rather than vulgar quips. Maybe that's more about my own integrity than how much you deserve it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What ever the Bible might say, it's pretty clear that every Christian denomination posits a life after death. It is in most Christian doctrine statements. I think the Quakers are pretty undogmatic about it though. I'm not saying that the bible has nothing to say about life after death. I'm just saying it doesn't major on it. It seems to talk much more about getting on and living this life. But the whole point of 'salvation' is to secure eternal life, there's plenty of references to not worrying about suffering now for instance because they belong in the next place etc. The entire emphasis of the New Testament is on salvation." Salvation is wider and broader than going to heaven when you die! And eternal life also has a dimension about quality of life , not just unending. Therefore much of salvation is about this life as well as what ever may follow. To a first century Jew salvation was primarily about a Messiah that would restore Israel, a king in the line of David that would defeat the Romans as an occupying force. So salvation to the people in Jesus' day would look very different to what it has commonly come to mean. An Eastern Orthodox view or a Universalist view would also concentrate on this life as you get to decide later about the next one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll . I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? Everyone takes the mickey out of the poor JW, but that's just unecessarily disrespectful. They are sincere people, and trying their best, and at least I feel safe when I open my door to them.
I don't think we should necessarily respect beliefs just because they are sincerely held. The JWs are prepared to let their children die because of an idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
I don't think that's a belief worthy of respect.
I did not say respect their beliefs, I said respect them as humans. There's no need for childish vulgarity.
You did suggest that the sincerity of their beliefs was something to be admired.
I said nothing of the kind, your bias is distorting my words in your head it seems.
So what was the point of mentioning that they are sincere people who tried their best, if it wasn't to suggest those qualities in them are admirable?
Their sincerity is admirable, as is the amount of effort they put into to doing what they think is best to help their fellow man. You don't have to admire, accept or agree with their beliefs to applaud their manner or their virtues.
They have a sincere belief that one should let children die rather than give them a blood transfusion. That's not admirable. It's disgusting.
You need to learn to differentiation between people, their beliefs, their behaviour and their humanity.
I might find plenty of things you believe, say, or do disgusting, but I hope I would still speak with respect rather than vulgar quips. Maybe that's more about my own integrity than how much you deserve it?"I said that belief was disgusting and thus not admirable, however sincerely it is held. You will note I have said nothing attacking the humanity or the behaviour of JWs. But just for the record, yes, if you have a disgusting belief, the belief deserves mockery. Would you respect sincerely held racist views? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I go to church for weddings, christenings and funerals, I’m not sure what I believe religion wise, I am technically CofE, and like most people when faced with life’s troubles and grief I automatically find myself praying to someone.... however, I am more a believer of life after death, so I think in my minds eye I’m talking to my parents when I pray, at least THEY are what’s on my mind... As for meeting, why would I ask what religion they are? It’s the person that catches my attention and engages my mind.... there is good and bad in ALL religions.. am not here to judge what god they believe in (if any). I’m here to connect mentally and physically with nice genuine people who choose this lifestyle to enrich their lives and get lots of nooky in the process. Happy swinging x
It’s funny but the bible doesn’t mention life after death very much at all. And where it does it isn’t very clear. It doesn’t seem to be all that bothered about it.
Haha, I think you need to study a bit more - that's kinda the whole point of Christianity.
I’ve studied it for years.
Hense the “technically” I’m CofE, I’ve been christened, sent to Sunday school as a child, went to CofE schools, but I wouldn’t say I follow my religion, although yes I got all 3 of my children christened Like I was.
I’m not sure enough about me “faith” to know is being a Christian means your allowed to believe in life after death, spirits, ghosts.. or not, and to be honest if it doesn’t I don’t care, all I know is .... I get to see a medium who allows me to spend a hour with my mum that I will never get for myself till I join her (wherever she is) and if it wasn’t for him and his GIFT I’d have lost my parents and had a gaping grief stricken hole in my chest till the day I die... at least twice a year I get to hear her voice through his..
that’s all that matters to me. X.
I think yours is a perfect example of childhood indoctrination, providing you get the child young no matter what follows they'll always get they're own children christened despite not following the religion themselves.
All the rest from mediums to afterlife and such forth is I'm sorry to say a part of being indoctrinated as a child.
One of the great sadnesses of religion is it takes us (homosapiens) away from our very natural life and death and into the (supernatural) of "hope" and "wishing" "Im afraid I would whole heartedly have to disagree with that.. I was not taught to accept belief that there is life after death as a child, I went in search of the phenomenon myself through grief. Being from Blackpool originally, I have grown up with “gypsy petulengros” all my life, reading of palms and fortune telling was always something of a normality there.... and nothing that interested me at the time. but it’s only when you truly find someone who actually has the “gift” or mediumship that you become a true believer.. for someone to only know your name yet describe the Grey suit you laid your father to rest in, to know names and dates that mean something to you, to be able to (actually ) answer a question you have in your head seconds after you thought it but never spoke the words... for me that’s means everything... I get the time with my parents twice a year that I have lost for the past 5 years since they both died... to be reassured that they are still proud of their “little girl” and continue to watch their grand babies grow. That is not something that was taught to me, it’s something I believe to be real. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll . I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? Everyone takes the mickey out of the poor JW, but that's just unecessarily disrespectful. They are sincere people, and trying their best, and at least I feel safe when I open my door to them.
I don't think we should necessarily respect beliefs just because they are sincerely held. The JWs are prepared to let their children die because of an idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
I don't think that's a belief worthy of respect.
I did not say respect their beliefs, I said respect them as humans. There's no need for childish vulgarity.
You did suggest that the sincerity of their beliefs was something to be admired.
I said nothing of the kind, your bias is distorting my words in your head it seems.
So what was the point of mentioning that they are sincere people who tried their best, if it wasn't to suggest those qualities in them are admirable?
Their sincerity is admirable, as is the amount of effort they put into to doing what they think is best to help their fellow man. You don't have to admire, accept or agree with their beliefs to applaud their manner or their virtues.
They have a sincere belief that one should let children die rather than give them a blood transfusion. That's not admirable. It's disgusting.
You need to learn to differentiation between people, their beliefs, their behaviour and their humanity.
I might find plenty of things you believe, say, or do disgusting, but I hope I would still speak with respect rather than vulgar quips. Maybe that's more about my own integrity than how much you deserve it?
I said that belief was disgusting and thus not admirable, however sincerely it is held. You will note I have said nothing attacking the humanity or the behaviour of JWs.
But just for the record, yes, if you have a disgusting belief, the belief deserves mockery. Would you respect sincerely held racist views? "I repeat, you may say, do or believe things that I find disgusting and deserving of mockery, but I hope I would still manage to speak to you with respect, and if I did not, well then that would be my weakness. You don't need to 'have' religion to find intolerance it seems..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Id shag a nun does that count ? " We all know you're gonna burn in hell anyway! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What ever the Bible might say, it's pretty clear that every Christian denomination posits a life after death. It is in most Christian doctrine statements. I think the Quakers are pretty undogmatic about it though. I'm not saying that the bible has nothing to say about life after death. I'm just saying it doesn't major on it. It seems to talk much more about getting on and living this life. But the whole point of 'salvation' is to secure eternal life, there's plenty of references to not worrying about suffering now for instance because they belong in the next place etc. The entire emphasis of the New Testament is on salvation. Salvation is wider and broader than going to heaven when you die! ......" And yet is inseparable from it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll . I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? Everyone takes the mickey out of the poor JW, but that's just unecessarily disrespectful. They are sincere people, and trying their best, and at least I feel safe when I open my door to them.
I don't think we should necessarily respect beliefs just because they are sincerely held. The JWs are prepared to let their children die because of an idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
I don't think that's a belief worthy of respect.
I did not say respect their beliefs, I said respect them as humans. There's no need for childish vulgarity.
