On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 04:33:04 GMT, Will <someone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>> > Well, you certainly could have fooled me. I thought you were
>>> > attempting to defend the rationality of believing in these
>>> > creatures. If you will simply admit that it is not rational, even
>>> > though it is your personal belief, we could leave it at that.
>>>
>>> But you haven't proved to me that my belief isn't rational.
>>
>> I cannot use reason to talk you out of a position you hold for your
>> emotional needs.
>>
>>> Furthermore,
>>> you seem to mistake my belief for a belief in magical little forest
>>> creatures, or something of the like--in which case it's no wonder you
>>> would think my belief isn't rational.
>>
>> This is perhaps the most difficult concept to get religious people to
>> understand...to people who do not believe what you believe, IT IS NO
>> DIFFERENT. Your mythology is not any different than any other
>> concieved by the mind of man. It is not special, and deserves no
>> special treatment simply because it is im****tant to you. This is what
>> Mr. Lee was attempting to get people to understand earlier within this
>> thread.
>>
>
>While I don't agree with it, I respect your belief.
What "belief"? We're simply describing the rest of the world outside
your religion.
>>> >> > Why on earth should I allow special pleading for *your* god.
>>>
>>> >> I didn't know He was on trial?
>>>
>>> > Then I have misinterpreted your actions.
>>>
>>> I guess you have.
>>
>> No explanation as to what your actions were trying to achieve? Why you
>> began the discussion?
>
>That's because I didn't. All I did was answer a question that I believe
>one of you atheists posted. So, the real question is why did one of you
>atheists post this question into the Christ NGs?
Giving you a taste of the incessant stream of what you do to us.
Personally, I think it makes him just as ill-mannered a boor as the
never ending stream of Christians who do it to us.
>>
>> snip
>>
>>> >> >> You're the one that claims that God doesn't exist, so it is
>>> >> >> your burden to prove that He doesn't.
>>>
>>> >> > You lecture me on logical fallacies, and then turn right around
>>> >> > and ask me to prove a negative? Odd strategy. *You* are the one
>>> >> > making the positive claim.
>>>
>>> >> No, I'm not making a claim, I'm simply stating a belief. Are you
>>> >> going to argue with me about what I believe? Furthermore,
>>> >> argumentum ad ignorantum goes both ways, as neither the abscence
>>> >> of proof of what is, nor the abscence of proof of what isn't,
>>> >> constitutes a valid argument. Therefore, you are right that I
>>> >> used a logical fallacy, but by recognizing that you should also
>>> >> recognize the fallacy of your argument stating that the lack of
>>> >> proof of God means a default position of no God, which is doubly
>>> >> fallacious, for it assumes only two possible stances to take
>>> >> (false dichitomy) and appeals to ignorance.
>>>
>>> > Only if one considers the existence of gods *im****tant*.
>>>
>>> Do you consider the non-existence of God (or gods) *im****tant*?
What a remarkably stupid question. If only these idiots could grasp
the real world.
Does the Christian poster consider the existence or non-existence of
Zeus *im****tant"?
Or does he see Zeus as merely part of the ancient Greek religion, and
the subject of myths and legends?
Then why can't he grasp that this is all his god is, outside his
religion?
>> No, I consider the erratic behavior of *people* who believe in gods
>> im****tant.
Yep.
>Actually, I'd rather deal with people who believe in God than people who
>don't, as most who don't would see death as an escape from
accountibility.
>That's why I often hear among atheists that if they knew the world would
>end tomorrow, they'd do a certain act to anything that moves. That's why
>atheists (even those who just don't know and don't care if God exists)
>would be quicker to lie, cheat, murder, steal, swear, etc., as opposed to
>those who are in Christ would, or even those who believe in some kind of
>higher power that will hold them accountable would.
Sheer, religiously motivated bigotry and nastiness.
>I think the danger in religion, however, comes when it begins to be led
by
>man, rather than God.
What a remarkably stupid thing to say in the real world outside your
religion.
Where did you demonstrate its real-world existence outside your
religion before stupidly talking about it as though it were real
instead of merely your religious belief, in the rest of the world
outside your religion where that is all it is?
> In this, I must agree with you, that once man (or
to
>be more PC humans) take owner****p of the house of God, and begins to
seize
>control from God over His subjects, than we get into trouble. If you
>examine the book of Revelation, the harlot that sits on top of the
7-headed
>10-horned beast has a close resemblence to the Papacy of the Catholic
>Church, and the prophecy itself has been fulfilled by the abominations
that
>the Catholic Church has done with the Kings of Europe (unfortunatly,
>there's also a beast mentioned in this book that has a close resemblence
to
>the US).
Prove all this bull**** using real-world, outside your religion
evidence.
We're not Christians and don't grant your inside-Christianity
presumptions. It is rude and stupid to talk at (not with) us as though
we did, when you know we don't.
