Arvestaked Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 This is full of assumptions..., I have absolutly no reason to like it to be so. I am neither an atheist neither a theist. What I have against, is that the name of science is used to sell ideologies (in this case atheism), like it or not, this is what is done. This is not a promotion of science, the goal of the book (again the one which I have read) is not about the beauty of evolution, it is not about the beauty of the universe. Those are the promotion of science, teaching the beauty of nature. As for delusion, this is not what it is to be delusional, adhering to a position because you have been taught about it since childhood is not delusional. The term delusion is a psychitratic term with a clear classification..., it is actually human to believe that everything must have come from somewhere. This is how superstitions have emerged. It's human. We're in a circular discussion, so I will stop here. Yes, you did have a reason to like it to be so. You may say you are neither this nor that but you seem to have a respect for religious thought which is reason enough. There is nothing ideological about what he talks about. It is absolutely a promotion of scientific thought. I can't even begin to understand how you miss that. Dawkins talks extensively about the beauty of the universe. I don't think you have read more that a title of his books. But, regardless, it is not even necessary to mention the beauty of the universe to promote scientific thought: it can be done simply through logic. Re: "everything must come from somewhere." Again, this tells me you have not read any Dawkins. First it doesn't matter what thought-related predispositions humans have, it is unrelated to what is or is not actually true. Second, evolution has not provided humans with the perspective to intuitively understand things like incredible lengths of time and space because it would have been unrelated to fitness for survival. And logically the impossibility of having that perspective for infinity would follow. Re: delusion. Your comment on this tells me you either have not read TGD or have a poor memory of it. If I'm not mistake, he addresses his choice of words in the introduction. And it is not only a psychiatric term. That is just wrong. All discussions with people who cannot accept that there is no truth to superstition and religion become circular. It all stems from the inability to understand the non-theists arguments or the flaws in their own arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 It's time to share your own opinion before you coment on ours - DO YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD EXISTS OR NOT? Ashot, are you joking now? How many times do I have to answer this? I do NOT blieve God Exists. I do NOT believe God does not exist. Why does this make you so uncomfortable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Ashot, are you joking now? How many times do I have to answer this? I do NOT blieve God Exists. I do NOT believe God does not exist. Why does this make you so uncomfortable? Make up your mind, it seems to me your the one who is creating the confusion in here!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 My mind is very well made up. I have not created any confusion. I have always said the same thing as far as I remember. I don't know what you are talking about Ashot jan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Make up your mind, it seems to me your the one who is creating the confusion in here!!! There is no confusion here, this is what a real scientist is. He just does not take position period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 There is no confusion here, this is what a real scientist is. He just does not take position period. I would stress that by being truly logical and scientific one would be convinced there is no reason to believe in a god and believing in one is a illogical choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 I would stress that by being truly logical and scientific one would be convinced there is no reason to believe in a god and believing in one is a illogical choice. This is actually a lack of understanding of scientific process. Scientistific language is ''not enough evidence found'' or more accuratly ''failed to support''... A scientist will not bother finding reasons for the non-existance of something but rather will require evidence for its existance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 This is actually a lack of understanding of scientific process. Scientistific language is ''not enough evidence found'' or more accuratly ''failed to support''... A scientist will not bother finding reasons for the non-existance of something but rather will require evidence for its existance. I do not have a lack of understanding of the scientific process. My understanding surpasses yours for sure. Where are your reading comprehension skills? Accepting that there are no reasons is not the same as seeking reasons for the non-existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 I do not have a lack of understanding of the scientific process. My understanding surpasses yours for sure. Where are your reading comprehension skills? Accepting that there are no reasons is not the same as seeking reasons for the non-existence. You arrogance is the reason why on every discussion you push people out. I understood it right. there is no reason to believe in a god This in itself is OK (but still debatable), but you falsely assume that no reason to believe is equal to believing the nonexistance of a god, which is what atheism is. It may be a detail for some, but this is different. Not taking position is different than taking a position, which you have done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Just to complement this, if we were to use your logic, a medication which did not undergone a study to measure its effectivness is not effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 (edited) You arrogance is the reason why on every discussion you push people out. I understood it right. there is no reason to believe in a god This in itself is OK (but still debatable), but you falsely assume that no reason to believe is equal to believing the nonexistance of a god, which is what atheism is. It may be a detail for some, but this is different. Not taking position is different than taking a position, which you have done. My arrogance? I wouldn't come off as arrogant if people didn't make mistakes. The following exchange shows you did not understand anything correctly: Me: I would stress that by being truly logical and scientific one would be convinced there is no reason to believe in a god and believing in one is an illogical choice. You: This is actually