You did suggest that the sincerity of their beliefs was something to be admired.
I said nothing of the kind, your bias is distorting my words in your head it seems.
So what was the point of mentioning that they are sincere people who tried their best, if it wasn't to suggest those qualities in them are admirable?
Their sincerity is admirable, as is the amount of effort they put into to doing what they think is best to help their fellow man. You don't have to admire, accept or agree with their beliefs to applaud their manner or their virtues.
They have a sincere belief that one should let children die rather than give them a blood transfusion. That's not admirable. It's disgusting.
You need to learn to differentiation between people, their beliefs, their behaviour and their humanity.
I might find plenty of things you believe, say, or do disgusting, but I hope I would still speak with respect rather than vulgar quips. Maybe that's more about my own integrity than how much you deserve it?
I said that belief was disgusting and thus not admirable, however sincerely it is held. You will note I have said nothing attacking the humanity or the behaviour of JWs.
But just for the record, yes, if you have a disgusting belief, the belief deserves mockery. Would you respect sincerely held racist views?
I repeat, you may say, do or believe things that I find disgusting and deserving of mockery, but I hope I would still manage to speak to you with respect, and if I did not, well then that would be my weakness. You don't need to 'have' religion to find intolerance it seems....."You've got me there. I am indeed intolerant of racism and religious dogma that causes the death of children. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I actually let Jehovah's witnesses give me their riveting copy of the Watchtower. I may one day be too skint for bog roll . I hate comments like this (despite the fact that you probably don't), what's the point? Everyone takes the mickey out of the poor JW, but that's just unecessarily disrespectful. They are sincere people, and trying their best, and at least I feel safe when I open my door to them.
I don't think we should necessarily respect beliefs just because they are sincerely held. The JWs are prepared to let their children die because of an idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
I don't think that's a belief worthy of respect.
I did not say respect their beliefs, I said respect them as humans. There's no need for childish vulgarity.
You did suggest that the sincerity of their beliefs was something to be admired.
I said nothing of the kind, your bias is distorting my words in your head it seems.
So what was the point of mentioning that they are sincere people who tried their best, if it wasn't to suggest those qualities in them are admirable?
Their sincerity is admirable, as is the amount of effort they put into to doing what they think is best to help their fellow man. You don't have to admire, accept or agree with their beliefs to applaud their manner or their virtues.
They have a sincere belief that one should let children die rather than give them a blood transfusion. That's not admirable. It's disgusting.
You need to learn to differentiation between people, their beliefs, their behaviour and their humanity.
I might find plenty of things you believe, say, or do disgusting, but I hope I would still speak with respect rather than vulgar quips. Maybe that's more about my own integrity than how much you deserve it?
I said that belief was disgusting and thus not admirable, however sincerely it is held. You will note I have said nothing attacking the humanity or the behaviour of JWs.
But just for the record, yes, if you have a disgusting belief, the belief deserves mockery. Would you respect sincerely held racist views?
I repeat, you may say, do or believe things that I find disgusting and deserving of mockery, but I hope I would still manage to speak to you with respect, and if I did not, well then that would be my weakness. You don't need to 'have' religion to find intolerance it seems.....
You've got me there. I am indeed intolerant of racism and religious dogma that causes the death of children. "You think you are innocent? Should they mock you for any of your views they find disgusting? I find vitriol and bile disgusting, I do not believe mockery will advance any cause against that either. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Upon reflection perhaps it's this superiority that I couldn't live with... in whatever form, religious, anti-religious, intellectual, etc " Agreed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I didn't really need to make the assertion atheists and religious fundamentalists are joined at the hip... both equally dogmatic and intent on the destruction of each other did I really. I could've just stepped back and let the atheists on this thread prove the point for me
I too have read extremely widely Kinky. And I've yet to meet an atheist argument that isn't based upon fallacious, straw man, or circular thinking... even in a Christian context.
Even the whole notion of the burden being on the theist is flawed. We simply don't know if there's a god or not. There's no evidence for it. Yet there's also no evidence against it. Given this, the only rational defensible stance is 50/50 agnosticism... not the non-existence claim of atheism. As such, the burden lies on both atheism and theism to make a case for either the existence or non-existence of god. In this theism clearly has the lead as atheism spent most of the 20th century evading even making the case and I don't see that stopping any time soon. So atheism is basically the aggressive assertion that the atheist's view is the default normal view without ever having shown that's the case. As such it's just bullying under the guise of being intellectually superior. But I suspect many of us knew that already
Upon reflection perhaps it's this superiority that I couldn't live with... in whatever form, religious, anti-religious, intellectual, etc
There's plenty of evidence against the existence of a transcendent God just as there is plenty of evidence against the existence of fairies, leprechauns, vampires and so on.
All those beings may possibly exist but no reasonable person things the chance of them existing is fifty fifty.
^This
Of course the burden of proof is on the believer."Brilliant! I await your evidence with much anticipation. As do 2/3rds of scientists who register as either agnostic or theist on the vast majority of polls on scientists beliefs. I'm sure it'll be a revelation to all of us | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I didn't really need to make the assertion atheists and religious fundamentalists are joined at the hip... both equally dogmatic and intent on the destruction of each other did I really. I could've just stepped back and let the atheists on this thread prove the point for me
I too have read extremely widely Kinky. And I've yet to meet an atheist argument that isn't based upon fallacious, straw man, or circular thinking... even in a Christian context.
Even the whole notion of the burden being on the theist is flawed. We simply don't know if there's a god or not. There's no evidence for it. Yet there's also no evidence against it. Given this, the only rational defensible stance is 50/50 agnosticism... not the non-existence claim of atheism. As such, the burden lies on both atheism and theism to make a case for either the existence or non-existence of god. In this theism clearly has the lead as atheism spent most of the 20th century evading even making the case and I don't see that stopping any time soon. So atheism is basically the aggressive assertion that the atheist's view is the default normal view without ever having shown that's the case. As such it's just bullying under the guise of being intellectually superior. But I suspect many of us knew that already
Upon reflection perhaps it's this superiority that I couldn't live with... in whatever form, religious, anti-religious, intellectual, etc
There's plenty of evidence against the existence of a transcendent God just as there is plenty of evidence against the existence of fairies, leprechauns, vampires and so on.
All those beings may possibly exist but no reasonable person things the chance of them existing is fifty fifty.
^This
Of course the burden of proof is on the believer.
Brilliant! I await your evidence with much anticipation. As do 2/3rds of scientists who register as either agnostic or theist on the vast majority of polls on scientists beliefs. I'm sure it'll be a revelation to all of us "I'm a disbeliever | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmm now I'm beginning to wonder why the heck Stephen Hawking oscillated so much on the issue. He must've not seen your evidence "Is that aimed at me too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmm now I'm beginning to wonder why the heck Stephen Hawking oscillated so much on the issue. He must've not seen your evidence
Is that aimed at me too?"I don't know. Do you oscillate on the issue too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmm now I'm beginning to wonder why the heck Stephen Hawking oscillated so much on the issue. He must've not seen your evidence
Is that aimed at me too?
I don't know. Do you oscillate on the issue too? "Funny that some of your posts come across as though you have feelings of superiority on this topic. Considering one of your earlier comments, I find it quite amusing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmm now I'm beginning to wonder why the heck Stephen Hawking oscillated so much on the issue. He must've not seen your evidence
Is that aimed at me too?
I don't know. Do you oscillate on the issue too?
Funny that some of your posts come across as though you have feelings of superiority on this topic.
