Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Persistence of Bulls**t
-
28-04-2009 8:29am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
RealEstateKing wrote: »No that isnt what I asserted. Simply that as much as I agree with the 4 Horsemen, all seem to be mostly concerned with what is true, which is not something religious people particularly care about.
And yes I did write the article myself, is it so wrong to post one's own blog?
You said it.
But there are a few people who have changed their mind due to these men presenting a logical argument, mostly people who were reluctant about the idea but went along with it because of their family or community, but a fair few have been die-hard, too, and finally "saw the light" of logic.
I just don't get why the religious can't see things properly, why they have to resort to faith. I mean, really, it just makes no legitimate sense, how on earth do they not realize it's a fairytale like a thousand other stories? It's the exact same thing. Just because it's old doesn't make it right, or true, or honest.
..and there I go off on tangents again. I'll shut up now.
0 -
RealEstateKing wrote: »N
And yes I did write the article myself, is it so wrong to post one's own blog?
Nothing wrong with it, as long as it's on a blog site 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
I always kind of thought he horsemen, like our own Atomic, Wickie etc, are not really trying to convince the die hard religious. Nothing anyone can do or say will convince Wolfie, PDN, Jimmi and the like that their beliefs are wrong. They gain too much from it. Be it the belief that Jesus turned their life around where they could not do that themselves, or the belief that they would be raping an murdering without Jesus in their heart or simply the comfort they get from know how to behave because they have a Do and Don't guide. They can't afford it.
Are wolfsbane, PDN, and Jimmi the die hard religious though? I mean these people (as far as I know, I'm not sure of wolfsbanes case) came to Christianity due to being convinced of their own free will. It isn't that they had faith from the get go. I see no reason from the POV of an atheist why these people if they have gone in freely can also return to their previous state freely. However, as a Christian I personally don't think they will lose their faith.
It was an interesting point I just want to take you up on.I often wonder are some of these christian guilty of the the inverse of what Wolfsbane accuses us of. he believes that in our organ used for pumping blood around our bodies we know that god exists, but we simply deny it. Has anyone ever wondered if any of the "other side" ever stop for just a moment and wonder why they actually believe this stuff?
So you think that some of us may already believe that our faith is wrong, but we are sticking along for the ride? Clever analogy of the heart by the way
As for whether we stop and think for a moment why we believe this stuff. I think myself, Fanny Craddock, PDN and others will account for doubt as a natural part of faith. Yes, I have doubted my faith on quite a few occasions, in most cases it was a beneficial process which allowed for me to seek answers and to progress further in my faith. Many would see doubt as the means by which God tests Christians. So if I am to be entirely honest with you, I've had several doubting periods in my faith.
I knew that you would post a smart-ass answer like this. It's a part of the way you post though, and I've often done the same to you in return. The A&A forum entertainer perhaps? 0 -
-
What makes you certain that God is less probable to exist than not? Just curious?
Can I post a simple scenario to you.
You have to get from point A) to point
, along this route there will be a steep downward hill. You walk into a vehicle lot and a man approaches you. He says he has a variety of vehicles, cars, buses, sports cars... etc, however he knows most of them do not have brakes, and thinks only 1 of them might have brakes, however, in all likelihood none of them have breaks. He then shows you a bicycle, and says you can clearly see it has breaks and knows it has working gears. He offers you to take one of them for your journey. Which do you take? 0 -
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »Can I post a simple scenario to you.
You have to get from point A) to point, along this route there will be a steep downward hill. You walk into a vehicle lot and a man approaches you. He says he has a variety of vehicles, cars, buses, sports cars... etc, however he knows most of them do not have brakes, and thinks only 1 of them might have brakes, however, in all likelihood none of them have breaks. He then shows you a bicycle, and says you can clearly see it has breaks and knows it has working gears. He offers you to take one of them for your journey. Which do you take?
Does the fact that I would opt for one of the "sports cars" that probably has no brakes make me a bad person?
Sounds like a hell of a ride.0 -
-
They cannot afford to lose their faith.Are wolfsbane, PDN, and Jimmi the die hard religious though? I mean these people (as far as I know, I'm not sure of wolfsbanes case) came to Christianity due to being convinced of their own free will. It isn't that they had faith from the get go. I see no reason from the POV of an atheist why these people if they have gone in freely can also return to their previous state freely. However, as a Christian I personally don't think they will lose their faith.
