Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God says this, and God says that
John
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 417 (26342)
12-11-2002 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by gene90
12-10-2002 9:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
I don't believe in God because anything that cannot be tested empirically does not exist.
That isn't my argument. It is your perpetual misrepresentation of my argument.
quote:
I don't buy that.
There is no reason you should. You should, however, stop repeating it with my name attatched.
quote:
What if I were to use your reasoning in the sciences? We could throw out most of theoretical astrophysics (for example) in one brutal sweep.
Good thing it isn't my reasoning, eh? But lets just suppose we use your reasoning in the sciences? That we don't need evidence BEFORE believing?
quote:
You know enough about Christian theology to know we have an explanation for that.
You claim that people do the work associated with Santa and that this is evidence that Santa is not real. I applied the same reasoning to your religion. Surely you know that. I bet you don't like that, but you know it.
quote:
(1)My parents told me so a long time ago
... not the best reason, gene.
quote:
(2) lots of people have gone to the North Pole and not seen anything, and if I wanted to I could probably log onto TerraServer and check myself
But Santa's workshop is invisible to our technology I can ad hoc just as well as you.
quote:
(3) the media and culture and television spend a lot of time on this subject, that parents perpetuate the myth is an inside joke and they wouldn't if there were no Santa Claus.
It doesn't matter. There is no more evidence for one than the other. That people believe or disbelieve is irrelevant.
quote:
That's true. However this is a strawman. Santa Claus, by definition, leaves gifts. God does not, by definition, fund the church.
God, by definition, does do stuff. This stuff ought to be identifiable. It isn't. You have even told me not to expect anything distinguishable from coincidence.
quote:
Sorry if you don't like it but it is true. Most of my disbelief is faith-based, just as your disbelief in God is faith-based (by definition, because you have no evidence there is no God).
Defined as such, everything is faith based; even science within what we'd both agree is its proper domain.
quote:
No, but I find it terribly unwise to deny the possibility.
Denying the possibility isn't the issue, as you seem to not realize.
quote:
I do not spend my time trying to convince the local Muslims that Allah is not the true God. Nor would I try to convince followers of any Greek or Egyptian gods.
quote:
The only way to make Santa leave no evidence is to basically deify Santa, to turn him into a god. And that defeats the purpose of your example, doesn't it?
Well, no, not really. It is exactly the point of my example.
quote:
You know that the Borg, like Santa Claus, and unlike God, will leave physical evidence.
Why would God not leave physical evidence? This you've asserted but never explained? God heals the sick? hmm.... there ought to be evidence. You reduce your God to no more than a phantom.
quote:
They would leave physical evidence if they were real, but there is no physical evidence, so they almost certainly are not real.
And you state my point for me. God ought to leave evidence. There ought to be SOMETHING. Since there isn't any evidence, then I conclude there isn't any god. It is the same logic, whether you like it or not. You can define god to be further and further outside of nature, but it only makes god smaller and smaller.
quote:
But God does not necessarily leave evidence like the Borg would.
And because of this it is reasonable to believe?
quote:
Really? So you believe that belief in God is not non-falsifiable?
Secondly, you believe that God can be empirically proven?

In fact, I think it should be damned obvious. But nothing so far has pointed that direction.
quote:
Yes, though I have a problem with your use of "dimensions".
Too much b-movie science fiction...
quote:
It's somewhat contradictory because "Gnomes" are creatures that are supposed to exist in three dimensions and "Slimy" defines a sensory state, and this entity cannot be detected by our sense.
I can't believe you actually making this quibble.
quote:
Aside from "Slimy the Gnome" being internally inconsistent I cannot prove that it does not exist, and I don't think I would waste my time thumbing my nose at Slimy's believers, especially if I have no evidence against "Slimy the Gnome".
If it were the dominant religion? If the country were populated by my clones, would you object then? Would you fight it?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by gene90, posted 12-10-2002 9:09 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-11-2002 6:18 PM John has replied
 Message 140 by gene90, posted 12-11-2002 6:43 PM John has replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 417 (26346)
12-11-2002 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by John
12-11-2002 5:55 PM


quote:
Why would God not leave physical evidence? This you've asserted but never explained? God heals the sick? hmm.... there ought to be evidence. You reduce your God to no more than a phantom.