Considering one of your earlier comments, I find it quite amusing"The claim is that I'm a moron for not being aware of the ample evidence before me, and accepted by anyone with a brain in their head, that I'm mentally ill because I believe a god exists. It could be considered understandable if such an aggressive and insulting viewpoint was actually based on strong rational arguments. That it isn't makes it just arrogant superior bullying. Do you not think I have the right to bring attention to that? Or is that defence of myself just me being superior back in your mind? I merely think atheists are mistaken and chasing straw man arguments. I do think they're incredibly closed minded (whilst professing to be on the cutting edge of open mindedness) and superior to the extent of bullying. But they have it in their power to become more informed and widely read on the issue and thus develop some humility on it. I'm not accusing them of being retarded and needing to be sectioned and put in a mental health facility. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmm now I'm beginning to wonder why the heck Stephen Hawking oscillated so much on the issue. He must've not seen your evidence
Is that aimed at me too?
I don't know. Do you oscillate on the issue too?
Funny that some of your posts come across as though you have feelings of superiority on this topic.
Considering one of your earlier comments, I find it quite amusing
The claim is that I'm a moron for not being aware of the ample evidence before me, and accepted by anyone with a brain in their head, that I'm mentally ill because I believe a god exists. It could be considered understandable if such an aggressive and insulting viewpoint was actually based on strong rational arguments. That it isn't makes it just arrogant superior bullying. Do you not think I have the right to bring attention to that? Or is that defence of myself just me being superior back in your mind?
I merely think atheists are mistaken and chasing straw man arguments. I do think they're incredibly closed minded (whilst professing to be on the cutting edge of open mindedness) and superior to the extent of bullying. But they have it in their power to become more informed and widely read on the issue and thus develop some humility on it. I'm not accusing them of being retarded and needing to be sectioned and put in a mental health facility. "Of course you have a right to bring attention to that. Maybe aim your comments towards the people who made those claims against you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmm now I'm beginning to wonder why the heck Stephen Hawking oscillated so much on the issue. He must've not seen your evidence
Is that aimed at me too?
I don't know. Do you oscillate on the issue too?
Funny that some of your posts come across as though you have feelings of superiority on this topic.
Considering one of your earlier comments, I find it quite amusing
The claim is that I'm a moron for not being aware of the ample evidence before me, and accepted by anyone with a brain in their head, that I'm mentally ill because I believe a god exists. It could be considered understandable if such an aggressive and insulting viewpoint was actually based on strong rational arguments. That it isn't makes it just arrogant superior bullying. Do you not think I have the right to bring attention to that? Or is that defence of myself just me being superior back in your mind?
I merely think atheists are mistaken and chasing straw man arguments. I do think they're incredibly closed minded (whilst professing to be on the cutting edge of open mindedness) and superior to the extent of bullying. But they have it in their power to become more informed and widely read on the issue and thus develop some humility on it. I'm not accusing them of being retarded and needing to be sectioned and put in a mental health facility.
Of course you have a right to bring attention to that. Maybe aim your comments towards the people who made those claims against you."I definitely would if it wasn't a point of view widely held by most atheists. As it is such a widely held view, I prefer to assume it isn't a personal ad hominem attack by Kinky or Granny against me specifically but rather yet another argument against a god i.e that the world wide experience of it is just a mentally ill delusion or overexcited wishful thinking. I'm not into this argument to get personal with people. I'm in it to try showing the flaws in the logic. Atheists claim their's is a view point founded solidly on robust rational arguments. I believe I have the right, in the spirit of intellectual debate, to challenge that. I didn't pick on you Penelope. You asked if my comment on Hawking related to you. I don't know. My argument was with the points that have been made so far. That's all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
No! Fuck you.. I’m joking | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All religions come from an age when humanity hadn't a clue where the sun went at night. In this unenlightened age apparently god decided to reveal himself to humanity and he hasnt been seen since .You don't need to be an intellectual or a theologian to understand why the religious books we have today are flawed and full of inconsistencies and absurdities." None of the books mention Kangaroos! Kangaroo is such an exciting animal, why didn’t they mention it.. why why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmm now I'm beginning to wonder why the heck Stephen Hawking oscillated so much on the issue. He must've not seen your evidence
Is that aimed at me too?
I don't know. Do you oscillate on the issue too?
Funny that some of your posts come across as though you have feelings of superiority on this topic.
Considering one of your earlier comments, I find it quite amusing
The claim is that I'm a moron for not being aware of the ample evidence before me, and accepted by anyone with a brain in their head, that I'm mentally ill because I believe a god exists. It could be considered understandable if such an aggressive and insulting viewpoint was actually based on strong rational arguments. That it isn't makes it just arrogant superior bullying. Do you not think I have the right to bring attention to that? Or is that defence of myself just me being superior back in your mind?
I merely think atheists are mistaken and chasing straw man arguments. I do think they're incredibly closed minded (whilst professing to be on the cutting edge of open mindedness) and superior to the extent of bullying. But they have it in their power to become more informed and widely read on the issue and thus develop some humility on it. I'm not accusing them of being retarded and needing to be sectioned and put in a mental health facility.
Of course you have a right to bring attention to that. Maybe aim your comments towards the people who made those claims against you.
I definitely would if it wasn't a point of view widely held by most atheists. As it is such a widely held view, I prefer to assume it isn't a personal ad hominem attack by Kinky or Granny against me specifically but rather yet another argument against a god i.e that the world wide experience of it is just a mentally ill delusion or overexcited wishful thinking.
I'm not into this argument to get personal with people. I'm in it to try showing the flaws in the logic. Atheists claim their's is a view point founded solidly on robust rational arguments. I believe I have the right, in the spirit of intellectual debate, to challenge that.
I didn't pick on you Penelope. You asked if my comment on Hawking related to you. I don't know. My argument was with the points that have been made so far. That's all "I was referring to both of your responses. I came to the logical conclusion by the position of your latter comment and the word 'you' that it was an add-on to the first comment, which was aimed at me. I'm not trying to make it personal, but you did give your (what I took to be condescending) views in direct reply to my pretty innocuous initial post. Please don't paint all atheists with the same brush. I rarely even enter into debates on my (dis)beliefs and I certainly never say people ought to be committed for theirs. I'm open to different views on the subject, I don't feel threatened by other's. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All religions come from an age when humanity hadn't a clue where the sun went at night. In this unenlightened age apparently god decided to reveal himself to humanity and he hasnt been seen since .You don't need to be an intellectual or a theologian to understand why the religious books we have today are flawed and full of inconsistencies and absurdities. None of the books mention Kangaroos! Kangaroo is such an exciting animal, why didn’t they mention it.. why why? " I doubt they mention penguins either . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All religions come from an age when humanity hadn't a clue where the sun went at night. In this unenlightened age apparently god decided to reveal himself to humanity and he hasnt been seen since .You don't need to be an intellectual or a theologian to understand why the religious books we have today are flawed and full of inconsistencies and absurdities. None of the books mention Kangaroos! Kangaroo is such an exciting animal, why didn’t they mention it.. why why? I doubt they mention penguins either . "Or squirrels | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmm now I'm beginning to wonder why the heck Stephen Hawking oscillated so much on the issue. He must've not seen your evidence
Is that aimed at me too?
I don't know. Do you oscillate on the issue too?
Funny that some of your posts come across as though you have feelings of superiority on this topic.
Considering one of your earlier comments, I find it quite amusing
The claim is that I'm a moron for not being aware of the ample evidence before me, and accepted by anyone with a brain in their head, that I'm mentally ill because I believe a god exists. It could be considered understandable if such an aggressive and insulting viewpoint was actually based on strong rational arguments. That it isn't makes it just arrogant superior bullying. Do you not think I have the right to bring attention to that? Or is that defence of myself just me being superior back in your mind?
I merely think atheists are mistaken and chasing straw man arguments. I do think they're incredibly closed minded (whilst professing to be on the cutting edge of open mindedness) and superior to the extent of bullying. But they have it in their power to become more informed and widely read on the issue and thus develop some humility on it. I'm not accusing them of being retarded and needing to be sectioned and put in a mental health facility.
