Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science, Religion, God – Let’s just be honest
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 91 of 174 (716425)
01-16-2014 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by GDR
01-15-2014 5:37 PM


Re: which lens to use and when
GDR writes:
Here is how CS Lewis might partially respond to your question.
You should wear a bracelet that says "W.W.C.S.L.D." - What would C.S. Lewis do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by GDR, posted 01-15-2014 5:37 PM GDR has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 92 of 174 (716430)
01-16-2014 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by GDR
01-15-2014 5:37 PM


Atheists are ugly, too!
GDR writes:
I think we would all agree that we yearn for things like purpose, justice, and hope in our lives. It seems to me likely that as these yearnings seem to be a basic part of our nature that there is an ultimate answer. Atheism means that ultimately the sun will burn out, (or whatever else finishes life off prior to that), and there is no ultimate purpose. Atheism means that when someone who has lived enjoying the suffering of others and then dies have never faced justice, and will enjoy the same fate as someone who has live a life that found joy in the joy of others. Atheism means that there is no hope that there is life after our current existence that will provide purpose and justice for all.
Christianity provides an answer to those yearnings. Of course it doesn't matter at all if it isn't true. If there is no god then it is totally irrelevant. I am only suggesting that the fact that we have these yearnings as part of our nature, then it seems reasonable to expect that there is an ultimate answer for them. It is my belief that Jesus Christ shows us what the answers are.
Ugh.
When religious people try to explain atheism... it's like a male doctor explaining the pains of childbirth. You just don't get it.
I'm going to have a go at correcting all the problems with this, it might take a while.
Atheism means that ultimately the sun will burn out, (or whatever else finishes life off prior to that), and there is no ultimate purpose.
No, this is not what atheism means.
Strictly speaking:
Atheism means the individual does not believe in God.
It's possible to have an "ultimate purpose" without believing in God.
The sun will burn out one day regardless if anyone does not believe in God.
Maybe life will get finished off, maybe it won't... that result has nothing to do with anyone not believing in God.
Therefore, this is not what atheism means.
Personally speaking:
My thoughts (nothing to do with atheism) are that regardless of their being an "ultimate purpose" (whatever that is...), we all choose what purpose is important to each of us. "Ultimate purpose" means nothing until it is explained... then, after it is explained, it's up to the individual to decide if that ultimate purpose is worth following.
Anyone who follow's God's "ultimate purpose" just because God is God is lazy and irresponsible.
For example:
Ultimate purpose = "be excellent to each other"
I would agree with this ultimate purpose, and I would try to follow it.
Another example:
Ultimate purpose = "build houses out of wood"
I would disagree that this is an ultimate purpose. Although I may build a house from wood if I find myself in need of a house and have a lot of wood around... this isn't a very meaningful purpose and therefore, even though it is "the ultimate purpose", it's meaningless anyway.
Atheism means that when someone who has lived enjoying the suffering of others and then dies have never faced justice, and will enjoy the same fate as someone who has live a life that found joy in the joy of others.
Again, this is not what atheism means.
Strictly speaking:
Atheism means the individual does not believe in God.
It's possible for there to be an afterlife and final justice without believing in God.
Everyone will die one day.
Maybe there's an afterlife, maybe there isn't...
Maybe all people will be judged (maybe even by a God)... but that result has nothing to do with anyone not believing in God.
Therefore, this is not what atheism means, again.
Personally speaking:
My thoughts (nothing to do with atheism) are that we don't know what will happen after we die, so it's not worth fretting about.
We do know what happens in this life.
I, personally, would rather have a beneficial impact than a negative one.
Therefore, I'm going to try and have a beneficial impact and not a negative one.
Maybe I'll be judged for it, maybe not... maybe we'll learn more in the future.
Atheism means that there is no hope that there is life after our current existence that will provide purpose and justice for all.