I have your evidence though you will deny it and explain it away. A friend of mine shattered his hip snowboarding, this was the second season in a row he had done so. So he was back in traction in the hospital to have the same hip repaired again. The elders of the church came in to pray for him and the very next day when the doctors took more x-rays the hip was completely healed. Not even traces of the fractures, completely and painlessly healed.
I was a counsellor at a bible camp one year, and our counsellors suddenly began to fall ill. Before we knew it we barely had enough staff to continue. We all got together for a prayer meeting, within an hour of this meeting counsellors who had been extremely sick started coming out of the cabins in perfect health.
One winter when I was young I remember we had a propane furnace in the little trailer our family was living in. At the beggining of the winter when my dad checked the guage on the propane tank he found that it was nearly empty. My parents were in financial trouble at the time barely finding enough money to keep a few groceries in the cupboards. So unable to afford to fill the propane tank my father just didn't bother looking at the rest of the winter. It was one of the more brutal winters I recall being -40* celcius most of the winter. Our furnace kept on going and going. There is no way that the propane should even have lasted a month let alone the whole winter. Well like the woman and the oil that propane just kept flowing and our furnace kept running, ran all winter. Didn't run out until dad made enough money in the spring to buy some propane.
This is God caring for his faithful. Healing the sick, performing modern day miracles. I got lots more johnny if you want pages and pages of miraculous things I have seen God do.
Note these are not second hand stories, all personal experience.
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by John, posted 12-11-2002 5:55 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by John, posted 12-12-2002 12:16 AM funkmasterfreaky has replied
 Message 237 by nator, posted 12-16-2002 11:32 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 140 of 417 (26347)
12-11-2002 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by John
12-11-2002 5:55 PM


quote:
Good thing it isn't my reasoning, eh?
You said that prior bias always causes spurious "evidence" to be found, ie, if you believe something you always start seeing evidence for it. As I said, that's a notion very common in Creationism, that evolution bias in the science is generating spurious evidence. Are you supporting their assertion? Or, "since it isn't your reasoning," are you retracting?
quote:
That isn't my argument.
Then state your argument.
quote:
Defined as such, everything is faith based
Then you admit that atheism is faith-based, just as my religion is faith-based? Or do you seek a redefinition?
quote:
You claim that people do the work associated with Santa and that this is evidence that Santa is not real. I applied the same reasoning to your religion.
Bad analogy. Santa Claus is supposed to generate a physical, tangible result: presents under the tree. Therefore if there are no presents, there is no Santa. However, God is not supposed to place presents under the tree, or to miraculously build anything. That's not a part of our model of God, like it is a part of the Santa myth.
Kids expect Santa to do something tangible every Christmas eve. God's believers generally have no such expectation. Nobody expects a brand new building to appear miraculously. If they did they wouldn't donate money for it. Also, in the faulty Santa analogy, the presents are delivered covertly to decieve children into believing Claus was there. That's not happening in Christianity, the expectation of a miracle isn't there anyway.
quote:
Surely you know that. I bet you don't like that, but you know it.
Curious you insist on using an analogy I have already demonstrated to be faulty.
quote:
But lets just suppose we use your reasoning in the sciences?
But we do use my reasoning in the sciences. In the sciences, we normally don't *disbelieve* a new idea or concept before testing it. We certainly do not use our personal incredulity as an excuse to wave it away. If science reasoned the way you do, progress would never be made because no new hypotheses would ever be tested.
Besides, if you have no evidence that there is no God, what room do you have to chide us for no evidence for our belief that there is indeed a God. (And it is possible to prove a negative, by the way. Would you like an example exercise?)
quote:
But Santa's workshop is invisible to our technology
If I were a believer in Santa Claus, and you were too, we could have a theological debate of sorts, because that has nothing at all to do with the version of the myth I was taught. The way I see it, since you realized the first version of your analogy failed, you are actually trying to alter the myth to make your analogy better.
But the "present" argument still kills the analogy. Santa Claus is expected to leave a physical imprint, God is not. However, you have attempted to create a strawman of Christianity, in which we believe God does our construction work for us. I don't know of any sect that believes that.
quote:
God, by definition, does do stuff. This stuff ought to be identifiable.
This is interesting. You're trying to disprove my theology by telling me what I believe. That's not a very honest way to go, but since I'm curious I will ask: what "stuff" does God do and how might we identify it? Further, are you now claiming that belief in God is falsifiable? And that, by extension, Intelligent Design is a viable science? Besides if we can test God and we can test God's influence in our universe why not test God's influence on biology? And if it is testable, it must allow us to make predictions, and be falsifiable--therefore it is a science, regardless of whether or not God is real.