Of course you have a right to bring attention to that. Maybe aim your comments towards the people who made those claims against you.
I definitely would if it wasn't a point of view widely held by most atheists. As it is such a widely held view, I prefer to assume it isn't a personal ad hominem attack by Kinky or Granny against me specifically but rather yet another argument against a god i.e that the world wide experience of it is just a mentally ill delusion or overexcited wishful thinking.
I'm not into this argument to get personal with people. I'm in it to try showing the flaws in the logic. Atheists claim their's is a view point founded solidly on robust rational arguments. I believe I have the right, in the spirit of intellectual debate, to challenge that.
I didn't pick on you Penelope. You asked if my comment on Hawking related to you. I don't know. My argument was with the points that have been made so far. That's all
I was referring to both of your responses. I came to the logical conclusion by the position of your latter comment and the word 'you' that it was an add-on to the first comment, which was aimed at me.
I'm not trying to make it personal, but you did give your (what I took to be condescending) views in direct reply to my pretty innocuous initial post. Please don't paint all atheists with the same brush. I rarely even enter into debates on my (dis)beliefs and I certainly never say people ought to be committed for theirs.
I'm open to different views on the subject, I don't feel threatened by other's.
"me neither but I'm not a fan of the black letter boxes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All religions come from an age when humanity hadn't a clue where the sun went at night. In this unenlightened age apparently god decided to reveal himself to humanity and he hasnt been seen since .You don't need to be an intellectual or a theologian to understand why the religious books we have today are flawed and full of inconsistencies and absurdities. None of the books mention Kangaroos! Kangaroo is such an exciting animal, why didn’t they mention it.. why why? I doubt they mention penguins either .
Or squirrels "The bible is however full of weird creatures like a cockatrice which was a mythological monster, half rooster and half snake, which could turn people into stone at a glance. Half rooster half snake doesn't sound that scary unless it's 50ft tall . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All religions come from an age when humanity hadn't a clue where the sun went at night. In this unenlightened age apparently god decided to reveal himself to humanity and he hasnt been seen since .You don't need to be an intellectual or a theologian to understand why the religious books we have today are flawed and full of inconsistencies and absurdities. None of the books mention Kangaroos! Kangaroo is such an exciting animal, why didn’t they mention it.. why why? I doubt they mention penguins either .
Or squirrels
The bible is however full of weird creatures like a cockatrice which was a mythological monster, half rooster and half snake, which could turn people into stone at a glance.
Half rooster half snake doesn't sound that scary unless it's 50ft tall . "Haha.. When would people wake up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmm now I'm beginning to wonder why the heck Stephen Hawking oscillated so much on the issue. He must've not seen your evidence
Is that aimed at me too?
I don't know. Do you oscillate on the issue too?
Funny that some of your posts come across as though you have feelings of superiority on this topic.
Considering one of your earlier comments, I find it quite amusing
The claim is that I'm a moron for not being aware of the ample evidence before me, and accepted by anyone with a brain in their head, that I'm mentally ill because I believe a god exists. It could be considered understandable if such an aggressive and insulting viewpoint was actually based on strong rational arguments. That it isn't makes it just arrogant superior bullying. Do you not think I have the right to bring attention to that? Or is that defence of myself just me being superior back in your mind?
I merely think atheists are mistaken and chasing straw man arguments. I do think they're incredibly closed minded (whilst professing to be on the cutting edge of open mindedness) and superior to the extent of bullying. But they have it in their power to become more informed and widely read on the issue and thus develop some humility on it. I'm not accusing them of being retarded and needing to be sectioned and put in a mental health facility.
Of course you have a right to bring attention to that. Maybe aim your comments towards the people who made those claims against you.
I definitely would if it wasn't a point of view widely held by most atheists. As it is such a widely held view, I prefer to assume it isn't a personal ad hominem attack by Kinky or Granny against me specifically but rather yet another argument against a god i.e that the world wide experience of it is just a mentally ill delusion or overexcited wishful thinking.
I'm not into this argument to get personal with people. I'm in it to try showing the flaws in the logic. Atheists claim their's is a view point founded solidly on robust rational arguments. I believe I have the right, in the spirit of intellectual debate, to challenge that.
I didn't pick on you Penelope. You asked if my comment on Hawking related to you. I don't know. My argument was with the points that have been made so far. That's all
I was referring to both of your responses. I came to the logical conclusion by the position of your latter comment and the word 'you' that it was an add-on to the first comment, which was aimed at me.
I'm not trying to make it personal, but you did give your (what I took to be condescending) views in direct reply to my pretty innocuous initial post. Please don't paint all atheists with the same brush. I rarely even enter into debates on my (dis)beliefs and I certainly never say people ought to be committed for theirs.
I'm open to different views on the subject, I don't feel threatened by other's.
me neither but I'm not a fan of the black letter boxes "Other's = other's views
I like all letter boxes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmm now I'm beginning to wonder why the heck Stephen Hawking oscillated so much on the issue. He must've not seen your evidence
Is that aimed at me too?
I don't know. Do you oscillate on the issue too?
Funny that some of your posts come across as though you have feelings of superiority on this topic.
Considering one of your earlier comments, I find it quite amusing
The claim is that I'm a moron for not being aware of the ample evidence before me, and accepted by anyone with a brain in their head, that I'm mentally ill because I believe a god exists. It could be considered understandable if such an aggressive and insulting viewpoint was actually based on strong rational arguments. That it isn't makes it just arrogant superior bullying. Do you not think I have the right to bring attention to that? Or is that defence of myself just me being superior back in your mind?
I merely think atheists are mistaken and chasing straw man arguments. I do think they're incredibly closed minded (whilst professing to be on the cutting edge of open mindedness) and superior to the extent of bullying. But they have it in their power to become more informed and widely read on the issue and thus develop some humility on it. I'm not accusing them of being retarded and needing to be sectioned and put in a mental health facility.
Of course you have a right to bring attention to that. Maybe aim your comments towards the people who made those claims against you.
I definitely would if it wasn't a point of view widely held by most atheists. As it is such a widely held view, I prefer to assume it isn't a personal ad hominem attack by Kinky or Granny against me specifically but rather yet another argument against a god i.e that the world wide experience of it is just a mentally ill delusion or overexcited wishful thinking.
I'm not into this argument to get personal with people. I'm in it to try showing the flaws in the logic. Atheists claim their's is a view point founded solidly on robust rational arguments. I believe I have the right, in the spirit of intellectual debate, to challenge that.
I didn't pick on you Penelope. You asked if my comment on Hawking related to you. I don't know. My argument was with the points that have been made so far. That's all
I was referring to both of your responses. I came to the logical conclusion by the position of your latter comment and the word 'you' that it was an add-on to the first comment, which was aimed at me.
I'm not trying to make it personal, but you did give your (what I took to be condescending) views in direct reply to my pretty innocuous initial post. Please don't paint all atheists with the same brush. I rarely even enter into debates on my (dis)beliefs and I certainly never say people ought to be committed for theirs.
I'm open to different views on the subject, I don't feel threatened by other's.
me neither but I'm not a fan of the black letter boxes
Other's = other's views
I like all letter boxes "red letter boxes are fine I have some pics of unusual places to see them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I didn't really need to make the assertion atheists and religious fundamentalists are joined at the hip... both equally dogmatic and intent on the destruction of each other did I really. I could've just stepped back and let the atheists on this thread prove the point for me
I too have read extremely widely Kinky. And I've yet to meet an atheist argument that isn't based upon fallacious, straw man, or circular thinking... even in a Christian context.