Once again, this is not what atheism means. It's starting to sound like this is what you want atheism to mean... but that doesn't change what it actually means.
Strictly speaking:
Atheism means the individual does not believe in God.
It's possible to have hope in an afterlife and final justice for all without believing in any God.
Therefore, an atheist can have just as much hope (or more) in an afterlife and final judgement than a Christian.
Maybe God doesn't exist... but some other mechanism exists and judges us after we die.
Therefore, this is not what atheism means, once again.
Personally speaking:
My thoughts (nothing to do with atheism) is that hoping for a final judgement after we're dead is irrelevant and kind of worthless.
It would be more productive to put that hope into a hope for a real judgement while we're still alive. Then, maybe you could actually bring such a thing about.
Christianity provides an answer to those yearnings.
For some, yes. But not for all people. Certainly not for most atheists (it's at a distinct disadvantage here... being that Christianity involves a God... the answers will be, at a minimum, "unsatisfying.")
There are plenty of other philosophies that provides answers for these (and other) yearnings for atheists. Equally or better than Christianity.
I am only suggesting that the fact that we have these yearnings as part of our nature, then it seems reasonable to expect that there is an ultimate answer for them.
That doesn't seem reasonable to me at all.
It just seems desirable for you.
Some people will not desire such an answer.
Some people won't desire an answer for these questions at all.
Some people will desire an answer that does not involve a God that might not exist.
Not everyone is like you.
what God wants of us is that we have our hearts that love unselfishly. It isn't a matter of giving intellectual assent to a specific doctrine nor is it a matter of going out and doing good deeds in order to please God. It is a matter of having hearts that genuinely find joy in the joy of others which isn't a conscious decision, but something that hopefully becomes a part of our nature as we bumble along through life.
Sounds like an excellent point.
Of course, it's quite simple for an atheist to take the exact same point and simply remove God:
"We should have our hearts that love unselfishly. It isn't a matter of giving intellectual assent to a specific doctrine nor is it a matter of going out and doing good deeds in order to please anyone. It is a matter of having hearts that genuinely find joy in the joy of others which isn't a conscious decision, but something that hopefully becomes a part of our nature as we bumble along through life."
Some people (mostly Christians) will desire a motivation for such a thing to come from a God. So they believe in God.
Other people (mostly atheists) will desire a motivation for such a thing to exist without a God. Because they don't believe in God.
Other people still may or may not desire a motivation at all or for some other reason entirely.
The point can be universal.
People, however, are not.
The second point that I would take in the quote from Corinthians is that we don't have absolute answers. There is considerable ambiguity in our beliefs. Ultimately Paul is saying that we should have faith - faith that God is good, just and loving and that His desire is that we reflect that goodness, justice and love into all of creation.
Again, this is something that will work for some and not for others.
The point can be made including a God, or not.
Fundamentalists can't deal without having "absolutes." So they say you're wrong.
Neither of you are able to prove the other incorrect because currently the issue is very subjective.
Maybe we don't have absolute answers.
Maybe absolute answers exist, but only some (or none) of us are aware of them.
Right now, we don't know.
We do know that people are different.
We do know that we have to live with each other somehow.
Do we kill those who disagree with us?
Do we find some civilized way to let each of us find their own path regarding such subjective issues?
My thoughts are that we should be honest (even when claiming what atheists are...), admit to the questions we do not fully understand, admit our "best guesses" in how to deal with them, and allow others to honestly choose what works best for them.
Edited by Stile, : A spelling mistake was bugging me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by GDR, posted 01-15-2014 5:37 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Diomedes, posted 01-16-2014 1:19 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 121 by GDR, posted 01-22-2014 2:38 PM Stile has replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 93 of 174 (716435)
01-16-2014 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Stile
01-16-2014 11:18 AM