You opened this door, not me.
quote:
You have even told me not to expect anything distinguishable from coincidence.
If you had enough such "coincidences" perhaps you would believe. However I have the feeling that you will rationalize away just about anything as a coincidence, no matter how extraordinary. That is why I made that comment in the first place.
quote:
Why would God not leave physical evidence? This you've asserted but never explained? God heals the sick? hmm.... there ought to be evidence. You reduce your God to no more than a phantom.
To you, God is a phantom because God works according to your faith. And even if God did heal a sick person right in front of you, what is to stop you from attributing it to "natural" causes? In fact, in a universe with "natural" causes everywhere but an omnipotent and omniscient God present, how do you know anything that happens is "natural"? That's my problem with your beliefs, they are every bit as unfalsifiable and self-fulfilling as you claim mine are. A "miracle"? No only a disease naturally going into remission, just as it would have done without prayer. You pray for three things and get all those things? Only coincidence!
The self-fulfilling beliefs of the atheist are exactly like what they claim to be the self-fulfilling beliefs of the theist.
quote:
God ought to leave evidence.
Actually I spent quite a bit of time explaining how God is different from all your analogies, and how they would leave evidence and God would not.
Please try to introduce new information, rather than merely repeating yourself.
quote:
If it were the dominant religion?
This is interesting. Are you saying that Christians are "stupid", "evil", and "dishonest" because they are the dominant religion? Do you spend all your time fighting Christians instead of Wiccans, Muslims, and Hare Krishnas simply because the Christians are the biggest target?
Hardly philosophically sound motivation.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by John, posted 12-11-2002 5:55 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by John, posted 12-12-2002 1:34 AM gene90 has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 141 of 417 (26348)
12-11-2002 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by funkmasterfreaky
12-11-2002 5:44 PM


quote:
That's the logic of a 4 year old johnny. It's a stereotype. It's wrong.
Here, here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-11-2002 5:44 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 417 (26352)
12-11-2002 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by gene90
12-10-2002 9:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
I'm not the one throwing reason out the window.
quote:
I'm asking you that if you have no evidence for or against God is it logical to claim that God does not exist?
Is it logical to claim that he does? Reasonable? No, gene. Reasonable is 'I don't know' as you keep pointing out. So why are you not agnostic? You apparently object to being called unreasonable. Why do you not take the reasoanable option?
quote:
Further, is it logical to stomp the ground over "evidence" when you yourself have none?
In case you haven't noticed, that I have no evidence for God is the point.
quote:
I'm asking you to admit that you are arguing from a faith-based position.
Consider the perfect crime. The perpetrator leaves no evidence behind. Nothing. But we have suspects. The family is always suspect, right? Do you walk up to one of those suspects and say "Well, I have no evidence for your guilt, but none against it either. But we are going to arrest and try you anyway?" I hope not. Why? Because it isn't reasonable. The arrested could be guilty, but so could the other suspects or someone no one has thought to question.
Now suppose that some faction decides that the suspect is guilty and proceeds to distribute information to that effect. So strong does this movement become that laws are written to reflect its ideology. Is it unreasonable to fight back? Is it "faith-based" to declare the movement baseless?
quote:
From my perspective, your outright dismissal of anything you don't have direct sensory experience with is unreasonable and your logic full of holes.
I never said I reject everything for which I don't have direct sensory experience. You do like to misrepresent.
I also never said that I "reject" no sensory information. I don't, or wouldn't, reject it IF it existed. I do not believe it does.
quote:
Yeah you've got that but how do you know that it can account for everything that is? That's quite a presumption, and one I am unwilling to make.
I don't know that, but I am also confident that if there is a God, or extra physical principle, of some kind it is so far removed from anything we've yet conceived that I really don't have to worry about offending it, nor will I have to worry about retracting anything I have said about Christianity.
quote:
You ask me a lot of questions you already know the answer to.
Sorry, but no I don't. This, in fact, is the question that started me down the road I am on and led me where I am. I can't answer this question via any means I know.
quote:
I'm not the one snotting my nose at people who believed in Valhalla or green fairies. I would like to think I'm a little bit wiser than that.
Nor do I except in the context of these debates. Frankly, if you or your church can distribute what I believe are lies, I can distribute the contrary view.
quote:
Plus, what if (simply for the sake of argument) Valhalla and Judeo-Christian Heaven are simply partial descriptions of the same place?