Even the whole notion of the burden being on the theist is flawed. We simply don't know if there's a god or not. There's no evidence for it. Yet there's also no evidence against it. Given this, the only rational defensible stance is 50/50 agnosticism... not the non-existence claim of atheism. As such, the burden lies on both atheism and theism to make a case for either the existence or non-existence of god. In this theism clearly has the lead as atheism spent most of the 20th century evading even making the case and I don't see that stopping any time soon. So atheism is basically the aggressive assertion that the atheist's view is the default normal view without ever having shown that's the case. As such it's just bullying under the guise of being intellectually superior. But I suspect many of us knew that already
Upon reflection perhaps it's this superiority that I couldn't live with... in whatever form, religious, anti-religious, intellectual, etc "Well I would say a pretty good example of a straw man argument is your continued assertion that all atheists positively believe that a god does not exist, whereas in fact the vast majority simply claim that there is no evidence that a god exists and therefore there is no rational reason to believe that one does. As for the burden of proof issue, I'm afraid it most definitely rests with the theist. If God is real then it presents the possibility that evidence of his, her or their existence could be found, which would disprove the belief that there's no reason to believe in a god. However there is no way to credibly disprove the existence of a god, and the burden of proof always rests on those who make an unfalsifiable claim. As for your claim that 50/50 agnosticism is the best option, I'm afraid that doesn't quite check out either. When you two two competing hypotheses, neither of which are proven, it is always best to choose the one that makes the fewest unfounded assumptions, which in this case makes atheism the more rational position. I do look forward to hearing some of the fallacious arguments you've heard for atheists, although I'm sure you'll consider this one of them. And for the record, as much as I started this thread to stir up some controversy, I don't condone the name calling that's been directed your way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was referring to both of your responses. I came to the logical conclusion by the position of your latter comment and the word 'you' that it was an add-on to the first comment, which was aimed at me. I'm not trying to make it personal, but you did give your (what I took to be condescending) views in direct reply to my pretty innocuous initial post. " I see what you're referring to now. You agreed with kinky that there was overwhelming evidence there was no god and asserted that "of course" the burden of proof was on theists. I joked back that I was looking forward to such evidence from kinky that "obviously" skews and biases the argument in atheism's favor, knowing full well that there is no such evidence and that neither kinky, you, nor any atheist, can currently win the argument that the burden of proof is solely on the theist. "Please don't paint all atheists with the same brush. I rarely even enter into debates on my (dis)beliefs and I certainly never say people ought to be committed for theirs. I'm open to different views on the subject, I don't feel threatened by other's." Great! I'm the same. I don't ever proselytise and only enter threads like this to respond to atheist proselytising, not to start the fight. I enjoy challenging myself deeply and seeing if my views survive deep critical scrutiny. I have deep respect for a few independent atheist thinkers. But unfortunately that independence of mind and deep understanding of the complex reasons why even the very cleverest amongst us still can't say if a god exists or not... unfortunately that kind of thinking is almost entirely absent online. Instead what we find online is a depressing clone war of people using the same tired arguments (the problem of evil, the burden of proof, no scientific evidence, the disagreements between the faiths, etc) that have been passed down as if they were logically infallible dogmas of their own. They aren't. That's all I'm saying It saddens me that you thought I was an interesting and open minded critical thinker until you discovered I was a theist. Since then you appear to have assumed I'm the opposite. In reality I've tested my beliefs to the hilt and continue to do so. They only survive because so far they haven't failed. So, if I've succumbed to painting all atheists with the same brush. Maybe you, and a few others on here, have done the same with theists | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I would say a pretty good example of a straw man argument is your continued assertion that all atheists positively believe that a god does not exist, whereas in fact the vast majority simply claim that there is no evidence that a god exists and therefore there is no rational reason to believe that one does." So are you suggesting god doesn't exist? Haha There isn't an atheist alive on this planet that doesn't believe god doesn't exist. We can all see that. If you genuinely think there's a 50/50 chance a god may or may not exist you're an agnostic, not an atheist.
"As for the burden of proof issue, I'm afraid it most definitely rests with the theist. If God is real then it presents the possibility that evidence of his, her or their existence could be found, which would disprove the belief that there's no reason to believe in a god. However there is no way to credibly disprove the existence of a god, and the burden of proof always rests on those who make an unfalsifiable claim." Sorry dude but that's a bit of a garbled mash up about unfalsifiable claims and burden of proof. In its current form it doesn't work as an argument. "As for your claim that 50/50 agnosticism is the best option, I'm afraid that doesn't quite check out either. When you two two competing hypotheses, neither of which are proven, it is always best to choose the one that makes the fewest unfounded assumptions, which in this case makes atheism the more rational position." Since atheism has yet to describe how the universe came into being without a god the absence of any unfounded assumptions on its side is merely contrived. We have no idea at all of how many unfounded assumptions it would require for atheism to be successful as a theory. Theism only makes one. Outside of this I'd argue that, when there is no evidence for or against something, another arbiter of which, if either, is a suitable null hypothesis is which one makes the most outlandish claim. In the case of atheism vs theism it's not yet clear which of them is the most outlandish. "I do look forward to hearing some of the fallacious arguments you've heard for atheists, although I'm sure you'll consider this one of them." Haha You got me
"And for the record, as much as I started this thread to stir up some controversy, I don't condone the name calling that's been directed your way." Thanks dude For me, believe it or not, this whole debate is very much just about batting around ideas and trying to stir thinking. In this regard I have much in common with atheists. It's just a shame, as your thread asked in the start, that it's a subject that's so emotional for people. I wish I too didn't get riled by it. But these days I content myself with riling back | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was referring to both of your responses. I came to the logical conclusion by the position of your latter comment and the word 'you' that it was an add-on to the first comment, which was aimed at me. I'm not trying to make it personal, but you did give your (what I took to be condescending) views in direct reply to my pretty innocuous initial post. I see what you're referring to now. You agreed with kinky that there was overwhelming evidence there was no god and asserted that "of course" the burden of proof was on theists. I joked back that I was looking forward to such evidence from kinky that "obviously" skews and biases the argument in atheism's favor, knowing full well that there is no such evidence and that neither kinky, you, nor any atheist, can currently win the argument that the burden of proof is solely on the theist. Please don't paint all atheists with the same brush. I rarely even enter into debates on my (dis)beliefs and I certainly never say people ought to be committed for theirs. I'm open to different views on the subject, I don't feel threatened by other's. Great! I'm the same. I don't ever proselytise and only enter threads like this to respond to atheist proselytising, not to start the fight. I enjoy challenging myself deeply and seeing if my views survive deep critical scrutiny. I have deep respect for a few independent atheist thinkers. But unfortunately that independence of mind and deep understanding of the complex reasons why even the very cleverest amongst us still can't say if a god exists or not... unfortunately that kind of thinking is almost entirely absent online. Instead what we find online is a depressing clone war of people using the same tired arguments (the problem of evil, the burden of proof, no scientific evidence, the disagreements between the faiths, etc) that have been passed down as if they were logically infallible dogmas of their own. They aren't. That's all I'm saying It saddens me that you thought I was an interesting and open minded critical thinker until you discovered I was a theist. Since then you appear to have assumed I'm the opposite. In reality I've tested my beliefs to the hilt and continue to do so. They only survive because so far they haven't failed. So, if I've succumbed to painting all atheists with the same brush. Maybe you, and a few others on here, have done the same with theists "As we are on a site where people routinely pretend to be couples when they are actually single guys, you might be sceptical that I actually have a female partner that doesn't exist merely in my head. That would be reasonable. . However, I could present you with loads of evidence that she exists independent of me. I could introduce you to her. She could tell you she was my partner. You could compare what she looks like with the pics on here and so on and so forth. There would then become a point when to not believe she exists independently of me would be unreasonable. You tell me you communicate with a god who exists otherwise than in your head. I am sceptical of that claim. Please tell me what evidence there is that could satisfy me that this God exists in the same way I could satisfy you my partner exists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Haven't started a potentially controversial thread on here yet so here goes. If you were looking for a relationship, how much would your potential partners religion, or lack there of, affect your decision." Not at all . I’m very spiritual , my wife isn’t at all . I’m a vegetarian , my wife isn’t . My wife smokes , I don’t . My wife drinks occasionally , I don’t at all . It’s good to be different | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was