Re: Atheists are ugly, too!
Stile writes:
Strictly speaking:
Atheism means the individual does not believe in God.
Exactly true. I find it fascinating that the concept is so difficult to grasp.
Oftentimes, what helps in my dialog with religious individuals is to make them understand the notion of theism versus religion.
A Christian is a theist. But not all theists are Christians. Some can be Muslim, Jewish, etc. So in this case, theism is an attribute of their view on the question 'is there a god'? But it is not, in an of itself, a religion.
Buddhists are atheists. But not all atheists are Buddhist. Some can be Taoist, some can have no religion and no faith, etc. So as above, atheism responds to the same question: 'is there a god'? But in the same way theism cannot be a religion, neither can atheism. Both can be aspects of certain religions or both can simply be a viewpoint held by an individual that does not follow any religion.

"Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Stile, posted 01-16-2014 11:18 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 94 of 174 (716437)
01-16-2014 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by GDR
01-15-2014 6:03 PM


Re: which lens to use and when
Sure. It is ancient mythology.
It's only a few centuries older than the New Testament. Are you saying that the Gospels are ancient mythology?
The message that we can take from it is that God isn't about to give up on us.
Why is that the message we can take from the fact that the references to genocide are 'ancient mythology'?
It is more than just the Biblical accounts.
Such as?
We know of numerous messianic wannabes from that era whose movements just died out when they were put to death even though that from a geopolitical POV they had accomplished much more than what Jesus had done.
So?
The resurrection IMHO gives the most plausible explanation for the early rise of Christianity.
Presumably Muhammed walking through cobwebs without breaking them, flying around on a horse and ascending bodily into heaven is the most plausible explanation for the early rise of Islam?
Why is an impossible event (resurrection) more plausible than a more common event (people claiming a miracle)?
He refers to it in the same way that a preacher might refer to the Prodigal Son today to make a point.
So Paul and other 1st Century Jews understood that Adam was just a parable and the flood was just a story? Can you cite a single 1st Century Jew that expressed such a view?
The same holds true for Adam.
If Adam is not real, Paul's explanation for why Jesus had to be crucified makes less sense than it already does.
quote:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
...
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
...
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ
Paul requires Adam to be a single individual who invited sin and death into the world so that such a transgression could be healed by the grace of one - Jesus Christ.
Are you saying we can ignore the letter to the Romans as well as the Torah?
I suppose I'd have to know about the first century Jewish culture to comment but that is one verse and should be taken within the context of His entire message.
So you're position is that the Sermon on the Mount is only applicable to 1st Century Jews?
What does Jesus say that qualifies:
quote:
if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
It seems pretty clear to me.
quote:
Turning over tables in the Temple is not much of an act of violence.
Nice selective reading. He didn't just turn over tables and seats - he cast them out of the Temple, and scattered their livelihood all over the place. They didn't want to leave and there would have been a considerable amount of security present courtesy of the Roman legions -- to prevent exactly this kind of nonsense. No - Jesus would have to committed violence to cleanse the Temple the way it says he did.
quote:
began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple
quote:
And he poured out the coins of the money-changers
1st Century money changers don't sit idly by while a religious fanatic harms their business interests and the Romans don't let trade get disrupted so easily.
The passage from Matthew is obviously a metaphorical sword.
What is it a metaphor for?
It has to be taken in context.
Yes, that's why I said that in the exact same Chapter he says the Law stands and he isn't changing it (if anything, he was calling for a more severe interpretation).
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by GDR, posted 01-15-2014 6:03 PM GDR has not replied

  
scienceishonesty
Member (Idle past 3698 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 12-02-2013


Message 95 of 174 (716450)
01-16-2014 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by GDR
01-15-2014 5:37 PM