Then both are wrong. Perhaps something like this is true. I'll let you know after I die. Oh... but sadly... this didn't work for Houdini so I'll do my best.
quote:
I've seen your website so I have an idea.
I doubt it. Surely you aren't so shallow as to believe that site is the whole of my being?
quote:
That depends on how big your lawn is, and how lazy you are. If you don't know a street is there, and you live a quarter mile off into the woods, and you didn't know if a street were there, you might never get to work.
I could, however, start walking and see what is there. This I cannot do when looking for your god because I have to BELIEVE, according to you, before the evidence appears.
quote:
In fact, if you had no memory of the day before, you would have no empirical evidence of the street...therefore, by your logic, there would no street, therefore, you would never be able to leave your home.-
Believing in the street has nothing to do with whether I leave my home. And I don't need my memory or faith to stumbled upon a road. I know. I've been lost in the woods before. I do need FAITH before the evidence magically appears. You are missing that last part.
quote:
And if you wander about aimlessly, in a big circle, only halfheartedly, or look in the wrong places, you could wander a long time. Say, 20 years? Long enough to give up.
Perhaps. But you could come along and say "there is a road that-a-way" And I'd believe you right up until you said "but you have to believe in it really really hard or it won't be there." This is something you tell children.
quote:
No, actually, I fault you primarily because you think I, my family, my friends, and my fellow worshippers are "stupid", "dishonest", "evil", "abusive", and some other things.
I have heard the same from countless Christians directed toward my kind. Hell, it shows up on these boards all the time. I don't whine that "PosterX called my wife an idiot, cause he said atheists are stupid." Can't you keep this stuff in context?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by gene90, posted 12-10-2002 9:21 PM gene90 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 417 (26353)
12-11-2002 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by gene90
12-11-2002 11:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
It is. It makes moral values optional.
I think your problem, gene, is that you aren't an insider....
quote:
It relieves you of striving to walk with God.
You say walk with god, I say walk with a crutch and a pacifier.
quote:
It excuses you from searching for God.
Does a disbelief in quarks excuse you from the search? Nope. You check and see, and move on. But there is no checking for God and no seeing without first assuming and believing that he exists.
quote:
It's what happens when you give up.
God is what happens when you give up, or when the world is too hard to bear without a blankie.
quote:
You can (and probably do) appeal to books for guidance.
I read. None of them are sacrosanct. You missed that point.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by gene90, posted 12-11-2002 11:23 AM gene90 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 417 (26354)
12-11-2002 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by gene90
12-11-2002 12:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
quote:
In reply, I made numerous comments to your post--
Comments such as:
This is the easy answer.
Cute.
This is getting trite, gene. In any other arena you'd realize how absurd this logic is.
and
ok ????
quote:
It is there for anyone to read.
Much like the religious intolerance posted on your website.
Perhaps you would like to make more substantial comments in the future? You sound so much like Nos right now.

Wow. Four comments irritate you, one of them A QUESTION ( note the question marks ) and you mark the whole post as flippant and fly off the handle? As for the others, why I posted what I did in response ought to be obvious to someone not in a religious fervor.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by gene90, posted 12-11-2002 12:02 PM gene90 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 417 (26356)
12-11-2002 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by gene90
12-11-2002 12:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Well let's try an experiment. Take "Christians are dishonest" and replace the "Christian" in that phrase with "Jew" and see if it's something you would not be embarrassed to say amongst civilized people.
I would be embarrassed. I don't believe it, except in the context of religion. It does take, in my opinion, a significant intellectual dishonesty to believe any religion.
quote:
Take your phrase, "The worst people I have ever known have been Christians" and replace "Christians" with "Muslims", and see if you would ever be caught saying something like that in front of somebody important.
Gee, I am sorry that the worst people I have ever known have called themselves Christian. I can't change this FACT. And I won't retract it because you don't like it.
quote:
As for pedophilia, you think it should be legal, as you wrote this article saying that the age of consent should be moved down
Study your history gene. I'd be willing to bet that 60% of your ancestors married somewhere within the range I suggest. Are they all pedophiles? And many, I'll wager, well before that. You come from a family of pedophiles? We all do. Why? Study some history. Current age of consent laws are higher than in the past. Did morality change with time? Age of consent laws also change absurdly state to state. Does this make sense to you? It must, since one point of my article was the analysis of this. Do you think everyone matures at the same rate, and at 18 ( or 16, or 21, or 14, depending on where you are ) something magical happens to someone's psyche? Apparently you do. Do people five mile apart but in different states mature at different rates? Apparently they do.
quote:
and you wrote an article entitled "The emancipation proclamation for pedophiles in which you advocate that the House is wrong in opposing a lowering of the age of consent.
Yeah, it is gene. And people are welcome to hop on over and see what an ass you are being by distorting what I said. The point isn't about pedaphilia, it is about the government, and the scientific community, censoring science because it contradicts accepted wisdom. But you know that.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by gene90, posted 12-11-2002 12:18 PM gene90 has not replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 417 (26362)
12-11-2002 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by nator
12-10-2002 8:33 AM


Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
f:
investigating what? how to explain a transcendental entity from within a worldview that denies such entities?
quote:
S:
No. YOu said that athiests couldn't explain where logic and reason came from, and that Christians could.
i believe i said "account for" but i may have inadvertantly said explain... in any case, the materialist denies the existence of entites required to deny anything...
quote:
S:
I pointed out that Evolutionary Psychology is investigating the origins of logic and reasoning ability.
and *i* pointed out that materialists can't account for either, yet borrow from the worldview of those who have no such inconsistencies
quote:
f:
quote:
schraf, you have misread the posts, i believe... it doesn't matter whether or not one says God or pink unicorns, the materialist denies *all* metaphysical entities while utilizing those same entities in her arguments... the christian doesn't... so you are mistaken, christians can constently utilize transcendental entities, there is no problem from their worldview... materialists (i've taken to using that word since not all atheists subscribe to materialism) can't.. i hope that clears it up for you
The problem is your use of the word "explain."
"Explain" means something different to the materialist than it does to the mystic.
i've my above paragraph several times and i don't see "explain" in it... i do say "utilize"... why not just read the paragraph again and argue against *it* and not something it doesn't say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by nator, posted 12-10-2002 8:33 AM nator has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 417 (26366)
12-11-2002 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by gene90
12-11-2002 3:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Are you saying there is no such thing as religious intolerance? Or that there is no such thing as religious bigotry?
I'm not saying that at all. I'm not against religious tolerance. I'm tolerant as all get out-- WITH PEOPLE. My mom is Christian as are my sisters. We get along fine. I know quite a few Jews as well, some of them VERY orthodox. We get along fine. I respect people based on what I know of the person. But ideas are a different thing altogether.
quote:
There is a difference between being critical of a religion and calling its followers "stupid", "evil", or "dishonest". If you called the Hare Krishna, Taoists, Branch Davidians, Incas, or Wiccans, "stupid", "evil", or "dishonest" because of their religious preferences you would still be a religious bigot.
I could clean it up gene, and say the ideas of christianity are 'stupid' and etc, but the implications would be the same. Sugar coating makes it better? Don't think so.
quote:
It's not the same as saying Koresh himself were any of those things, then you are judging an individual instead of a stereotype.
You seem to have a problem with my saying that the worst people I have ever known are Christains. This isn't a statement about a stereotype but about people I could name.
quote:
I'm sure you heard about the evangelical Baptists who have been saying nasty things about Muslims and Mohammed on television and the vast public outcry that followed their brazen display of intolerance.
Nope. Missed that actually.
quote:
You are on an evangelical mission to advance your religion and you're utterly convinced that everyone else is "deluded".
More like counter-evangelical really.... I'm not utterly convinced that everyone else is deluded, but I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.
quote:
You've been fighting "monsters" for a long time, and you know what I'm insinuating with this.
ooooooo.... so mysterious.... demons? guilt? what am I fighting?
quote:
And just for the record: I called you a bigot.
Glad that is out in the open.
Let's see Webster's has "a person obstinantly or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"
Obstinate? Perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course IN SPITE OF REASON. Well, strike that. I have reason and do not adhere to anything that has been disproven.
Intolerant? Unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters? Unwilling to grnat or share social, political, or proffessional rights? Wow. Well, strike two for you theory.
Devoted? Well, I'll give you that, though it depends on the definition you use. But devoted to opinions? My opinions change over time and with new information, so I can't really be devoted can I? Devoted to prejudice? A preconceived judgement or opinion? How much consideration must one give a subject to avoid the charge of committing this error? Is all my life long enough? Strike that, then.