referring to both of your responses. I came to the logical conclusion by the position of your latter comment and the word 'you' that it was an add-on to the first comment, which was aimed at me. I'm not trying to make it personal, but you did give your (what I took to be condescending) views in direct reply to my pretty innocuous initial post. I see what you're referring to now. You agreed with kinky that there was overwhelming evidence there was no god and asserted that "of course" the burden of proof was on theists. I joked back that I was looking forward to such evidence from kinky that "obviously" skews and biases the argument in atheism's favor, knowing full well that there is no such evidence and that neither kinky, you, nor any atheist, can currently win the argument that the burden of proof is solely on the theist. Please don't paint all atheists with the same brush. I rarely even enter into debates on my (dis)beliefs and I certainly never say people ought to be committed for theirs. I'm open to different views on the subject, I don't feel threatened by other's. Great! I'm the same. I don't ever proselytise and only enter threads like this to respond to atheist proselytising, not to start the fight. I enjoy challenging myself deeply and seeing if my views survive deep critical scrutiny. I have deep respect for a few independent atheist thinkers. But unfortunately that independence of mind and deep understanding of the complex reasons why even the very cleverest amongst us still can't say if a god exists or not... unfortunately that kind of thinking is almost entirely absent online. Instead what we find online is a depressing clone war of people using the same tired arguments (the problem of evil, the burden of proof, no scientific evidence, the disagreements between the faiths, etc) that have been passed down as if they were logically infallible dogmas of their own. They aren't. That's all I'm saying It saddens me that you thought I was an interesting and open minded critical thinker until you discovered I was a theist. Since then you appear to have assumed I'm the opposite. In reality I've tested my beliefs to the hilt and continue to do so. They only survive because so far they haven't failed. So, if I've succumbed to painting all atheists with the same brush. Maybe you, and a few others on here, have done the same with theists
As we are on a site where people routinely pretend to be couples when they are actually single guys, you might be sceptical that I actually have a female partner that doesn't exist merely in my head. That would be reasonable. . However, I could present you with loads of evidence that she exists independent of me. I could introduce you to her. She could tell you she was my partner. You could compare what she looks like with the pics on here and so on and so forth. There would then become a point when to not believe she exists independently of me would be unreasonable.
You tell me you communicate with a god who exists otherwise than in your head. I am sceptical of that claim. Please tell me what evidence there is that could satisfy me that this God exists in the same way I could satisfy you my partner exists. "their isn't one he can't prove it, he's been brainwashed since birth but he will produce an essay in the defence of a life time of worship, if he was made to feel a God didn't exist his life until now would have been a lie....... Not easy to live with that one........ I blame the parents | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As we are on a site where people routinely pretend to be couples when they are actually single guys, you might be sceptical that I actually have a female partner that doesn't exist merely in my head. That would be reasonable. . However, I could present you with loads of evidence that she exists independent of me. I could introduce you to her. She could tell you she was my partner. You could compare what she looks like with the pics on here and so on and so forth. There would then become a point when to not believe she exists independently of me would be unreasonable. You tell me you communicate with a god who exists otherwise than in your head. I am sceptical of that claim. Please tell me what evidence there is that could satisfy me that this God exists in the same way I could satisfy you my partner exists. " Haha kudos for making your argument relevant to the site
Your premise is faulty. Since atheism can't currently win the argument that there obviously isn't a god, and that the onus lies solely on the theist to prove it, you must retreat to a 50/50 agnostic view. If you don't wish to do this you must first frame a convincing argument as to why we should pre bias the debate in your favour. Since it is exactly this argument that atheism hasn't currently won can we proceed under the assumption that this cannot be asserted and so a neutral stance of "dunno" is the only tenable starting point?
Given this, you now have to present an argument that your partner doesn't exist and compare it with the argument that your partner does exist. In the case of this debate we could simplify that as being the argument that dumb matter organised itself into intelligence vs the argument that intelligence organised itself into dumb matter. At this point in time you can't even form the logic for the first argument. Given that, we must revert to the current best hypothesis going, as happens in science, that the second argument is most plausible and tenable... intelligence was the first basis of everything, not matter. The opposite assumption is currently untenable. This forms a solid basis for theism being more credible than atheism, with or without the addition of empirical evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All I said was that this piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah." He said Jehovah!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"their isn't one he can't prove it, he's been brainwashed since birth but he will produce an essay in the defence of a life time of worship, if he was made to feel a God didn't exist his life until now would have been a lie....... Not easy to live with that one........ I blame the parents "I was brought up by an atheist mum and an agnostic dad who were both allergic to anything spiritual, let alone religious. They, and the rest of my extended family, kept away from religion. So I grew up an atheist and was one until my mid 20s when I was forced to reassess it and found, upon closer examination, none of the arguments against a god actually work. Since then I've read atheist and scientific literature broadly to try and test my beliefs, partly because it would be a hell of a lot easier for me if I could fit in with my family and be atheist again. What would atheism be without ad hominem attacks eh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As we are on a site where people routinely pretend to be couples when they are actually single guys, you might be sceptical that I actually have a female partner that doesn't exist merely in my head. That would be reasonable. . However, I could present you with loads of evidence that she exists independent of me. I could introduce you to her. She could tell you she was my partner. You could compare what she looks like with the pics on here and so on and so forth. There would then become a point when to not believe she exists independently of me would be unreasonable. You tell me you communicate with a god who exists otherwise than in your head. I am sceptical of that claim. Please tell me what evidence there is that could satisfy me that this God exists in the same way I could satisfy you my partner exists. Haha kudos for making your argument relevant to the site
Your premise is faulty. Since atheism can't currently win the argument that there obviously isn't a god, and that the onus lies solely on the theist to prove it, you must retreat to a 50/50 agnostic view. If you don't wish to do this you must first frame a convincing argument as to why we should pre bias the debate in your favour. Since it is exactly this argument that atheism hasn't currently won can we proceed under the assumption that this cannot be asserted and so a neutral stance of "dunno" is the only tenable starting point?
Given this, you now have to present an argument that your partner doesn't exist and compare it with the argument that your partner does exist. In the case of this debate we could simplify that as being the argument that dumb matter organised itself into intelligence vs the argument that intelligence organised itself into dumb matter. At this point in time you can't even form the logic for the first argument. Given that, we must revert to the current best hypothesis going, as happens in science, that the second argument is most plausible and tenable... intelligence was the first basis of everything, not matter. The opposite assumption is currently untenable. This forms a solid basis for theism being more credible than atheism, with or without the addition of empirical evidence. "It's a basic of logic that you can't prove a negative. Hence when someone asserts x exists where there is reason to doubt does exist, then the person making the assertion has to provide evidence to prove it. Youre making the assumption that Atheists make a positive theory as the origin of the universe.. They don't. They reject the god hypothesis as not being supported by evidence but don't necessarily put forward an alternative. Many are happy to say they don't know. Even, however, if we accept the premise that some sort of intelligence created the universe we are nowhere near evidence that this thing concerns itself with human beings and communicates with you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As we are on a site where people routinely pretend to be couples when they are actually single guys, you might be sceptical that I actually have a female partner that doesn't exist merely in my head. That would be reasonable. . However, I could present you with loads of evidence that she exists independent of me. I could introduce you to her. She could tell you she was my partner. You could compare what she looks like with the pics on here and so on and so forth. There would then become a point when to not believe she exists independently of me would be unreasonable. You tell me you communicate with a god who exists otherwise than in your head. I am sceptical of that claim. Please tell me what evidence there is that could satisfy me that this God exists in the same way I could satisfy you my partner exists. Haha kudos for making your argument relevant to the site
Your premise is faulty. Since atheism can't currently win the argument that there obviously isn't a god, and that the onus lies solely on the theist to prove it, you must retreat to a 50/50 agnostic view. If you don't wish to do this you must first frame a convincing argument as to why we should pre bias the debate in your favour. Since it is exactly this argument that atheism hasn't currently won can we proceed under the assumption that this cannot be asserted and so a neutral stance of "dunno" is the only tenable starting point?