It shows you can't think, and that you have nothing. IF you had
anything you would have used it instead because you know your audience
doesn't grant your doctrinal presumptions in exactly the same way you
don't grant Hindu doctrinal presumptions.
It's not rocket science, and doing it tells us plenty of unflattering
things about you.
You need to get out more, in the real world which doesn't revolve
around the hypothetical object of your religious beliefs.
>> Allow me to repeat myself..since there is no evidence
>> creatures outside the natural universe affect anything inside it,
>> whether or not gods exist is *irrelevant*.
>
>Great. Than let's be on our way with our own beliefs than.
Your beliefs. He's talking about the real world, where it's merely
what you believe until you back it up using real world methods, real
world evidence, etc.
If you kept them to yourself, there would be no demands for proof -
which are merely a polite version of "put up or shut up".
>>> > Special
>>> > pleading, pure and simple. What would be anything other than a lack
>>> > of existence?
>>>
>>> The false dichotomy wasn't in whether He exists or not, but whether
>>> you chose to believe if He exists or you chose to believe He doesn't
>>> exist. There is the third option that I had already provided, and
>>> perhaps, for a mystical God, you may have given a 4th or 5th (though
>>> I wouldn't concsider them).
>>>
>>> > Partial existence (could that even be *defined*?)? Previous
>>> > or future existence? Either something is, or it is not.
>>
>> Your failure to comment upon this statement is noted.
>
>I commented above (4th or 5th option).
No. You gave inside-the religion gobbledygook.
>>
>>> > Intolerant? For simply asking that you people keep your mythologies
>>> > to yourselves?
>>>
>>> What mythologies? First of all, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you,
>>> but I'm posting from a Christian ng (granted, you may be posting from
>>> alt.atheism, but that's the way this ng was originally crossposted).
>>> Secondly, would you have us Christians stay in the closet?
>>
>> Not when you're shopping, or taking your kids to school or the ball
>> game. But when you climb on your high horse about your irrational
>> beliefs in public you should remember your "holy" texts:
>>
>> "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for
>> they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the
>> streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They
>> have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet,
>> and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in
>> secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee
>> openly."
>>
>> -Matthew 6:5-6
>
>Great. You've just quoted about prayer and praise, neither of which I
have
>done in usenet (though I have publicly blessed, but that's different).
It's something Christians don't even notice but expect everybody else
to put up with. The last time I used my local Stop&Shop supermarket
the musical wallpaper was some woman singing about how good something
called God was.
But he merely quoted a book that you are supposed to follow even
though it is worthless in the rest of the world outside your religion.
>See below, as this text is more relevant:
>
> 13Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour,
>wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to
be
>cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
Worthless bull**** in the real world outside your religion.
> 14Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be
>hid.
More worthless bull**** in the real world outside your religion.
> 15Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a
>candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
Even more worthless bull**** in the real world outside your religion.
> 16Let your light so ****ne before men, that they may see your good works,
>and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Still more worthless bull**** in the real world outside your religion.
>Matthew 5:13-16, KJV
It takes an unthinking moron to cite the Bible at people he knows
aren't Christian as though they should take it seriously.
He quoted it to you because YOU on the other hand say you take it
seriously.
>What you seem to be advocating is that Christ followers put their flame
>under a bushel where it cannot be seen.
Where did you demonstrate that there was anything to follow in the
real world outside your religion, before rudely and stupidly presuming
it to people you know (but don't care) are outside your religion?
>>
>>> If so, how
>>> ironic? I'm here, and I'm a follower of Christ, so get used to it.
>>
>> I don't mind you in the streets, I mind your brethren's dithering
>> about in my government and destroying property & lives.
>
>Well, if there are bretheren destroying property and lives, then they
>aren't mine. If there are bretheren of mine, however, meddling in
>government, than have they not every right that you would have to meddle
in
>government? Don't they pay taxes the same as you?
They have no right to impose their religion. Again this is the real
world outside your religion, where yours is one of hundreds of
different ones.
Are you pretending they don't have creationists on your planet? Or
discrimination all the way up to the Presidency against atheists
(George Bush senior saying atheists shouldn't be citizens), etc?
>> Reel them in,
>> rather than dismiss them as "not true christian/muslim/hindu/****nto,
>> etc." and I will cease telling the truth about your mythology to all
>> who will listen.
>
>Good luck finding listeners amongst my bretheren.
Keep your bull**** to yourself and you won't get told where to shove
it.
The problem is that Christians are to stupid to grasp that when they
are told where to shove it, this is a reaction not an unprovoked
initial action.
>>
>>> > For pointing out what the irrationality of religion leads
>>> > to?
>>>
>>> Who said anything about religion? We're talking about God here, not
>>> religion.
>>
>> Now that's much more ironic than anything you've accused me of saying!
>
>But it's the truth. When Jesus came, He destroyed the temple. He
doesn't
>want man lording God over them for his/her own personal gain. That's
where
>we get in trouble. He just wants that His followers love God, love their
>neighbor, and even to love their enemy. After all, to love God and to
love
>your neighbor IS what the law and the prophets are all about.
>
>>
>>> In fact, if you look at all the things Jesus said and did,
>>> they stood as a harsh criticism to the existing religious structures
>>> of the time.
>>
>> Is *alleged* to have said and did. As I have previously demonstrated,
>> evidence he existed at all is extremely tenuous.
>
>Well, I believe He said and did those things. You can believe as you
wish.
>
>>
>>> > I often ask why religious opinions are seemingly immune to the
>>> > kind of criticisms one would level at political or s****ts opinions.
>>> > I keep recieving the answer, "..because it's personal." Perhaps if
>>> > it is so personal, it should be kept to one's self.
>>>
>>> OK. So I guess, according to you, that comming out of the closet
>>> should be reserved only to gays, and Christians are to stay in the
>>> closet, or behind closed doors. If you really want to know why
>>> religious opinions are seemingly immune, it's for the same reason
>>> that alternative lifestyles are seemingly immune.
>>
>> False comparison. Homo***uals actually can be proven to exist, and are
>> a subset of humanity.
>
>Great. I can prove to you that Christians exist. I can prove to you
that
>Muslims exist. I can prove to you that Jews exist. I can even prove to
>you that Hindi's exist. Do you deny that these people exist?
>
>If requested, I can prove to you that these are even a subset of
humanity.
>So, I don't see how the comparison is false.
>
>[snippity snip]
>
>>> >> Irregardless, I think you're confusing Catholocism and the
>>> >> Protestant splinters of Catholicism with Christianity.
>>>
>>> > "No true Scotsman...."? I somehow knew there'd be bagpipes before
>>> > this was over.
>>>
>>> ???
>>>
>>> I must have missed something. Only Scottsman I know are from Brave
>>> Hart and the original Star Trek.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
>
>IC. Well, in this case it would be different, however. As a Scottsman
is
>a Scottsman no matter his actions. But it is the belief, and the actions
>that are a consequence of a belief, that define a Christian. In short, a
>Christian isn't a Christian just because he/she wants to be, or claims to
>be, just as a Muslim isn't a Muslim just because he/she claims to be, nor
>is a gay even a gay just because he/she claims to be. They all have to
do
>with a belief (in the gays case, the belief is more hormonal, but a
belief
>about the attraction of a mate) and the consequences.
>
>In essence, no true gay man would shack up with a woman. Otherwise, he's
>not gay, he's bi. No true Christian would commit murder (as defined by
>Jesus, which is to be angry at one's brother without cause), otherwise,
how
>could they claim to be with Christ and yet strike against Him.
>
>The book of James says:
>
> 14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and
>have not works? can faith save him?
>
> 15If a brother or sister be ****d, and destitute of daily food,
>
> 16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and
filled;
>notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the
>body; what doth it profit?
>
> 17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
>
> 18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy
faith
>without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
>
> 19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also
>believe, and tremble.
>
> 20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
>
> 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered
Isaac
>his son upon the altar?
>
> 22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith
made
>perfect?
>
> 23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and
>it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend
of
>God.
>
> 24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith
only.
>
> 25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she
had
>received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
>
> 26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is
>dead also.
>
>James 2:14-26, KJV
>
>Therefore, how can a man (or woman), without the works of their faith,
>claim rightfully to be of the faith of Christ? If any person comes to
you
>cursing you, and claiming to be a Christian, know that they are deceived,
>and do not fall into their deception.
>
>>
>> snip again
>>
>>> >> What would you do if your g/f turned to
>>> >> Christ? Would you reject her as well?
>>>
>>> > Honestly, I haven't really thought about it. It would depend upon
>>> > how seriously she took it. I really don't believe there's much
>>> > chance of that happening. Discovering gods are not im****tant isn't
>>> > really a decision one makes-it's a discovery one achieves. From our
>>> > point of view, it would be like returning to a belief in Santa.
>>> > Down deep inside, we'd always know we were wrong. To use a
>>> > religious term, once the genie is out of the bottle, you can never
>>> > put it back in.
>>>
>>> Than clearly you either haven't heard of or are dismissing the story
>>> of the prodigal son.
>>
>> Oh, I've heard it...it's just that it is no more "inspirational" to me
>> than a Batman comic book. It's an old fable, meant to soothe the fears
>> of an ancient, superstitious people. To re-assure them that the tribe
>> would always welcome them back-as long as they respect tribal law.
>>
>>> I'll let you do the google search on it should it peek
>>> your interest.
>>
>> Nah, my parents were Christians. I've heard it before....
|