Well, that leaves .... hmmmm.... nothing.
quote:
I did not call you a racist.
Nope. It was bigot, and the charge is unfounded.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by gene90, posted 12-11-2002 3:04 PM gene90 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 417 (26367)
12-11-2002 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by gene90
12-11-2002 3:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
When you give a logical answer instead of snippy remarks, once will be fine.
So will continue to misrepresent me and my position until when? Really, I'd like to know.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by gene90, posted 12-11-2002 3:10 PM gene90 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 417 (26369)
12-11-2002 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by gene90
12-11-2002 3:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Your character is one of the chief issues.
My character was not the issue. You imported it, presumable because you didn't have an actual response.
quote:
The subject of the debate is why God doesn't seem to talk to some people. Well I think it's quite obvious. All I need to see is your website why God isn't talking to you.
Nice try but this is a rather late runner in the race. If it was a point you meant to make it could have been made without the lies and the slander.
quote:
And they are definately adequate for my purposes in this thread.
Your purpose is defamation then? Good show. Sadly, the purpose of the thread is quite different.
quote:
If this premise were true, all of science would be undermined. For example, all the "findings" scientists would discover would be colored by their prior notions. In fact this is exactly what the YECs are claiming. Are you trying to give credence to their arguments?
ah.... but you forget the part about evidence, that YECs and you DON'T have.
quote:
You only must accept the possibility and make a sincere effort to find God. That includes cleaning up your life.
More assumptions about my life. Prove this crap or take it back. What do you know about me? Tell us all? What PRECISELY is so dirty about my life?
quote:
I am not sure. I suspect you never really were looking for God. You say you spent 20 years looking for God. Then you say you spent 20 years successfully arguing with Christians. Which was it?
It is the same quest. Only within the confines of a dogmatic religion is this not the case, and that is your problem not mine.
quote:
Praying, studying the scriptures, going to church, living a clean life...oh wait that's too much to ask you without believing first.
I've done all of that. I was raised doing that.
quote:
As I have said, the problem is not that you don't believe, the problem is laziness. Remember the analogy about finding the road?
Does it make you feel better to call me lazy? I hope so, because it is one more lies from the good christian ( who objects to the insult of christians ). The arrogance is mind numbing.
quote:
No, you would had to have "thought" about it to argue with "stupid", "evil" Christians for twenty years. I just don't think you ever made a sincere effort.
Respectfully, you have no idea what you are talking about. You don't have a clue what I spend and have spent my time doing. But I guess it makes you feel better to post baseless garbage than to face the logical untenablility of your faith.
quote:
Do you have enough evidence against God to justify your vendetta against Christianity?
Well, gene, though the distiction may not be clear to you. I don't have a vendetta against GOD, per se. What I do have is evidence against the religion of Christianity.
quote:
You are speaking of me personally, do not pretend that you aren't.
Yes. And it is not a pretense. I said earlier, though you refuse to believe it, that I quite respected you prior to this assault.
I'll readily admit that some Christians do not fit my averaged out portrayal. I would have included you in that category, but I must conclude that I was wrong.
quote:
Because you don't listen. Whatever God tries to tell you is buried by your rebellion. If you would stop rejecting everything God values maybe you could hear.
I wish for five minute, just five minutes, you could understand how insulting that is to me. The worst accusations you could make against me personally are embedded in there. Except for that stupidity about the pedophilia, this is the worst you've pitched. And you have pitched it repeatedly throughout this thread. Your first post to me carried these same elements. So hearing you whine about your religion being under fire is getting very old.
quote:
Don't you remember that you have to earn faith?
Remember? You never explained how that works.
quote:
Lies? My source is quite reliable.
Your source does not your translations. A partial and warped presentation is a lie. I hate to break that to you. And, it is a lie even if done for the love of God.
quote:
Of course, I'm not fond of your lies about me.
Point me to where I have said "Gene is a ... insert lie here... "
quote:
And as long as the topic of discussion is "why God doesn't talk to you", what we know of your character is valid evidence.
BS. This is a means to justify bad behavior.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by gene90, posted 12-11-2002 3:31 PM gene90 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 417 (26371)
12-11-2002 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by gene90
12-11-2002 4:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Thank you for your contribution to the illustration.
I see you are conveniently above the standards to which you wish to hold the rest of us.
quote:
How many times have you acted on it?
Too many to count. You see, I have this terrible problem. I can't stop thinking. I try, but I just can't stop thinking.
quote:
This should make you suspect that perhaps it isn't actually a misrepresentation.
No. It just makes me realize that the two of you are more alike than I would have suspected. With nos, I made the mistake of criticising Wicca. And nos launched into lengthy attack on my character, complete with the very same misrepresentations you chose. Misrepresentations, chosen, I suspect because of the ease of misuse and because of the sensitive nature of the topics. Certain subjects carry so much emotional charge that once lit, spiral out of control leaving reason far behind. These are the fires you tries to light. And you are a bastard for it.
quote:
But a vast difference in quality. Mine actually said something useful. It didn't duck whole points with things like "Cute" and "Better than getting it out of a book".
So you believe. I felt and feel that your first post to me and most of your others are severely lacking in quality.
quote:
I thought you were avoiding the issue.
Nice that you finally realize that I wasn't.
quote:
Perhaps you could detail how and why "earning faith" is an oxymoron? I know lots of atheists like to believe that faith is something you either have or do not have (because it helps them escape Pascal's Wager) but perhaps you could defend that, if that is your perspective. Or otherwise elaborate?
I'm not sure what you are talking about, but it is simple the way I see it. Faith is belief without evidence-- evidence of things not seen, that sort of thing. How exactly do you earn that? What kind of work do you do to earn it? And if you earn it, it isn't belief without evidence. Faith earned through works should be measurable-- at least as measurable as most psychological studies pre-high-tech lab.
quote:
Can you prove that? Or at least elaborate on it? Have you actually tried that for any religion? Or are you speculating?
I can sit here and choose pretty much anything and build an unassailable faith around it. It isn't that difficult.
I was raised Southern Baptist and I have since believed in several other religious structures, before settling on the idea that none of them make sense.
quote:
You earn your faith by diligently following God. You don't follow God therefore you will never develop any faith.
The process actually is a vicious circle, either way: toward or against God.

Ok. But I still don't know how this comes from the sentence I asked about.
quote:
I'm retracting that actually.
muchos gracias
quote:
But then you say you're angry at the House because they ignored the claim that children having sex doesn't do any harm. In other words, you seem to be pro-underage sex. And since sex before age of consent is rape, you are actually supporting child rape.
No. I have a problem with WHY the House did what they did and how they did it. It was blatant censorship of a scientific study. I don't care how contraversial the result turned out to be, the study was done properly and made it into a peer reviewed journal. I doubt this study has stood the test of the two or three years since I read the report which prompted the article. Actually changing laws based on one study would be idiotic, especially one with this much potential to do harm.
And by the way, there have been several people very close to me who were victimized as children, one in particular suffered very badly -- meaning both that it happened an unbelievable number of times and that the consequences were pretty rough too. So, in short, you are really stepping out of line on this one.
quote:
Just out of curiousity, what did you think people would think of your article when you entitled it, "The Emancipation Proclamation for Pedophiles"?
The title is almost verbatim what this study was labeled by groups who were up in arms about it several years ago.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by gene90, posted 12-11-2002 4:18 PM gene90 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 417 (26374)
12-12-2002 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by funkmasterfreaky
12-11-2002 5:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
That's the logic of a 4 year old johnny. It's a stereotype. It's wrong.
Is it wrong to be critical of ideas? If yes, what are you doing here and if no, drop it.
Stereotype? Funk, everything is a stereotype if you break it down. Would you object to "Christians are honest, hard-working people?" Well, that is a stereotype too. Guess we'll ditch that. You cannot talk about groups without stereotyping, its just that people only complain when they don't like what is said. A stereotype is a concept used to think, and speak, in general terms. The trick is to not apply the general concept to individuals. That is when it causes trouble.
quote:
Anyways this thread was supposed to be about God talking, not your religious intolerance.
Talk to gene about that. It is hard not to respond to being called a pedophile.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-11-2002 5:44 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-12-2002 11:35 AM John has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 417 (26375)
12-12-2002 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by funkmasterfreaky
12-11-2002 6:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Note these are not second hand stories, all personal experience.
Personal experience for you. Second hand for me. If you could document anything I'd be interested.
I have heard similar stories from other people as well, but with different gods inserted into the appropriate blanks. These have all been second hand to me, but first hand to the one who told me, just like your stories.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-11-2002 6:18 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Chara, posted 12-12-2002 6:51 AM John has replied
 Message 158 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-12-2002 11:51 AM John 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