Given this, you now have to present an argument that your partner doesn't exist and compare it with the argument that your partner does exist. In the case of this debate we could simplify that as being the argument that dumb matter organised itself into intelligence vs the argument that intelligence organised itself into dumb matter. At this point in time you can't even form the logic for the first argument. Given that, we must revert to the current best hypothesis going, as happens in science, that the second argument is most plausible and tenable... intelligence was the first basis of everything, not matter. The opposite assumption is currently untenable. This forms a solid basis for theism being more credible than atheism, with or without the addition of empirical evidence.
It's a basic of logic that you can't prove a negative. Hence when someone asserts x exists where there is reason to doubt does exist, then the person making the assertion has to provide evidence to prove it.
Youre making the assumption that Atheists make a positive theory as the origin of the universe.. They don't. They reject the god hypothesis as not being supported by evidence but don't necessarily put forward an alternative. Many are happy to say they don't know.
Even, however, if we accept the premise that some sort of intelligence created the universe we are nowhere near evidence that this thing concerns itself with human beings and communicates with you. "Theism asserts the existence of a god that's infinite. Run your logic back through that and see what it does of your positive/negative claim argument. This is what I mean about straw man. No theists anywhere (save perhaps a few nutty literalists) claim a finite god exists. The burden of proof argument works fine for a finite thing. But infinity breaks it. As for your end remark about how admitting there's a god doesn't mean you were wrong to shout down theists as loonies... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are you suggesting god doesn't exist? Haha There isn't an atheist alive on this planet that doesn't believe god doesn't exist. We can all see that. If you genuinely think there's a 50/50 chance a god may or may not exist you're an agnostic, not an atheist."You do seem to generalising from some of the more toxic elements of the online atheist community. Me and many others base our rejection of the existence of god on the fact that there is no proof. If I was to shown compelling proof I'd be inclined to change my mind. I certainly don't think there is a 50/50 chance as I explained "Sorry dude but that's a bit of a garbled mash up about unfalsifiable claims and burden of proof. In its current form it doesn't work as an argument." I'll admit it wasn't the most eloquent explanation, but the notion of the burden of proof resting on those making an unfalsifiable claim is well established. See Russell's teapot or the dragon in the garage from Carl Sagan for more on that. "Since atheism has yet to describe how the universe came into being without a god the absence of any unfounded assumptions on its side is merely contrived. We have no idea at all of how many unfounded assumptions it would require for atheism to be successful as a theory. Theism only makes one. Outside of this I'd argue that, when there is no evidence for or against something, another arbiter of which, if either, is a suitable null hypothesis is which one makes the most outlandish claim. In the case of atheism vs theism it's not yet clear which of them is the most outlandish." Atheism makes no comment on the origins of the universe. It is merely the absence of a believe in god. Most atheists accept the big bang theory as the best explanation for the origins of the universe as it is very well founded on scientific evidence. Also atheism doesn't need to make any unfounded assumptions, the only thing it needs to be successful is for there to be a lack of proof that god exists. Theism in fact has to make several assumptions, including but limited to, the existence of the god itself, that the god created and interacts with the universe, and that there is some form of life after death. According to your own test theism definitely becomes the more outlandish position. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are you suggesting god doesn't exist? Haha There isn't an atheist alive on this planet that doesn't believe god doesn't exist. We can all see that. If you genuinely think there's a 50/50 chance a god may or may not exist you're an agnostic, not an atheist.
You do seem to generalising from some of the more toxic elements of the online atheist community. Me and many others base our rejection of the existence of god on the fact that there is no proof. If I was to shown compelling proof I'd be inclined to change my mind. I certainly don't think there is a 50/50 chance as I explained"Sorry dude. Lots of fallacies I'm going to unpack until this thread dies The fallacy of there being no proof. For a start, if god's existence were proven none of us would be arguing about it would we. So let's try and be a bit more accommodating and talk about lack of evidence. Now you tell me what you would take to be evidence. If you don't know what evidence for or against would look like how do you know if we have any evidence or not?
"Sorry dude but that's a bit of a garbled mash up about unfalsifiable claims and burden of proof. In its current form it doesn't work as an argument. I'll admit it wasn't the most eloquent explanation, but the notion of the burden of proof resting on those making an unfalsifiable claim is well established. See Russell's teapot or the dragon in the garage from Carl Sagan for more on that. " I don't get this. First there's the assertion that the assertion that god exists is unfalsifiable. How do you know? It certainly isn't unfalsifiable in principle. And what of the claim there isn't a god. How might we falsify that? Indeed, whilst the theists claim is quite specific and so vulnerable to being found wrong, the atheists (as kinky displays by conceding god might exist except it isn't god) is eminently slippery and unfalsifiable. Indeed, it has been asserted by many atheists that it would literally take a miracle to falsify atheism. That sounds pretty unfalsifiable to me
"Since atheism has yet to describe how the universe came into being without a god the absence of any unfounded assumptions on its side is merely contrived. We have no idea at all of how many unfounded assumptions it would require for atheism to be successful as a theory. Theism only makes one. Outside of this I'd argue that, when there is no evidence for or against something, another arbiter of which, if either, is a suitable null hypothesis is which one makes the most outlandish claim. In the case of atheism vs theism it's not yet clear which of them is the most outlandish. Atheism makes no comment on the origins of the universe. It is merely the absence of a believe in god. Most atheists accept the big bang theory as the best explanation for the origins of the universe as it is very well founded on scientific evidence. Also atheism doesn't need to make any unfounded assumptions, the only thing it needs to be successful is for there to be a lack of proof that god exists. Theism in fact has to make several assumptions, including but limited to, the existence of the god itself, that the god created and interacts with the universe, and that there is some form of life after death. According to your own test theism definitely becomes the more outlandish position. " The big bang theory doesn't explain how the universe came to exist. It is merely a description of part of the process of its growth after it came into existence. Theism forwards the hypothesis that an intelligence created the universe. Atheism forwards the hypothesis that... hmm no... Atheism doesn't actually have a contrary hypothesis. You can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket. The same goes here. So we're forced to revert to theism as the best current hypothesis. This is a shame as, considering atheists think it's so obviously outlandish, you would've thought one of them would've come up with something more credible. Should be pretty easy no? Finally, theists only need assert the existence of an infinite living intelligence underpinning reality. From there it logically follows that any other forms of life and intelligence comes from it and returns to it. That's not a separate claim. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In my religion, we worship cock. Is that ok? " At this point I'd take it over arguing with atheists | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was referring to both of your responses. I came to the logical conclusion by the position of your latter comment and the word 'you' that it was an add-on to the first comment, which was aimed at me. I'm not trying to make it personal, but you did give your (what I took to be condescending) views in direct reply to my pretty innocuous initial post. I see what you're referring to now. You agreed with kinky that there was overwhelming evidence there was no god and asserted that "of course" the burden of proof was on theists. I joked back that I was looking forward to such evidence from kinky that "obviously" skews and biases the argument in atheism's favor, knowing full well that there is no such evidence and that neither kinky, you, nor any atheist, can currently win the argument that the burden of proof is solely on the theist. Please don't paint all atheists with the same brush. I rarely even enter into debates on my (dis)beliefs and I certainly never say people ought to be committed for theirs. I'm open to different views on the subject, I don't feel threatened by other's. Great! I'm the same. I don't ever proselytise and only enter threads like this to respond to atheist proselytising, not to start the fight. I enjoy challenging myself deeply and seeing if my views survive deep critical scrutiny. I have deep respect for a few independent atheist thinkers. But unfortunately that independence of mind and deep understanding of the complex reasons why even the very cleverest amongst us still can't say if a god exists or not... unfortunately that kind of thinking is almost entirely absent online. Instead what we find online is a depressing clone war of people using the same tired arguments (the problem of evil, the burden of proof, no scientific evidence, the disagreements between the faiths, etc) that have been passed down as if they were logically infallible dogmas of their own. They aren't. That's all I'm saying It saddens me that you thought I was an interesting and open minded critical thinker until you discovered I was a theist. Since then you appear to have assumed I'm the opposite. In reality I've tested my beliefs to the hilt and continue to do so. They only survive because so far they haven't failed. So, if I've succumbed to painting all atheists with the same brush. Maybe you, and a few others on here, have done the same with theists "No, I still think you're an interesting and open minded critical thinker | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Haven't started a potentially controversial thread on here yet so here goes. If you were looking for a relationship, how much would your potential partners religion, or lack there of, affect your decision." So long as they’re not a Sith. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In my religion, we worship cock. Is that ok? At this point I'd take it over arguing with atheists "Check out Kanamara Matsuri -the festival of penis in Japan | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, I still think you're an interesting and open minded critical thinker "Yippee! What a lovely result from a difficult thread. This is one of those archetypal "boy who hears voices in plug sockets meets atheist no nonsense girl" love stories xx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The bible strictly forbids wearing fabric of two different substances mixed. That's mosaic law - would apply to Jews only. You generally really know your stuff Frisky but I thought this was just an element of the Old Testament and the Torah, which included direction to the Jews but has more recently had its scope widened to include Christians and believers in the bible, as the word of God. Most of the gay bashers, using the bible as source material rely on Leviticus. I'm inclined to see the meaning from the context of the world at the time of its written production - as well as relevant to the people of that area and era. As for dating, I'd probably struggle with someone who devoted much of their time to religious activities, such as worship and find that we'd probably disagree on too much, for a relationship to have a great chance of success. But, I'm still open to the possibilities. I'm atheist. A cynic might say that people. "Interpret" religious books to allow them to do the stuff they want to do and not do the stuff they don't want to do... " I think that's human nature full-stop generally. We have confirmation and other cognitive biases that unconsciously distort what we perceive and glean from the world, fitting it what suits us etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Haven't started a potentially controversial thread on here yet so here goes. If you were looking for a relationship, how much would your potential partners religion, or lack there of, affect your decision." As long as we could both respect our view points without enforcing them on the other that's fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Haven't started a potentially controversial thread on here yet so here goes. If you were looking for a relationship, how much would your potential partners religion, or lack there of, affect your decision." religion like fig biscuits should be banned | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In my religion, we worship cock. Is that ok? At this point I'd take it over arguing with atheists ". Having no belief in somebody else's fantasy does not make people atheists, it just makes them rational. Some folks want to believe in the supernatural and that's up to them, most others are happy with a rational, explained, observable natural world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You do seem to generalising from some of the more toxic elements of the online atheist community. Me and many others base our rejection of the existence of god on the fact that there is no proof. If I was to shown compelling proof I'd be inclined to change my mind. I certainly don't think there is a 50/50 chance as I explained Sorry dude. Lots of fallacies I'm going to unpack until this thread dies The fallacy of there being no proof. For a start, if god's existence were proven none of us would be arguing about it would we. So let's try and be a bit more accommodating and talk about lack of evidence. Now you tell me what you would take to be evidence. If you don't know what evidence for or against would look like how do you know if we have any evidence or not? "Firstly it seems somewhat naïve to assume that people stop arguing about something when it is proven. The Evolution vs Creationism debate is going strong as ever in America despite the fact that evolution through natural selection is about as well proven as anything can be. As for what evidence I would accept, there's any number of things. It could be a demonstrative that prayers are actually responded to, it could be an event that's considered to be a miracle that cannot be credibly be explained in natural terms, or even the god making itself directly visible. I would consider these, and quite a few more things, as compelling evidence. I would be interested to know what you consider to be evidence for the existence of a god. "Sorry dude but that's a bit of a garbled mash up about unfalsifiable claims and burden of proof. In its current form it doesn't work as an argument. I'll admit it wasn't the most eloquent explanation, but the notion of the burden of proof resting on those making an unfalsifiable claim is well established. See Russell's teapot or the dragon in the garage from Carl Sagan for more on that. I don't get this. First there's the assertion that the assertion that god exists is unfalsifiable. How do you know? It certainly isn't unfalsifiable in principle. And what of the claim there isn't a god. How might we falsify that? Indeed, whilst the theists claim is quite specific and so vulnerable to being found wrong, the atheists (as kinky displays by conceding god might exist except it isn't god) is eminently slippery and unfalsifiable. Indeed, it has been asserted by many atheists that it would literally take a miracle to falsify atheism. That sounds pretty unfalsifiable to me "Proving the absence of anything can be difficult, proving the absence of something that is already immaterial is impossible by any objective means. The claims of theists can't overcome this regardless of how specific they are. Also you seem to be agreeing with the idea that atheism needing a miracle to falsify it makes it unfalsifiable. If you are you're suggesting that miracles don't happen and are essentially arguing against you're own position "Since atheism has yet to describe how the universe came into being without a god the absence of any unfounded assumptions on its side is merely contrived. We have no idea at all of how many unfounded assumptions it would require for atheism to be successful as a theory. Theism only makes one. Outside of this I'd argue that, when there is no evidence for or against something, another arbiter of which, if either, is a suitable null hypothesis is which one makes the most outlandish claim. In the case of atheism vs theism it's not yet clear which of them is the most outlandish. Atheism makes no comment on the origins of the universe. It is merely the absence of a believe in god. Most atheists accept the big bang theory as the best explanation for the origins of the universe as it is very well founded on scientific evidence. Also atheism doesn't need to make any unfounded assumptions, the only thing it needs to be successful is for there to be a lack of proof that god exists. Theism in fact has to make several assumptions, including but limited to, the existence of the god itself, that the god created and interacts with the universe, and that there is some form of life after death. According to your own test theism definitely becomes the more outlandish position. The big bang theory doesn't explain how the universe came to exist. It is merely a description of part of the process of its growth after it came into existence. Theism forwards the hypothesis that an intelligence created the universe. Atheism forwards the hypothesis that... hmm no... Atheism doesn't actually have a contrary hypothesis. You can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket. The same goes here. So we're forced to revert to theism as the best current hypothesis. This is a shame as, considering atheists think it's so obviously outlandish, you would've thought one of them would've come up with something more credible. Should be pretty easy no?" This is essentially a god of the gaps argument. It is true as far as I know that there is no scientific consensus on the origin of the singularity that was the source of the big bang. But you cannot assume from that there was an intelligence responsible. If you do assume that, there's still no proof, it's simply wishful thinking "Finally, theists only need assert the existence of an infinite living intelligence underpinning reality. From there it logically follows that any other forms of life and intelligence comes from it and returns to it. That's not a separate claim. " Contrary to what you've said earlier, that is an incredibly vague claim. Even if I was to grant you that this intelligence exists, you still have no basis to draw conclusions about the nature of that intelligence. And without knowing anything about it, it does not logically follow that all other life comes from and returns to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Some folks want to believe in the supernatural and that's up to them, most others are happy with a rational, explained, observable natural world. " Some folks don't want to believe in the supernatural and that's up to them, others are happy with a rational, explained, observable supernatural world. FTFY | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