a lack of understanding of scientific process. Scientistific language is ''not enough evidence found'' or more accuratly ''failed to support''... A scientist will not bother finding reasons for the non-existance of something but rather will require evidence for its existance. I never falsely assumed anything. What is it about "I would stress that by being truly logical and scientific one would be convinced there is no reason to believe in a god and believing in one is an illogical choice" that qualifies as a false assumption? For one thing, I never called myself an atheist; I said that I consider myself one who places his confidence in logic reason and the scientific method. And I have always argued that there is no reason to have supernatural beliefs. Furthermore, back when I called myself an agnostic I had many arguments with atheists and I can tell you that the lines between atheism as it is accepted now and agnosticism as it is taken to it's logical end are obscured. What Richard Dawkins calls atheism is what I believe is agnosticism and on that point I disagree with him. And though it is a very unimportant point it is why I no longer refer to myself as being either one. Edited April 14, 2008 by Arvestaked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Just to complement this, if we were to use your logic, a medication which did not undergone a study to measure its effectivness is not effective. I think I have sufficiently illustrated that this is absolutely not my logic and if you still cannot accept that then you are beyond help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 (edited) My arrogance? I wouldn't come off as arrogant if people didn't make mistakes. The following exchange shows you did not understand anything correctly: Me: I would stress that by being truly logical and scientific one would be convinced there is no reason to believe in a god and believing in one is an illogical choice. You: This is actually a lack of understanding of scientific process. Scientistific language is ''not enough evidence found'' or more accuratly ''failed to support''... A scientist will not bother finding reasons for the non-existance of something but rather will require evidence for its existance. I never falsely assumed anything. What is it about "I would stress that by being truly logical and scientific one would be convinced there is no reason to believe in a god and believing in one is an illogical choice" that qualifies as a false assumption? For one thing, I never called myself an atheist; I said that I consider myself one who places his confidence in logic reason and the scientific method. And I have always argued that there is no reason to have supernatural beliefs. Furthermore, back when I called myself an agnostic I had many arguments with atheists and I can tell you that the lines between atheism as it is accepted now and agnosticism as it is taken to it's logical end are obscured. What Richard Dawkins calls atheism is what I believe is agnosticism and on that point I disagree with him. And though it is a very unimportant point it is why I no longer refer to myself as being either one. My understanding surpasses yours for sure. Yes, this arrogance. As for the rest, I stand corrected and don't disagree, I assumed from your vote for option three, while I did not vote. While does not belief can be interpreted as not believing in a God, as believing there is no God, and not believing in a god, as not having bsuch a belief which you adhere to. From your abrasive and confrontational manner, I assumed it was the first. Edited April 14, 2008 by DominO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 I have never said I believe God does not exist. What I have said is the reasoning you give for the existence of your God is just stupid. As I have told Ashot NUMEROUS times in this thread, if you set forth an idea and expect people to believe you, the burden is on YOU to say why. You can't just say: "Oh look I believe in God because the Bible tells me to and God wrote the Bible so there. Prove me wrong." Hellllllloooo .. HOW many times do we have to rehash this idiotic thing over and over? Admit you believe in God for no good reason and we can get on with our lives. But somehow trying to make a case about why you believe what you believe is only going to lead to more of the same. You and Ashot saying "why don't you believe in God" and me over and over saying I didn't say that. I asked why you believe in your God. Sip, I apologize for assuming that you do not believe in God, which was not my intent and my error. I believe you misrepresent my reason for believing in God. (Example: I never told you to “prove me wrong”, I simply stated why I believe in God). I wrote in my last post that I believe the Bible and yes the Bible does reveal to us the nature of the Christian God. I also gave other proofs that could be used for the existence of God, such as nature, the universe, and morality. I never asked that you agree with me, others have asked why I believe in God and I am simply stating my reasons. Since you fail to acknowledge my posts and misrepresent what I have to say, I must end this conversation with you. I will leave you with this. I admit that I believe in an inerrant and infallible Bible. If the Bible truly is the Word of God, which it is, you have a bigger problem in life. You are a sinner, just as I am (Romans 3:10, 23 “There is none righteous, not even one…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God). You will pay the eternal penalty for that sin (Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”) BUT God in His love sent a savior, Jesus Christ, so that you could be forgiven (2 Cor 5:21 “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Romans 5:8 “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”) Jesus Christ came to earth, lived a sinless life and was crucified, buried, and risen on the third day. IF you repent of your sin and embrace Christ, you can be saved from the eternal penalty of death (Romans 10:9 “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved).” I pray and hope that you would embrace the good news that is proclaimed in the Bible, that you can be forgiven of your sins. Grace and peace, Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 My understanding surpasses yours for sure. Yes, this arrogance. As for the rest, I stand corrected and don't disagree, I assumed from your vote for option three, while I did not vote. While does not belief can be interpreted as not believing in a God, as believing there is no God, and not believing in a god, as not having bsuch a belief which you adhere to. From your abrasive and confrontational manner, I assumed it was the first. My interests do not lie in being considered humble or gentle; I only care about being right, which I am. Most people are not aware that someone can hate religion and be vehemently against it while not considering himself an atheist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 If the Bible truly is the Word of God, which it is, you have a bigger problem in life. And if the Bible is not the Word of God, which it obviously isn't, then I really don't have much of a problem in my life. So now we are left with the basic question: Is the Bible the word of God or not? I don't know about you but I for one would expect a MUCH higher standard for "word of God" than something as flawed as the Bible. Before we go into more in depth discussions, Rog, are you one of those that is convinced the Earth is about 6000 years old because the Bible says so? Because that is usually a good place to start analyzing this infallable Bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 And if the Bible is not the Word of God, which it obviously isn't, then I really don't have much of a problem in my life. So now we are left with the basic question: Is the Bible the word of God or not? I don't know about you but I for one would expect a MUCH higher standard for "word of God" than something as flawed as the Bible. Before we go into more in depth discussions, Rog, are you one of those that is convinced the Earth is about 6000 years old because the Bible says so? Because that is usually a good place to start analyzing this infallable Bible. Sip, Since you believe that the Bible is "flawed" the burden of proof is on you to tell me which parts. As long as you are not making a general statement and you seriously question specific chapter and verses, then we can continue to talk. We can start wherever you like. Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvestaked Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 Sip, Since you believe that the Bible is "flawed" the burden of proof is on you to tell me which parts. As long as you are not making a general statement and you seriously question specific chapter and verses, then we can continue to talk. We can start wherever you like. Roger I recommend you read "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens; he's quite thorough when he deals with the old and new testaments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 Rog. first you tell me which version of the Lord's Word you believe ... like V1.0 The Old Testament. V2.0 The New Testament, V2.1 The King James Version, etc etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 I pray and hope that you would embrace the good news that is proclaimed in the Bible, that you can be forgiven of your sins. You know what that means Sip: lay off the porn and stop wasting seed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 16, 2008 Report Share Posted April 16, 2008 Rog. first you tell me which version of the Lord's Word you believe ... like V1.0 The Old Testament. V2.0 The New Testament, V2.1 The King James Version, etc etc Fair enough...I believe in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as seen in modern English translations such as the King James/New King James Version, New American Standard, English Standard Version, New International Version, etc. There is not one English version I believe in, and when I need to, I know Biblical Hebrew and Greek to look at the original languages the Bible was written in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpa Posted April 16, 2008 Report Share Posted April 16, 2008 Fair enough...I believe in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as seen in modern English translations such as the King James/New King James Version, New American Standard, English Standard Version, New International Version, etc. There is not one English version I believe in, and when I need to, I know Biblical Hebrew and Greek to look at the original languages the Bible was written in. How does bs smell any different whether it is recited in English, Armenian, Greek or Hebrew? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 16, 2008 Report Share Posted April 16, 2008 (edited) Ok Rog, I think it's fair to start at kind of a high level before delving into the nitty gritty details. Since you seem to be well versed in the Bible, let me start with a few questions where I think the Word of the Lord should be fairly authoritative, accurate, and complete. So why not start on a few points on creation and move on from there: 1. When did God create humans? Is this something supported in the Bible if yes, what is it, if no, do you have a personal belief on when this might have been and why? 2. What is the Bible's stance on other creatures that have come and gone long before humans (assuming you actually believe fossil evidence). 3. Does the Bible claim God created man in his image and if so, exactly which "man" did God create in his image? Are we talking about Homo Sapien or something all the way back to Homo Habilis? Seems God shouldn't have much trouble being rather exact on this point if He in fact created it all and has passed down his word. 4. In order to get a better idea of what your beliefs about the Bible are, are you suggesting the Bible is literally the Word of God or are you allowing yourself some room for interpretation? For example the good old Noah story ... are you one of those that insist that God crammed a pair of EVERY animal in the boat or do you take that to be somewhat of a symbolizm by some rather imaginative story telling on the part of God? And if you are one of those Bible interpreters that is going to insist the Earth is 6000 years old, I think you know what my next line of posts are going to be. Hopefully you are not entirely blind to all the evidence we have of a much much older Earth with a far richer history than what is even hinted in the Bible. Edited April 16, 2008 by Sip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Em Posted April 16, 2008 Report Share Posted April 16, 2008 I was just sent this and could not resist sharing! A little girl asked her mother, 'How did the human race appear?' The mother answered, 'God made Adam and Eve and they had children and so was all mankind made.' Two days later the girl asked her father the same question. The father answered, 'Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved.' The confused girl returned to her mother and said, ‘Mom how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Dad said they developed from monkeys?' The mother answered, 'Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family and your father told you about his. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashot Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 AHAHAHAHAHA, Nice one Em jan! Thank you for the enlightenment!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.