Why thank you.:DSo you think that some of us may already believe that our faith is wrong, but we are sticking along for the ride? Clever analogy of the heart by the way
But that is not really what I am talking about. I mean more a deep seating feeling that it is all wrong. A feeling that you (not necessarily you in particular) keep suppressing as you can’t afford to believe it.As for whether we stop and think for a moment why we believe this stuff. I think myself, Fanny Craddock, PDN and others will account for doubt as a natural part of faith. Yes, I have doubted my faith on quite a few occasions, in most cases it was a beneficial process which allowed for me to seek answers and to progress further in my faith. Many would see doubt as the means by which God tests Christians. So if I am to be entirely honest with you, I've had several doubting periods in my faith.
Wolfsbane believes that atheists know god exists and we simply deny it so we can eat babies and do all the other things that we can do that you can’t. He thinks that belief in god is so obviously right that we must be intentionally denying it. What benefit do we get from denying it? I live as a good person. I am not a Christian but I am a better person than many alleged Christians I have met. What benefit to I get form denying that which I supposedly know?
I think the opposite is true. It is so stupendously and blindingly obvious that your god is so unlikely to exist that you guys must know this but carry on a charade. You reason might be sound. For PDN it is how he makes his living and he believes, sadly in my opinion, that his life would not be worth living without god. Without god Wolfsbane believes he would be an uncontrollable murdering rapist without god. People like this cannot afford to lose their faith.
So I suppose that is the difference. Atheist gain nothing by denying the existence of god. If I was to suddenly realise that it was all true and I became a believer I have lost nothing.
This is not the same for believers. For some if they lose their faith they will lose everything. Who could someone allow that to happen?
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
Does the fact that I would opt for one of the "sports cars" that probably has no brakes make me a bad person?
Sounds like a hell of a ride.
The sports car is one of the exciting religions I imagine, like ultra christianity, or space Buddhism, but they won't be around until the cyber rapture, an electronic angel told me, before flying away on his rocket cycle.
Prove It didn't happen! There, flawless argument, now, sports car down a hill with no brakes isn't any religion we have today, maybe a fred flintstone car that makes you feel guilty and wear a blindfold, theres your analogy.0 -
I wont deal with the discrepencies of your post as to do so will take us away on a tangeant. I will instead correct you on what you think my point was. Though I do believe God is the creator, that had nothing to do with my point to AH. His point was that 'Gods existance is not required to explain anything we currently observe'. My point is that 'Life is observable yet unexplained, so you do not know if God is required or not.'. That is not a statement of 'God did it'. It is a statement that you don't know if he's required or not.
I think this is too big of a philosophical question for my meager brain to grasp
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Yes. That is the point.
Oh right.We cannot observe the original abiogenesis on Earth but we know enough about chemistry and the formation of complex molecules to put forward plausible ways it could have happened.
Do we observe abiogenesis?Leaving aside the obvious "Yes because we are here aren't we",
Well thats as useful as the same point being used for Gods existance.yes we know abiogenesis can happen naturally. Experiments and computer simulations have got self replicating molecules up to quite an advance stage (relatively speaking, the original formation of cells took a billion years)
This doesn't sound like life animation from non-animation has been observed
Have you any links you could provide witrh any more info?You are being some what pedantic. .
Fair enough, I've made my point and its been rejected, and leave unconvinced by yours. Thats a few accusations of me being pedantic, so I'll leave it be.0 -
-
-
Yes, in so far as humans can observe a process that takes a billion years. We observe can observe it in the same way we can observe tectonic shift or soil erosion.Do we observe abiogenesis?
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.htmlThis doesn't sound like life animation from non-animation has been observed Have you any links you could provide witrh any more info?
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=72B0C4D9-21B2-40E2-B773-53299C4F299
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
Type "self replicating molecule" into Google for tons more.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »Positions on philosophies regarding morals, life and death will tend to be emotive. But that does not equal irrational. There is nothing irrational about scepticism in a world where we can demonstrate that our intuition and common sense are inadequately equipped to answer the big questions. As for those awkward religious rules, are you suggesting we're being contrary? You'll find that we tend only to reject the rules that contradict what we know to be correct by observation. We're hardly rushing to overturn the laws on rape and murder just because religions also abhor them.