Re: which lens to use and when
I'm not sure how your CS Lewis quote answered my question, but, moving on to some other comments you made...
quote:
I'm not sure that I would say that I read the various accounts of the resurrected Jesus as being literally true because there are obvious contradictions in the details. However, just as witnessess to a traffic accident will differ in the details they all agree that the accident happened.
So who are all of these first hand witnesses besides what we read in the Bible?
Isn't it true that you seem to use Bible verses when it seems appropriate in your mind but then when it comes to defining your criteria for understanding which verses are to be used as relevant and which are to be discarded you don't really give an answer?
quote:
On the assumption that I am correct in that fundamental belief we can then look at what others have recorded of the words and life of Jesus, knowing that the writers of the NT all believed that Jesus had been resurrected giving them strong motivation to accurately preserve what Jesus taught. Through that lens we can then form our beliefs about the Bible, as well as what others have written or said, realizing that the narrative of God and His creation didn't come to an end 2000 years ago but is still ongoing and will continue into the future.
Except, assumption is the mother of all lies. Your "lense" actually has no clarity whatsoever and it is very confusing to anyone who isn't trapped in your precise way of thinking. Again, how do we know which portions of the Bible are "truth" and which aren't?
quote:
The whole Christian story makes considerable sense of the world that I live in and even more so of my own life.
How does it make sense of all of the random oddities going on in the world and Universe that don't have any salvational purpose whatsoever? I mean, do you think that all of the animals in this world are going to be saved through Jesus as well? What is their purpose? Why are asteroids flying into planets and stars exploding billions of light years away? When you look at the whole thing it really does look like an accident that we are here. But you really have to open up your mind to see that, like about two months ago when I stopped tricking myself into thinking that I had answers to all of these as-of-yet unknown questions.
quote:
I think we would all agree that we yearn for things like purpose, justice, and hope in our lives. It seems to me likely that as these yearnings seem to be a basic part of our nature that there is an ultimate answer. Atheism means that ultimately the sun will burn out, (or whatever else finishes life off prior to that), and there is no ultimate purpose. Atheism means that when someone who has lived enjoying the suffering of others and then dies have never faced justice, and will enjoy the same fate as someone who has live a life that found joy in the joy of others. Atheism means that there is no hope that there is life after our current existence that will provide purpose and justice for all.
Totally wrong. I used to think that was atheism too until I realized that I was already an atheist when it came to most religions and gods that people believe in. In fact, you're an atheist too on so many levels. Atheists, however, decide they aren't willing to make up an answer to those questions that you want answered, instead they are willing to LEARN the answers to those questions rather than assuming them as you are willing to do.
If we had to come up with a world defining ourselves as "not believing in fairies" it would be ridiculous, right? Let's call it an "afairiest". Not believing in fairies or Santa Clause or the flying spaghetti monster is simply the logically default position, a position that you share with all atheists. Being an atheist should be the DEFAULT position on the narrowly described definition of "god" put forth by humans. The default position should also be (for everyone) "there is no spaghetti monster". It's just that religion is so prominent that the few who appeal to reason have been labeled "atheists", as though their unbelief defines them when it absolutely doesn't.
quote:
Atheism means that when someone who has lived enjoying the suffering of others and then dies have never faced justice, and will enjoy the same fate as someone who has live a life that found joy in the joy of others. Atheism means that there is no hope that there is life after our current existence that will provide purpose and justice for all.
Atheism means you don't have to reconcile an all-loving and powerful god who also sits there watching all of the atrocities that you speak of unfold without stopping it. IF your god does exist, he's not a good god at all but a very very wicked being.
quote:
Christianity provides an answer to those yearnings. Of course it doesn't matter at all if it isn't true. If there is no god then it is totally irrelevant. I am only suggesting that the fact that we have these yearnings as part of our nature, then it seems reasonable to expect that there is an ultimate answer for them. It is my belief that Jesus Christ shows us what the answers are.
No, Christianity DOESN'T provide an answer to those yearnings, it only complicates the already complicated world we live in because it is bursting with contradictions and unanswered questions. Why do children get cancer and die horrible deaths if God really cares? Why did God need to take human form and die for us in the first place? Why did that HAVE to be the "only" answer" in "saving" us? When you think about it, it doesn't even make sense. The trinity is the most ridiculous thing ever, it's basically polytheism that still somehow manages to call itself monotheism. Jesus was talking to "God the Father" in heaven while on the cross, so right there you have two beings and really not one. And then you have the Holy Spirit somehow... But rest assured, all three are really one and Jesus was just talking to himself looking down at himself in heaven when he said "father forgive them". Or are they separate beings? Daaaaaa
I have been a professed "Christian" up until about two months ago when I just consciously stopped fooling myself that it all could somehow make sense no matter how nonsensical it really is. Let's live in reality and LOOK for those answers you are yearning for instead of being content with believing in something that you already know subconsciously "probably" isn't true. My "coming out" experience may sound like a giant cliche but it really is a red pill, blue pill moment when you face up to it. Remember, being an atheist doesn't mean "I know there's no god and no meaning for life", it simply means: "I'm not believing in a tooth fairy until there's evidence for one". It's the same position you currently have with a host of mythical things and other religions that you don't accept.
Just the sheer evidence of how the god "Yaweh" was created as a derivative of other gods of Canaan (specifically from the god "El") is enough to invalidate the whole thing. All you have to do is open up your eyes to the evidence because it's all around you.
BTW, speaking of Paul... What about the verse where Paul says women should be silent and shamefaced in church? Does that one somehow get thrown out the window?
Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.
Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.
Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.
Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.
Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.
Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by GDR, posted 01-15-2014 5:37 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-17-2014 2:56 PM scienceishonesty has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 174 (716478)
01-17-2014 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by scienceishonesty
01-16-2014 4:26 PM


So have you found enough honesty yet to realize and admit that people can have a religion that doesn't require assuming they know some absolute truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by scienceishonesty, posted 01-16-2014 4:26 PM scienceishonesty has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Straggler, posted 01-17-2014 3:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 97 of 174 (716483)
01-17-2014 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by New Cat's Eye
01-17-2014 2:56 PM


Is it more that one cannot hold religious beliefs whilst maintaining some sort of rational consistency.
For example jar will readily admit that his beliefs are not rational, logical, consistent, subjct to evidential scrutiny blah blah blah.
Isn't that what scienceishonesty ultimately is saying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-17-2014 2:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 01-17-2014 3:45 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-17-2014 3:47 PM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 98 of 174 (716485)
01-17-2014 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Straggler
01-17-2014 3:27 PM


since you bring up my name ...
For example jar will readily admit that his beliefs are not rational, logical, consistent, subjct to evidential scrutiny blah blah blah.
... try to be honest about what I admit.
Yes, my beliefs are not reasonable, logical or consistent but what I say is that I know of no way the supernatural could be evidenced and no one has ever been able to show me a way that the supernatural could be evidenced. I don't remember ever says "blah, blah, blah.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Straggler, posted 01-17-2014 3:27 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Modulous, posted 01-21-2014 4:32 PM jar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 174 (716486)
01-17-2014 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Straggler
01-17-2014 3:27 PM


Isn't that what scienceishonesty ultimately is saying?
I dunno, he said that if you didn't hold beliefs to an absolute truth, then it didn't count as a religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Straggler, posted 01-17-2014 3:27 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2014 4:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 100 of 174 (716816)
01-21-2014 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by New Cat's Eye
01-17-2014 3:47 PM


More specifically he said:
quote:
When one BELIEVES in a religion they already assume that it is correct on SOME level, whether it is extreme fundamentalism or strictly that "Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins". At some level the religious person draws a line and says "this is truth regardless of what science might make probable or improbable".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-17-2014 3:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-21-2014 4:43 PM Straggler has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 101 of 174 (716818)
01-21-2014 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by jar
01-17-2014 3:45 PM


honestly?
try to be honest about what I admit.
He was dishonest?
quote:
his beliefs are not rational
Yes, my beliefs are not reasonable
quote:
his beliefs are not...logical
Yes, my beliefs are not...logical
quote:
his beliefs are not rational...consistent
Yes, my beliefs are not...consistent
quote:
his beliefs are not subjct {sic} to evidential scrutiny
I know of no way the supernatural could be evidenced and no one has ever been able to show me a way that the supernatural could be evidenced.
I don't remember ever says "blah, blah, blah.
Blah blah blah -- a slightly pejorative version of 'etc.'.
So what was he not being honest about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 01-17-2014 3:45 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 01-21-2014 4:46 PM Modulous has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 174 (716823)
01-21-2014 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Straggler
01-21-2014 4:19 PM


What message is that from?
Seems consistency isn't their strong suit...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2014 4:19 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2014 4:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 103 of 174 (716824)
01-21-2014 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Modulous
01-21-2014 4:32 PM


Re: honestly?
I specified in my post where he was as usual being dishonest.
I have never said there is no way to evidence my beliefs, I have said that I know of no way that the supernatural could be evidenced and no one has ever shown me a way the supernatural could be evidenced.
If someone presents a way to evidence the supernatural I am willing to consider it.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Modulous, posted 01-21-2014 4:32 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2014 5:06 PM jar has replied
 Message 109 by Modulous, posted 01-21-2014 5:29 PM jar has replied
 Message 112 by 1.61803, posted 01-21-2014 5:45 PM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 104 of 174 (716828)
01-21-2014 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by New Cat's Eye
01-21-2014 4:43 PM


CS writes:
What message is that from?
Message 10
CS writes:
Seems consistency isn't their strong suit...
Maybe. But he seems to have two points.
1) That maintaining a scientific-evidence-based approach and holding religious beliefs involves some inconsistency.
2) That making the term 'god' a definitionless exercise in incoherent meaninglessness is a method of hiding those inconsistencies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-21-2014 4:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-21-2014 5:04 PM Straggler has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 174 (716829)
01-21-2014 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Straggler
01-21-2014 4:59 PM


I don't see him saying that at all.
I'll just wait to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2014 4:59 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024