I'm sure there are people who would, but they'd hardly be norm, assuming they're really atheists rather than general rebels against whatever happens to be established.
Emotions by their very nature impede on sober and rational thought surely? It's not about logic, it's about feelings. But guess what? Theists and atheists both do this!
As for intuition and common sense, I find these to be compatible with Christian thought. I have yet to see how this is anything special about atheism or secular beliefs.
As for the norm. I certainly don't think it is the norm that peoples main objections to Christianity are merely intellectual ones, or even mainly so.AtomicHorror wrote: »I think that's the position with specific regard for the God of the Bible, and assumes that the bible is indeed 100% factual. In that case, yes I'd rather go to hell than be pally with a supreme being who hates gays and advocates genocide- now perhaps you might not see that rejection as rational, but my reasoning on it is this:
This isn't rational at all in any reasoning.
I disagree that God hates gays. As for "genocide", I agree that God has the right to punish people for their transgressions yes, and indeed I am deserving of this punishment also.AtomicHorror wrote: »That God is going to punish a great many people that I think are undeserving and no eternal reward is going to make me feel better about that. In fact I'm going to really dislike myself a lot (forever!) if I accept that rather than making what will probably be a fruitless stand for what I think is right in the hopes that it might actually change His stubborn mind.
You might think they are undeserving, that's where the line is drawn isn't it. I think I and everyone else in the world is deserving of judgement, but we have received salvation should we choose it.
You say you would dislike yourself for believing in God. By extension, do you dislike Christians both on boards.ie and outside for their belief in a higher power? It's a strange position to hold, because surely if it is something you would dislike in yourself, it's something you would dislike in others.
I find it humorous that you would continue to insist that you are in teh right however above someone who has shown Himself to be superior to you in knowledge, and believe it or not even in compassion and grace. Infact the offer has been there your entire life, and you in your stubbornness refuse to accept His offer.AtomicHorror wrote: »But what you're implying above is not anything to do with that specific case. You're suggesting that most atheists will reject any god, which is of course rubbish. Either you are misrepresenting us or you're confusing our distaste for the specific beliefs of one faith for our rational position on faith in general. We can certainly have both without them undermining each other.
You're assuming that your view is indeed rational. Yet I am still utterly confused at your reasoning for the above.AtomicHorror wrote: »I had religion. Then I had the vague hand-wavey theist thing for a time. I had long periods of real doubts bookended with periods of strong faith. So really, I get all of that. Nothing during that time in my life resembled where I am now. Crises of faith are not atheism. Once you go atheist, it's pretty much impossible to go back. It happens sometimes, sure. As I understand it, our own PDN was once an atheist. But I wonder at the mental gymnastics required to make such a move and I'd be willing to bet good money (if I had any) that the percentage of atheists who lapse back into faith is far far lower than the percentage of faithful types who switch faiths or abandon it entirely.
I don't think several years counts as a crisis of faith. I was an agnostic. You say that as an atheist it is pretty much impossible to turn back. Christians say the exact same thing though. It seems like a pretty futile point of argument considering both of these positions. It's going to be an argument based around:
No you can't turn back from atheism.
No, it's practically impossible to turn back from Christianity.
Do we really want to go here?AtomicHorror wrote: »I'm certain some of them think that. But so do a whole bunch of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and religious miscellanea. That they feel like it makes logical sense does not impress me both because these faiths all contradict each other and because I know the logical loops I fabricated to hold the same position myself. It was logic, but it was circular logic.
Yes, and I do think that other faiths can make sense to other people too. Just like your atheism can make sense to you. Sense != truth value surely?
As for circular logic, I really don't my faith is circular, or that of others is circular. I consider there to be mental gymnastics in the atheism of many folks too. That is another discussion however.AtomicHorror wrote: »But that's a ridiculous statement to make. Of course the claim of a "monopoly" on logic and reason is diminished by similar claims from the faiths. But if we consider our position to be logical should we keep that fact quiet? What are you suggesting?
I'm suggesting that it doesn't need to be raised in every argument. It's insignificant and it doesn't bear any value to what the truth is. Infact the abuse of the words "reason" and "logic" can be quite annoying 0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement