|The creation Museum can't build their arc (85) | Posted on July 9, 2012, 8:49 a.m.|
|It's pretty well established that forty days and nights is a Biblical descriptor of some period of time. It's not an exact number. Plus, you've simply assumed that the Flood was a global event. This is hardly a consensus among Bible scholars.|
Right. So 40 days of rain that covered the entire f***ing world and killed off all humans other than Noah really means a few months of rain that flooded a minor local area and didn't actually kill off all that many people. Okay. So if the 40 days are bulls*** and the "global" part of the "global flood" is bulls***, why exactly wouldn't the dimensions of the ark be bulls*** as well? Why would any part of the entire story be worth a damn? And why would God inspire people to write a story in his name that is largely complete bulls***? What's the damn point of that?
Says the man issuing challenges with a keyboard.
Either you think it is feasible or you don't. If you think it's feasible, you shouldn't be afraid to give it a go, should you? And yet you're probably scared s***less of the thought of sailing into a hurricane on a 500 foot long pure wood boat. And you should be, don't get me wrong, because it's almost certainly suicide, but your fear shows that you don't believe in the concept of seaworthy 500 foot pure wood boats any more than I do.
|The creation Museum can't build their arc (82) | Posted on July 8, 2012, 8:33 p.m.|
Though now that we're on it, it occurs to me that the biblical account doesn't mention storms, just rain and flooding. I've lived through a fair number of floods myself, some even fairly severe. More often than not, it's just rain that goes on for a long time. Other than the duration, the storms are fairly mild. I'd have put to sea in any moderately seaworthy ship in any one of those storms.
Given that, I don't think it's fair to say that the ark would've needed to withstand great waves and hurricane force winds. Just normal seaworthiness might have sufficed.
We're talking about five freaking miles of water coming down in 40 days, unless you subscribe to idiocy such as "flatter Earth" or what have you. That's 200 meters per day or one inch per eleven seconds. You've *never* seen anything that even begins to resemble that sort of rain.
And as for storms, kindly do tell me what you think the effect is going to be of the entire surface being completely without land mass to absorb streams and winds. When the equatorial waters are heated up and crash into colder waters, the resulting storm isn't going to fizzle over any land mass, because the entire planet is covered by water.
Of course, no normal storm can drop as much water over as large an area as is required by the Biblical flood, so we really don't have a naturalistic explanation for that anyway. So God may well have magicked all the water into appearance without any winds, but it would take yet more magick for the resulting sea to remain without strong winds and currents.
Why? Is it trying to stay on course? Why can't it simply be built to allow itself to be pushed and go with the flow?
It's 500 feet long. How do you suppose it will climb waves without suffering constant pressure changes?
There you go. God did it.
Indeed. This is about all the flood story amounts to. Magic.
Hey, I never use AiG as a source, nor do I trust it.
Really? That's quite nice to hear.
Because "Hey, someone one built a sturdy 500 foot wooden boat that survived a global flood" translates to "I have unwavering faith that all 500 foot wooden boats are indestructible."
If you think Noah's wooden boat could survive the most insanely extreme weather ever and float around for a year, surely you trust a modern design to survive something as trivial as an ordinary hurricane, right? Or would you rather admit that the ark story is bollocks without constant divine aid?
As kozlo said, the Bible doesn't say anything about storms at all. Just rain.
Just rain. Enough rain to go 15 cubits above the highest mountain peaks, which technically means almost nine kilometers of rain, but I'm rounding it down to just 8, just to keep the numbers nice. That's 200 meters per day or 2.3 mm per second. The mere pressure of that much water falling through the atmosphere is going to cause diving sickness. And then there's eventually going to be a worldwide ocean with nothing to break winds or currents.
Yeah, just a nice and calm bit of summer rain, isn't it?
I find it hilarious that you actually think my level of bravery or cowardice has any relation to whether ANYTHING in this world is true or false. Other than the question of whether I'm brave :D
I don't. I just think it's sad to see people babble about how feasible the ark would've been and then not jump at the chance to prove it. It's not like a wooden boat might go down during a hurricane, is it?
|The creation Museum can't build their arc (61) | Posted on July 8, 2012, 2:11 p.m.|
|Could a 500 foot pure wood boat with no metal elements whatsoever stay floating on a dead quiet water surface? Possibly. It would be one hell of an engineering feat but it just might be possible to reinforce the hull enough that it could carry its own weight. |
Could such a vessel survive a storm so massive that words fail to describe it and then remain sailing for a year with no possiblity of doing maintenance? Not a f***ing chance in hell.
The issue isn't just whether wood can float but whether a wooden hull that big can withstand the constant pressure changes as waves crash into the hull. The boat is going to move and water is going to press against it. This means the hull has to constantly absorb and redirect all that force. And the hull has to keep doing this, hour after hour, day after day, month after month. Now add really big waves. Part of the ship is under water, and part of the ship well clear. Then the ship breaks through the wave, the part above water crashes into the surface and the other end is lifted. Now do this for a full year.
No, you're not going to see that sort of durability from a wooden hull. Not without magic. A 500 foot wooden ark surviving a worldwide flood and sailing about for a year is about as sensible as Icarus flying with feathered clay wings.
By the way, do read up on that creationist website, please. The Korean study they're linking to was made for creationists and has the unfortunate issue of assuming that one can simply attach as many 50cm x 50cm beams as needed along the length, width and diagonally, without them falling apart. Quoting the article:
"An index for structural safety was obtained by assessing the required thickness of the midship for each hull form to endure the vertical bending moment imposed by waves."
In other words, is it possible to make a wooden hull thick enough that it could theoretically endure the theoretical pressures we're going to throw after it? Note that no calculations are offered on how strong wood is, how strong wood is after six months at sea, how strong wooden joints are, or how well this whole thing will float with five miles of water coming down in 40 days. All that stuff is ignored.
And this is of course assuming that Answers in Genesis didn't f*** up the translation of the article rather badly. Obviously people like OW and Phizzle are going to naively trust the honesty of AiG, but personally I'm not quite inclined to do that.
And really, there's no analysis that beats a full scale test. I trust that OW, Julian, and Phizzle, would happily take a cruise on a 500 foot pure wood boat into the biggest and meanest hurricane that can be found with no modern safety precautions. Surely they're not intellectually bankrupt cowards who talk big but lack the balls to actually risk anything to prove their inane gibberish, right?
|Could you ever date a person of a different belief? (54) | Posted on June 30, 2012, 11:25 p.m.|
You wouldn't want to spend every single day of the rest of your life with someone with a drastically opposite world view.
Are you implying that all who are not Orthodox have drastically opposite world views? Because I'd find that to be a really bold claim, particularly since you're not Orthodox yourself, AFAIK.
Especially in CS's case, if he wishes to join the Orthodox priesthood, then marrying someone outside the Orthodox faith would be akin to marrying someone who disagreed with the very purpose of his career.
Right. Anyone who is not Orthodox must fundamentally disagree with an Orthodox priest spreading the Orthodox interpretation of Christianity. You're not Orthodox, are you? Does that mean you also fundamentally disagree with Chaos Scade becoming a priest and spreading the "Orthodox falsehoods"? That is what you're saying, isn't it?
Essentially, instead of focusing on the similarity of your love of Christ, you're focusing on diversion and hatred. On rivalry between different interpretations of the same damn thing. By your reasoning, all that aren't of the exact same faith are fundamentally against it. They are enemies of the Truth!
Can you really not see what's wrong with that worldview? And do you really think Christ would want us to fight over the finer details of how to properly worship Him, rather than stand united in a shared love of God?
Say she chose to take your kids to Vacation Bible School - I'll go on a limb and say that's probably not something you'd take kindly to.
If she chooses that without asking me, I would indeed get annoyed. It would not be her choice to make but our choice, since we're talking about our kids. And if she were to insist that they must be brought up in the belief that atheism is evil and whatnot then there'd also be a problem. But then we're getting to the point where it stops being a conflict over religion and starts being one over brainwashing.
I would have no problem with her teaching them what Christianity is about, as long as they get to choose themselves. If they wish to be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, or atheist has to be their choice. If they want to go to Vacation Bible School then that's fine too, as long as it's not simply due to pressure from their mother.
I'll be damned if I'm going to force my religious beliefs onto them just because I'm not too fond of organized religion. But they would of course know that no matter what the clergy says, there is an alternative, and that the alternative is not evil.
How about your kids, SSj? What are you going to tell them about atheism? If their mother takes them to an atheist summer camp, how will you respond?
|Could you ever date a person of a different belief? (48) | Posted on June 29, 2012, 6:39 p.m.|
You're entire post was a strawman because you assume ONE thing from the fact that he doesn't want to marry another Orthodox.
I offered a summary from a previous discussion, complete with the perspective it left me with, while also pointing out what I perceive to be intellectual arrogance. Please do acknowledge that I cannot reasonably boil an entire discussion between Chaos Scade and myself, both happy word-spammers, into a digestible size without being a bit blunt here and there.
I understand the sentiment of wanting to marry within your religion and your statements are just wrong.
I'm eagerly awaiting the evidence that you're about to present.
You assume in your post that
1. Not wanting to marry someone means you don't understand their beliefs.
No, but I suppose I can forgive you for coming to that conclusion. What you might reasonably say that I assume is that definitively ruling out marrying someone solely because their stance on something tremendously subjective isn't entirely the same, to do that is to treat that person as an inferior person.
The key element here is "definitively". That's what I interpreted CS as doing last time we had this talk. Having doubts is fair enough, having certainty not so much.
As for the whole "don't understand" thing, I don't mean the specifics of what people believe, but that their beliefs are every bit as justified as your own. I'm a hard atheist and while I believe no gods exist with every fiber of my being, I'm also keenly aware that my belief is just as subjective as CS believing just as strongly that the Orthodox Church is the true church of Jesus Christ. My belief isn't better or worse in its own right.
I'd have no problem dating an Orthodox woman, and I wouldn't ask her to become an atheist. She might have a problem with me, though.
2. Not wanting to marry someone means you think their beliefs are inferior
Again, I don't actually make this assumption, at least not in the simplified form in which you're presenting it.
Nothing about those statements are based on fact or logic.
So you don't think that positively ruling out that you could ever marry an Protestant implicitly suggests that being a Protestant just isn't good enough for him?
It has nothing to do with being close minded it has to do with compatibility.
Indeed. Except he knows that not one out of literally billions of non-Orthodox women is compatible with him. He knows that because he defines "compatible" as "Orthodox" or "open to become Orthodox". If neither attribute is met then the compatibility issue flag is raised and the candidate is rejected. It's much like saying it's not racism when white people rule out marrying a black person (or vice versa), it's just because they're not "compatible" with them. Their culture demands an same-color spouse or whatever.
First off just because he would only marry an orthodox doesn't mean he thinks it's the only worthwhile truth.
If he can tell simply from her not being Orthodox that she's an unsuitable wife then isn't that exactly what he's thinking?
I think he's actually saying he wants the woman he plans on being with forever and spending his life with to share his faith
Yes, I got as much. And if her faith isn't exactly his brand of ketchup, the whole thing just cannot work. Then he can't be with her forever and share his life with her. She's then quite useless as his wife. Simply because she prefers a different brand of ketchup.
|Could you ever date a person of a different belief? (47) | Posted on June 29, 2012, 5:52 p.m.|
|the Church is the entire People of God most excellently represented by the saints. This makes the consensus of the saints across all times and places, not the decrees of a currently-reigning bureaucracy, therefore, the infallible rule of faith of the Church.|
So the patriarchs are just paper-pushing figure-heads and the bishops are really just ordinary priests with a dress upgrade? No religious hierarchy in place whatsoever, neither now nor back in the Roman times? And who exactly declares someone a saint? Is that up for popular vote or can any priest simply declare anyone a saint at any time? By all means, enlighten me. It won't convert me to Orthodoxy, but maybe it would make me shut up.
And please don't get me wrong, I don't think the theocratic rule of the Orthodox Church is anything but symbolic at this point, but that doesn't mean all the mechanics in play are benign and unworthy of skepticism or even criticism.
I would date someone who wasn't Orthodox if we were compatible and were attracted to each other even if they weren't "almost Orthodox". If they had absolutely no interest in even learning about Orthodoxy, however, I wouldn't expect the relationship to last all that long before falling apart, and you're right, I wouldn't take the final step and marry them unless they became Orthodox
That's not exactly the stance I recall from last time, but fair enough. I'm always happy to be wrong about these things.
If you're both Orthodox but your spouse loses faith during your marriage, that's sad, but the whole point is that you implicitly agreed to whatever trouble the future brought when you married them, so you stay married to them, you keep loving them and you pray that they come back.
Right. So that whole rule about how Orthodox priests must have Orthodox wives only applies during the time of marriage? Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely happy that you're less of a nutjob than I suspected and that you wouldn't feel ashamed of being the Orthodox priest who couldn't even help wish wife keep her faith. That you'd take it in stride and walk on your path to salvation alone, hoping that she'll join you eventually. I guess that really is possible for Orthodox believers, after all.
you literally have no idea about anything to do with an Orthodox phronema or mindset, I feel bad for you son.
Have I ever claimed otherwise? And when you spend as little as two minutes carefully considering the situation, you may realize that such knowledge isn't particularly necessary for me at this time. I'm happy to learn when the opportunity presents itself but I've got absolutely no reason to invest any real effort in researching your religion.
You don't need to feel bad for me either. I've got something that satisfies me much more than Christianity ever did. And I'm not sure you're old enough (or smart enough) to call me "son". Though I'm sure it's textbook Christian humility to simply assume that whomever you're talking to is a complete idiot.
|Could you ever date a person of a different belief? (46) | Posted on June 29, 2012, 5:48 p.m.|
That isn't actually the case. [...] That doesn't mean, however, that I would want such a concession for myself, especially since I'm aiming for the priesthood (and a priest's wife must indeed be Orthodox)
Right. So your wife has to be Orthodox. That's really the gist of the whole issue, isn't it? She HAS to be Orthodox. She cannot have a different faith.
That's only because you don't accept that Protestantism and Orthodoxy are actually two fundamentally different religions with different ideas of salvation. The only reason you think it isn't a thing deal is because you look at it without any real knowledge or experience of what any of this means and just declare it all to be the same thing.
I call the Protestant and Orthodox paths to salvation separate just to please you, and what do I get? More grief.
There are so many latent assumptions in here, as if all of this is about God having me by the balls and me being scared about not pleasing him, lmao. It's not. It's also not about intentional segregation. We aren't cultists. We have normal lives and normal relationships with people, including non-Orthodox people.
Talk about latent assumptions, CS. If you weren't sure what I was actually saying then why didn't you just ask? First of all, are you saying that you're not doing everything your Church demands of you in order to please God? If that's not the purpose then what is? Eternal salvation?
Second, how much would you say that your Church has reformed and changed policies through the ages? Isn't that lack of change a defining attribute of the Orthodox Church? Isn't that why you consider it more pure than the alternatives? So if you have rules for what faith a spouse must have, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that these rules aren't new? That they go way back?
You talk about how you're not isolated within Orthodoxy, but who do you ultimately confide in? Your wife and your priest? And by strange coincidence they're both going to be Orthodox people giving you Orthodox advice. This whole thing may of course be a complete coincidence, but can you really not see the pattern?
|Could you ever date a person of a different belief? (39) | Posted on June 29, 2012, 12:40 p.m.|
I like how you suppose a reason, and then later on in the post, actually give the real reason.
TRJ isn't Orthodox and he isn't Chaos Scade, so suggesting that the Orthodox-specific argument of CS should apply to TRJ is silly, even for you. And CS' argument does little to change the fact that many Christians seem perfectly content with acting like their truth is the only truth that matters and the only truth one should pay any attention to. Which is the same kind of arrogance that I mentioned initially.
Whoa how old are you 12? That argument has all the sophistication and thought of an elementary student. Actually that's insulting to elementary students.
I'm 27 and hold a master's degree in business admin and logistics, as it happens. You'll excuse me for not losing sleep that you fail to understand my reasoning.
Huh? You're saying I don't realize that there's a multitude of beliefs beyond my own because I don't want to marry an atheist?
No, I'm actually not saying that at all. I'm saying that if you treat all people of a different faith as inferior simply because they don't share your own exact faith then you're effectively treating other faiths as inherently worthless.
Let me offer this analogy. I really don't like mustard but I don't treat people who like mustard as morons. And I could totally date a woman who likes her hot dogs with loads of mustard and no ketchup. I just wouldn't eat her hot dogs. My comment was directed towards those who would insist that not only does the date partner have to share a pro-ketchup, anti-mustard stance, she'd also have to prefer exactly the same brands of ketchup.
More strawman. You actually have 2 of them in here this time.
Care to point them out?
Nice to know that not wanting to share a life and have a family with an atheist or polytheist was insisting that my personal truth is the only worthwhile one. I don't remember telling anyone their truths are worthless garbage but I'll take your word for it.
I bolded a key part for you. You're willing to share a life with a Jew, a Catholic, or maybe one of the myriad of various Protestants, even though you're a Muslim. Or at least I think that's what you are, but I'm tired and my memory is crap at the best of times. You've essentially expressed that you're open to any faith, as long as it isn't extremely far away from your own.
Chaos Scade will only partner up with other Orthodox believers, or if he is to stretch a bit, people that are almost Orthodox. If his partner won't turn Orthodox, it's a deal breaker. If he gets married and his wife ends up losing faith, I'm guessing he'll aim for annulment or at least divorce. That's quite a different situation. He's saying "not in a million years, even if she was the last woman on Earth" where you're saying "yes, though not if the value gap is wider than freaking Grand Canyon".
Oh the irony...
Care to point out where I'm being arrogant?
You do realize your entire post reads like some angry rant and it's completely and entirely fallacious, illogical, and unreasonable right? None of your statements are based on logic or fact, and none of them are even close to correct.
So far you've done a piss poor job of showing me to be wrong, fallacious, illogical, or unreasonable. And that particular post wasn't angry either. Quite the opposite, in fact.
|Could you ever date a person of a different belief? (28) | Posted on June 29, 2012, 6:23 a.m.|
I think it is incredibly closed minded that you could not understand why it would be very difficult for a religious person to be with someone who doesnt share their beliefs.
I think it's incredibly closed minded of religious people to not realize that there is a world of beliefs beyond their own. In insisting that your personal truth must be the only worthwhile truth, you're effectively telling the rest of the world that their truths are worthless garbage. Maybe you're that arrogant but I am not.
That's part of the reason why I don't care to force my atheism onto anyone, not even a potential partner. My atheism is my truth and it works for me. Even if I believe it to be the ultimately, universal truth, I don't actually know that it is, nor could I possibly know, and what I do know is that it just doesn't work for everybody. Some people need to believe in something bigger than humanity. Who am I to take that from them?
And please keep in mind that Chaos Scade isn't refusing a non-Orthodox wife because he thinks it has to be difficult. That consideration isn't even relevant. What matters is that his Church has dictated that Orthodox should marry Orthodox only and that's really the end of it. His Church commands it and so shall it be.
The reason for said command is that they can't walk down the Orthodox spiritual path together if they don't believe exactly the same things. If she's Protestant, for instance, then they're walking down two separate paths, even if both paths are parallel to each other.
To CS this just might sound plausible. To me it sounds like an intentional segregation to keep the heretics and their "corrupting influence" away from the "true believers" so the Church can maintain control. To CS the rigid structure and strictly defined ritualism is to please God. To me it's yet another example of God being used as an instrument to control people. I doubt we'll ever agree on this and fortunately we don't have to.
Chaos and I had a talk about this whole thing a while back and we didn't hold back too much in exchanging our views, as I recall it. He thinks I'm somewhere between a raging anti-Christian and a complete moron and I think he's a fundamentalist sheep, roughly speaking. That's okay, though. I know I'm neither anti-Christian nor a moron and he knows that he's not a mindless slave to his Church superiors. It all works out in the end, even if we don't like each other.
My personal theory is that he's bitter over something that happened to him in a relationship that ended over religion and he takes his frustration about it out on me.
I'm bitter over a fair few things but this isn't one of them. And the only frustrations I'm taking out on you are those I have about the pigheadedness of religious fanatics, though in that particular case you may be correct that you're getting more than your fair share of grief.
Then again, have I actually bashed you much recently? Because if you're going to be this damn whiny, I may as well give you a reason for it.
|Could you ever date a person of a different belief? (26) | Posted on June 29, 2012, 5:40 a.m.|
|Well, I was initially just answering the question, and I was simply pre-empting your entry since you seem to have a cry about it every time you see me mention my position on the matter.|
Strange. I seem to vaguely recall us agreeing to dislike each other quietly. Something about the utter pointlessness of us butting heads, since neither of us really gives a damn what the other thinks.
Looks like I was right in anticipating it, wasn't I?
Not really. You mentioned me by name and as random chance would have it, I happened to read this topic. Therefore I answer. Otherwise I would've been perfectly content to leave you be. You know my stance, after all, and repeating it for the hell of it wouldn't seem to serve much of a purpose. Wouldn't even be entertaining for either of us.
That reminds me though, there's a topic that I had to leave alone due to my exams that I should probably dig up out of the archives and respond to the posts made by you, gimpy, and Suibom.
Feel free. I don't recall any such topic but I'm sure it will be fun. We always have such a delightful time talking to each other, after all.
Yeah, I was racking my brain trying to remember if you were a spacer or underscorer, but I figured most people on here were mostly new accounts so I just stumped for an underscore. If it's of any comfort, I hate it when people call me Chaos_Scade as well.
Fair enough. I was simply curious.
|Could you ever date a person of a different belief? (20) | Posted on June 29, 2012, 3:53 a.m.|
|Chaos Scade posted...|
I would never marry anyone who wasn't an Orthodox Christian (and I wouldn't date them for too long if there was no prospect of them becoming Orthodox). black_spider thinks I'm a bigot for that reason though lmao
As it happens, I think you're a bigot for quite a few reasons, but I'm not sure that was the word I used with respect to you making religion a fundamental criteria of partnership selection. More like a fundie sheep supporting a hugely bigoted aspect of your religion. But I suppose that does make you a bigot by extension, though.
By the way, did I miss the part where posts on this board became personal, since you're suddenly bringing that up at random? It can't be a surprise to you that I think you're a terrible human being in general but I didn't think you were this pathetic. Oh well. I guess I was wrong. It does happen with some regularity, after all.
What's with the underscore?
|Top atheist blogger goes Christian (45) | Posted on June 27, 2012, 3 a.m.|
|Would you like to prove why genocide is inherently immoral?|
Would you like to prove, not just show evidence for, but actually prove that anything is inherently immoral?
And no, blind assumptions aren't proof. You can't just assume God to be true and then call that proof.
In case you can't provide any such proof, would you agree that the complete and merciless extermination of all Jehovah's Witnesses would not be inherently immoral? After all, there's nothing inherently wrong with genocides, right?
|God has a covenant with all of mankind: Even the disbelievers (44) | Posted on June 25, 2012, 7:30 p.m.|
|But if god is everywhere, then he's up all our asses too. So god is gay.|
Well, if we're using Ray Comfort's reasoning for creationism then God might not be as much of a prude as Christians tend to make him. If a banana is evidence of creation because it fits so well into a human hand then one can only wonder why the human penis fits so well into the human anal cavity. Obviously this cannot be a coincidence but has to be an intentional design decision.
|Do you believe you have a soul, or just a mechanism built by natural means? (17) | Posted on June 24, 2012, 10:14 a.m.|
|Obviously here on the religion board a large majority of us believe in god, and such a belief would normally imply that we are in his creation, and thus have a soul which alludes to a greater existence then merely our presence on earth. |
What is the purpose of gods, then?
what do you think about the idea that for whatever reason the universe was created and by random chance cells emerged under a 'perfect storm' setting. All of our existence is simply an extremely rare occurrence that only worked out in the right conditions.
It strikes me as more realistic that something relatively improbable happened to create life and then something else that was improbable happened to create human sentience. Someone wins the lottery every week, so why shouldn't we have won the evolutionary lottery after millions of years of dinosaur dominance?
From this we can go further into that our emotional background, and rationale are all mechanisms of evolution and our desire to survive. There really is no right or wrong, but rather the illusion of it built up by our desire as a species to survive.
There are many funny oddities in the human psyche. Why wouldn't our strong desire to codify right and wrong be part of that? This doesn't mean that there's no right and wrong, it just means that the right and wrong we perceive aren't actually constants of the universe. Why is that a problem?
well the reason I say there is no right or wrong in a moral sense is because our existence would be in fact short sighted and pointless/unnecessary.
What does a lack of greater purpose have to do with morality? Purpose is what we're supposed to accomplish as a species, right and wrong defines how we're supposed to act. Surely there can be right and wrong without a greater goal in the horizon.
If, we were just mechanisms of atoms put together in such away that we acted as rational thinking beings, and nothing else then what justification is there for anything? In the end we will just be recycled back into the earth/universe and time will go on.
There's the justification that we're temporarily "alive" and sentient. This sentience has a perceived value for us and obviously we can define right and wrong accordingly. And when we die, the sentience disappears permanently, never to exist again. If anything, this makes the sentience we call life even more precious.
The reason I don't believe that such is the case begins with time and perception. If it was all meaningless then why does anything exist, logically to me it would make no sense.
That doesn't strike me as sound reasoning. That you perceive no meaning does not even begin to imply that no meaning exists. I perceive no meaning in advanced math but surely that doesn't make math meaningless.
|If God formulated morality, wouldn't that make morality arbitrary? (84) | Posted on June 19, 2012, 5:48 p.m.|
|That God gave us morality, just like he gave us the laws of physics.|
Please, go on and explain how it's still subjective.
The laws of physics are, as far as we know, an inherent part of the mechanics of the universe. The same can't be said about morality, can they? You can't even prove that morality exists but we damn well can prove that there are mechanics that govern physics and chemistry and whatnot.
And all we know about the laws of physics is what we can learn by testing them. Have you ever tried testing your supposed God-given morality? How would you even do that? Exactly, you can't. So effectively you're comparing apples and oranges by assuming that your oranges are actually apples. That's pretty damn weak.
But I'll give you this. If you assume that morality exists as a static, inherent element of the universe and you assume that God created everything, then it follows that morality would be as objective as the other laws of the universe. We'd still have no realistic way of ever testing the details of this morality, and taking God's word for it is unscientific as hell, but the morality would still be part of the universe and thus objective.
Unfortunately you can't support those assumptions. You can't prove that morality is a built-in attribute of the universe rather than simply God's thoughts about what is right and wrong in our universe. The former is objective, the latter is subjective. In practical terms the difference is arguably minimal, since God is all-powerful, but even a minimal difference is a difference. 10^-999999999999999999999999 does not equal 0.
Malachi 3:6 "...I am Jehovah, I have not changed"
Malachi 3:5 "And I will come near to you people for judgement"
So are you saying that God can think without changing mental states? Or would it seem more reasonable that he's talking within a certain limited context that won't confuse the f*** out of bronze age people? Obviously God changes, even if we are to believe this change is limited to himself and doesn't change who He is relative to us. He changes and so His morality can change with him. I don't know that it changes, but you don't know that it won't.
Look at that. He's talking about judging people, something that requires moral standards, and then follows it up with saying he hasn't changed. So it looks like he doesn't change in regards to moral standards.
Past tense equals future tense? Really, OW? Has not equals will never? I realise you're holding back but this is ridiculous.
I cut out all of the irrelevant parts or parts where you just insulted me and failed to make a valid point.
And of course you decide that everything you're uncomfortable with aren't valid points. Do you ever wonder why a fair few people don't take you seriously?
I don't think I'll be responding to your next post either, because you aren't very nice
No, I'm not very nice, am I? But why should I be? What have you ever done to deserve me being nice to you? Are you nice to atheists? Do you respect their beliefs, opinions, and worldviews?
By the way, do you know what an ad hominem is? Because you're quite amusingly making one right now, despite not actually insulting me at all. Just felt I'd point this out.
I do not enjoy reading your posts.
Do you think I'm writing for your particular enjoyment? Would you actually enjoy reading anything other than blind submission to God? And do you think your own posts are particularly enjoyable?
|If God formulated morality, wouldn't that make morality arbitrary? (78) | Posted on June 19, 2012, 7:01 a.m.|
I notice that you've decided not to reply at all. That's not particularly nice but okay, your choice. Of course it's hardly unexpected.
I have trouble distinguishing who said what
Of course you do. Distinguishing between users would require a minimum of intellectual effort on your part so that's of course totally out of the question. I suppose this goes a long way in explaining your fundamentalism.
Except one system could theoretically change, and another system cannot theoretically change.
As long as you're assuming God can't change, sure. But what are you basing that assumption on? Absolutely nothing? Right.
Hunter, did you forget what we were talking about? Of course I know the difference between "murder" and "killing." I'm accusing YOU of not addressing the difference, remember?
Yeah, of course you know that difference. It's murder if God doesn't command it and killing if God does command it. The victim being put to death is irrelevant and so is God's reason for wanting the victim dead. All that matters is that God wills it. That's total objectivity right there, isn't it?
Of course, if God is entirely static then he can't think. If God can think then he's not totally static and thus subject to change, which means God's will is subject to change, which means your slave-of-God morality changes accordingly. We've already been through this, haven't we?
As I explained it to the other guy, an interpretation of some thing in NO WAY changes the original. If I misinterpret your name as "Larry", your name doesn't magically become "Larry".
Strange how Christians keep misinterpreting God's morality. I guess humans really are flawed and error-prone. Except when it comes to bronze age people writing down stuff inspired to them by God. Then they're completely, entirely perfect.
By the way, if the Bible is such a crap source that we still can't figure out what the hell God's morality is after nearly two thousand years of trying, what exactly makes you feel that the text-collection is holy or divine?
I'm talking about the morals that God gave to humans.
If those morals are truly objective then God didn't give them to humans, he created them along with the rest of the universe. Otherwise we're still just talking about God's subjective take on this and that, which still won't ever become an objective code of morality.
I am fully aware of that, however, it's not my problem.
Of course you don't have a problem with your own intellectual laziness. What kind of fundamentalist would you be if you did? No, I suspect even you would find your nonsense far harder to believe in if you ever bothered to actually expose it to criticism. But you don't. Why ask questions when you can simply assume the answers? Unless of course you care about the truth, but I suspect truth is very overrated in your eyes.
KNess was saying that God can swap morals at will and decide that killing a certain guy is okay because he's God.
Of course he can. He's God. Are you telling me God can't change his mind? That sounds rather non-thinking and imperfect to me. Besides, how could you possibly know this? Oh, it's yet another unfounded assumption on your part? Right.
Also, if morality is subjective, then so are the laws of Physics, because God made those too.
Someone seemingly doesn't know what "objective" actually means. How cute.
This topic assumes it's true.
And I'm assuming you're a monkey, based on the gibberish you're spewing. >_>
|If God formulated morality, wouldn't that make morality arbitrary? (53) | Posted on June 15, 2012, 4:24 p.m.|
|Ad hominem so soon? I'm insulted.|
Ad hominem is to reject a claim based on the person making the claim rather than the merits of the claim. I did no such thing, even if I possibly was a bit insulting.
So what if God's word is my command? The fundamental laws of science are yours. Oh, but you have freedom to choose, you say? News flash--so do I. I don't make every choice and every decision in tune with God's Word. I happen to believe that He is never wrong, that's true....but oh wait. You happen to believe that the fundamental laws of science are never wrong, either.
One fairly major difference is that I don't think I know much of anything that is objectively true. I don't think my code of morality is perfect and so I challenge it, question it, and refine it. I don't even know that the basic principles of my morality are optimal. Everything can be questioned and challenged. Nothing is tabu. Can you say the same?
And don't even try to spin the yarn about how "science corrects itself all the time." It corrects its understanding of the fundamental forces and laws but it does not correct the laws and forces themselves. If we did not believe that those laws and forces were immutable and eternal, science wouldn't work.
And we test those "fundamental forces and laws" all the time and only through repeated testing do we come to have a clue about what really is. How do you test God? How do you test God's nature? How do you do anything other than going from one unfounded assumption to another and then on to a third?
you believe in something too. And your belief is not so different from religion as you want it to be. So don't try to insult the mechanism of belief by which I live my life, because in the end you're only insulting yourself.
Pfft. I'm a hard atheist. Of course I believe. Of course I have faith. By my faith doesn't rule me. It doesn't force me to close my eyes and follow some bronze age code of behavior. Regardless of my faith, every single choice is made by me, and only I am responsible for them. When I choose wrong and hurt someone, God doesn't have a higher plan or a greater meaning with his creation. I simply f***ed up.
It goes back to "God is good because good is based on God." But I agree, we don't really know what God's "good" means, aside from what we read in Scriptures (which is not meant to be a scientifically objective source).
Oh look, I'm going to violate Godwin's Law...but I'll use Josef Stalin instead so maybe no one will notice!!!!
OT God strikes me as a tyrant and a bully and only a small flock of humans were really "His" people. And those who weren't "His" people could either submit to His power or face consequences. Add the whole "greater good" thing and I really am seeing parallels to Stalin. Stalin fought for equality and opportunities for the workers, he fought to industrialise the Soviet, and he fought to end the capitalist oppression. And his friends were well taken care of, and his enemies got bullied rather badly.
|If God formulated morality, wouldn't that make morality arbitrary? (52) | Posted on June 15, 2012, 3:59 p.m.|
|Of course I'll hesitate. Every decision I make is tempered by the Scripture...either from what I've already read, or perhaps something I specifically go look up. Ultimately you're right, nothing can be evil if God commands it...but most of His important commands are already in Scripture.|
Of course you won't hesitate. You have doubt in yourself where I don't. You'll think of the great example of Moses who would sacrifice his son as ordered by that voice he kept hearing, and in that light your hesitation will fade away. :-)
Child molestation, rape, torture, executions, war, purges, genocides... You'll do it all in the name of God, if push comes to shove. Where's the "good" in that? What good is a definition of "good" where all those evil things are still "good"?
And despite your attempt to take the moral high ground, would you say you support elective abortion? Because every single death beyond conception is the killing of a potential life.
I value life a bit differently than you do. I'm not concerned all that much about potential lives, but I'm very much concerned with actual lives. Lives that are supposed to have certain rights.
By the way, how many potential lives have been lost due to Christian inanity?
My point is that you're doing your best to take "God is always right" to the extremes and compare "possible commands" to our own standards of morality..
How do you test anything? By avoiding problematic areas or by seeking out problematic areas and watching how well the thing being copes with the problems?
you're still not understanding the concept. Fact is, God as Supreme Creator cannot command anything which is morally wrong.
Not quite so. The Supreme Creator can command any damn thing it wants. It's just that whatever it wants, by your reasoning, becomes morally good solely due to being wanted by a supreme being.
But let me try to offer you this in pseudo-logic instead. God is perfect. If God was limited in his choices by morality then you could conceive of an even stronger being that didn't suffer that limitation. Therefore God would not be perfect. Therefore God doesn't have morality. Therefore God can command you to do things considered evil by humanists.
He wouldn't command me to...
Right. You, a mere human, can tell me what God would or would not do? That sounds rather optimistic. It's an undeniable fact that you haven't got the first damn clue as to what God would or would not do. You can make all the assumptions in the world but assumptions aren't facts. Assuming things doesn't make them true.
I can be just as extreme and unreasonable in making the circumstances fit the command so that the command no longer sounds wrong. It's all about perspective.
Pedophilia. Genocide. Good luck. OW tried once and ended up ridiculing himself. :-)
|If God formulated morality, wouldn't that make morality arbitrary? (51) | Posted on June 15, 2012, 3:20 p.m.|
|You too? What is it with people not reading the topic titles anymore? Argue the veracity of Scriptures elsewhere.|
So you're not using God or God's book as the source for your knowledge about God's benevolence? Next you're going to tell me that it's perfectly reasonable to assume perfect accuracy in the description of an unfathomable being from a collection of texts that describe the Earth as being created before the stars or how God flooded the entire planet to death, right?
If God exists and if God created everything (including morality) then it necessarily follows that He is "good" because there was no other possible source for "good" in the first place.
By the same reasoning, God is also the only possible source for evil, meaning God is necessarily evil as well.
But the reasoning is crap because you can't even begin to prove that good and evil applies in any way to God. They're human concepts, not constants of the universe.
Just because humans can process the idea of "morality" does not mean we invented it. God was the Being who invented us (and the entire universe), so it is a necessary conclusion that He created "morality" as well...
So if you invent an actual artificial intelligence, you've also invented everything your AI invents? Does that even begin to make sense to you?
And please remember that we're not God so thinking that we think like God does or even like he wants us to think is hilariously arrogant and naive. You have no idea what morality looks like to omniscient, omnipotent, perfect beings who exist outside space and time. No idea whatsoever. So you don't know that he even has morality. You just arrogantly assume.
Which makes Him the ultimate authority on morality...because He knows better than we do, why morality works the way it does.
And yet this doesn't mean he's good. It doesn't mean he gives a f*** about us or about life in the first place. His omniscience applies to a picture that we don't even see a pixel of yet. What's good for God isn't necessarily good for mere humans or good at our stage of evolution.
It is impossible for morality to NOT represent the theoretical Supreme Creator's attributes.
Yu can't prove that there are any static ethical laws of the universe. You can't prove that there even is any such thing as morality beyond our human invention. All nature shows is behavior conducive to survival. And let's for fun assume atheism, for the sake of argument. Does that mean no morality? Were 2000 years of Christian morality fake?
God made the universe the way He wanted to make it. Therefore, "God wants" is the same as "the universe is", which is the same as "objective good.
Well, what currently is includes pedophilia, so if God created the universe the way he wanted it, he apparently wanted pedophilia. If God had created everything the way he wanted it, he wouldn't have had to flood-kill the planet. And so on. So no, God definitely didn't make the universe the way he wanted it to end up.
Furthermore, you've yet to show that God is actually good so even if everything was as God wanted it, we haven't got the slightest idea that what God wants is "good". He thinks it's good, sure, and I imagine that Satan thinks being a dick is good too, but "God wants" isn't "good" unless you simply define good to be whatever God wants. And if you do that, you essentially become a robot with no thought other than the program you're asked by your master to execute.
|If God formulated morality, wouldn't that make morality arbitrary? (45) | Posted on June 15, 2012, 2:28 p.m.|
|You guys are the ones handwaving points and making sarcastic jokes instead of actual arguments. I expected better. Try to actually address my points.|
What's there to address? If you assume your point to be right, there's nothing to actually refute. Everything is covered by inane assumptions. And once anyone starts attacking your assumptions, you whine like a girl about how we're not attacking your points. So I ask again, why would anyone take that seriously, rather than simply dismiss it?
For the sake of argument, let's assume that everything in the bible is fact since that's what you've been doing until it wasn't convenient for you anymore (i.e. you started running out of counter-points).
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the entire world was flooded a few thousand years ago? Really? Sounds like hogwash to me. Even if we simply reduce the scope of your assumption to "all details about God" we're still going to have problems, because God is so vastly beyond our comprehension that it's ludicrous to think ordinary humans could possibly describe him without making any faults at all.
What are you even talking about? Are you so desperate to change the subject that you're willing to go into whatever type of argument this is?
Terrible logic yet again. You don't understand the argument so obviously it must be rubbish.
God's morality does not change. That doesn't mean he doesn't think.
You don't know that God's morality doesn't change. You don't even know that God doesn't change. But let's assume God is completely unchanging. If God is entirely unchanging then that makes conscious thought rather difficult, doesn't it? How can he go from one state of thought to another without changing at all?
So God is not entirely unchanging, he just doesn't change certain things? Right, prove that please. Can't? Have to simply assume it? Right. Why didn't I see that coming?
For all intents and purposes, it is objective.
Which is to say that it approximates being objective, which is to say that it is not actually objective. Thank you for playing. What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that 10^-999,999,999,999,999 is 0, because for all intents and purposes it is 0. It may look like zero and be really close to zero, but it is not zero. Similarly, you're effectively admitting that Christian morality isn't actually objective. It looks and smells objective, and it even feels objective too, but it's not.
|If God formulated morality, wouldn't that make morality arbitrary? (31) | Posted on June 14, 2012, 2:46 p.m.|
|Seriously guys, step your game up. I leave for a few months and come back to THIS?|
Why bother stepping up our game when we're arguing with a fundamentalist who will hand-wave anything away regardless of what we say? What's the damn point?
Furthermore, it's increasingly obvious to anyone that you'd happily commit any action, no matter how gruesome, in the name of God. That clearly demonstrates that you're a scary individual with no empathy or conscience. Who cares to step up their game when talking to that sort of mentally disturbed individual? What's the point?
Also, God changing is completely unbiblical, and dare I say, impossible for God.
So the perfect being is unable to change because of a bulls*** text he inspired bronze age people to write about him? Right. Totally makes sense. If you've been dropped on your head a dozen times as an infant. Complete load of crap otherwise.
Subjective to an eternal, omniscient being who doesn't change, which is the same thing as saying objective.
1) You don't know that God won't change. You don't even know that he hasn't changed. He could've changed a dozen times and just erased your knowledge of it with his omnipotence.
2) If God can't change at all then how can he possibly be sentient? Any thought would imply a constant change of mental states and a change of mental state is a change. If God is completely unable to change then God cannot be sentient.
3) Something that is subjective does not become objective just because it doesn't change. If Christian morality is simply God's will rather than a code of universal laws that is built into our universe then Christian morality is not a part of the universe but rather a perception of what should be, albeit a perception by an omniscient being. You can argue that it approximates objectivity, but ultimately it is still subjective.
|If God formulated morality, wouldn't that make morality arbitrary? (24) | Posted on June 14, 2012, 2:43 a.m.|
|Our morals, given to us by God, are pretty much set in stone.|
Yup. Do whatever God asks of you is such a static concept. That's why you burned people alive in his name a few hundred years ago and now limit yourself to merely spewing verbal garbage after minorities you don't like.
|If God formulated morality, wouldn't that make morality arbitrary? (19) | Posted on June 13, 2012, 6:12 p.m.|
|Speaking of that, nobody has ever proved that genocide is inherently bad.|
Sure we did. You just kept moving the goalposts, insisting that the proof be valid under Christianity as well, which is ludicrous since nothing is inherently bad under Christianity, other than not sucking on God's dick at least ten times a day, and even that can be forgiven if you repent hard enough.
|If God formulated morality, wouldn't that make morality arbitrary? (18) | Posted on June 13, 2012, 6:08 p.m.|
|And yes, I'm allowed to use that because we've already assumed God's existence for the sake of this discussion. [blah, blah] which lead to the inescapable conclusion that none of our judgments are sufficiently informed to condemn anything which God commands.|
And so we're at the point where you're going to say that God is good because God said he was good in the lameass text in which God inspired humans to define Him. How utterly unsurprising.
If we are assuming the existence of God (already done in this argument), then it follows that He is necessarily perfectly "good"...why? Because as Supreme Creator, He was the source of morality for the entire universe...its characteristics must necessarily mirror His.
Except morality is a human concept rather than a fundamental law of the universe and even if he was the source of morality, the derivative doesn't have to resemble the source much at all.
Therefore no matter WHAT the rules of the universe happen to be (regardless of whether we know them perfectly), they HAD to have been derived from His character, His definition of good/bad.
Not quite. Good and bad are human concepts and you've got no evidence anywhere that God actually operates with good and bad. All you have is "God wants" and "God wants not". This is certainly the will of your puppet master, but an option doesn't become morally good just because an all-powerful entity gives you an order.
This means that no matter what situation arises, the "good/bad" choices are ALWAYS going to fall into line with God's character.
This is true under your definition of good and bad, but since you don't know God's character and in fact can't possibly know God's character, you don't know that what you think is good or bad actually is good or bad.
All you do know is what God has ordered you to do, with no f***ing clue as to why he did so or what the outcome will be. And unlike me you'll never hesitate for a second to consider it either. If God tells you to rape a baby, you'll do it. If God tells you to kill your infant baby sister, you'll do it. Because nothing can be evil if God commands it, right?
And that's where it becomes completely insane for anyone who is marginally less of a fundamentalist nutjob. You have absolutely no independent thought. You're incapable of being anything but God's loyal puppet. God's word is your command, no matter what. You think it makes you a better person but ultimately it simply turns you into a biological robot with marginally less uptime than Windows ME.
So no, God's benevolence is not based entirely on the assumption that God is good...it is based entirely on the assumption that God exists. If He exists, then He is perfectly good. Period.
Which goes back to "God is good because He said so". Do you really think I've never heard this crap before? Honestly? Even if we assume God can't lie, just because God said he can't lie, we still don't know what the heck God's "good" means in human terms.
But after reading bits and parts of the OT, I'm increasingly sure that God's "good" sure as heck isn't my "good", though it does remind me quite a lot about Stalin. Good old Josef also had that "my way or I'll f*** you up badly" attitude. And Josef also did it for the good of everybody. Oh yes, he totally did!
|If God formulated morality, wouldn't that make morality arbitrary? (7) | Posted on June 13, 2012, 10:56 a.m.|
|So what does it mean to say that God's judgments are "arbitrary"? Well, technically it means that God's judgments are based on His sole discretion, and nothing else. But if we assume the existence of God in the way we usually do (all-knowing all-powerful blah blah blah), then it actually follows that God's "arbitrary" judgments can be classified as "objective"...because they are actually formed based on a perfect knowledge of all existence.|
The usual garbage about how God is perfect so everything he says must be perfect so when he asks us to commit a genocide then that is a good thing to do, because God can order nothing evil. Which is based entirely on the assumption that God is actually good and benevolent solely because God himself says he is.
Then God could have made a universe and a moral set where it is okay to molest children? Interesting.
Judging by the Catholic Church, it would seem like he already has. Heck, even those who can't become Catholic priests just have to pray for forgiveness before they die.
|An experiment for those in deeply religious households (55) | Posted on June 12, 2012, 2:24 p.m.|
|What good is this "experiment"? You don't need friends who will accept you for being something you're not. You need friends who'll accept you for what you actually are.|
The experiment is pretty worthless, since the "friends" who disown you for being an atheist aren't going to believe you when you tell them it was just a lie (and they're crap friends anyway) and the friends who stuck buy you will disown you for lying to them when you come clean.
There's no winning here.
|I see an interesting plot point in the Euro Crisis and would like your opinions (13) | Posted on June 11, 2012, 10:34 a.m.|
|Uh, other way around there buddy.|
Not really. It wasn't the non-crap part of the EU who forced the crap countries to not police their spending. Rather it was Greece and Spain and Portugal who didn't give a toss about necessary deficit reductions because they could pass the turd to the rest of the EU. And the rest of the EU can't ignore it because that's going to f*** up their currency too.
So no, it's not the other way around. If there was a realistic choice as to whether or not those crap economies are bailed out or not, you'd be right that the sound economies are holding the crap economies hostage. But there's really no such choice.
Sir, that is a great comment. It's exactly the case in fact, and i will save that in case I need it for later you. I shall, of course, make sure I say it came from you.
Let me guess, you're a socialist who believes in infinitely printing money to fund deficits?
|What do people have against kent hovind? (42) | Posted on June 10, 2012, 8:41 p.m.|
|I see what arguments he brings up and the facts and logic he uses|
And do you fact check his "facts" and investigate his "logic"? Because more often than not, he invents facts and uses bulls*** logic.
Here I see hovind trying to explain what has to happen in order for evolution to take place, by evolutionists own terms, even though evolutionists don't mess with all other forms of evolution hovind mentioned.
If Hovind doesn't understand what Evolution is to begin with then how can he even begin to speculate on what has to happen for evolution to take place? And how can he possibly argue that any theories about the creation of the universe has any damn influence on the DIVERSITY of life here on Earth?
I know evolution is about the origin of life,
Then you don't much, I'm afraid. Evolution is about the DIVERSITY of life. For the origin of life, see abiogenesis. I say this again, hoping it will get through. Evolution is about the DIVERSITY of life.
So by saying no such thing as cosmic evolution, how would (after the big bang) matter from said big bang, without breaking any laws of physics, form into galaxies (cosmic evolution) from, then the galaxies produce stars and planets (stellar and planetary) from only particles that were around before the big bang (hydrogen into other things, chemical evolution) and from there life began (chemical) which started with single cell organisms and all of them which were in the same state of needs and environment turned into different forms of life (organic) and from there continued to change entirely over a long period of time (macro) and as we can observe today the small variations (micro).
You're making a red herring. The origin of the universe is not relevant because we know that the universe exists and that it existed when life on Earth began. We do know that life on Earth began because we're here now. How all this happened is completely and utterly irrelevant when it comes to the theory of evolution. All that matters is that it happened.
Since we know that life came to exist here on this planet, we can start speculating on how it developed into the vast and diverse amount of life we have today. The result of that speculation is what we call the theory of evolution. And that theory has NEVER been refuted and it has been tested extensively.
I just see hovind trying to explain what evolutionists are saying to the non scientists and putting names to them.
Hovind isn't a scientist to begin with so what business does he have trying to explain science to non-scientists? And what makes you think that Hovind is representing the claims of "evolutionists" honestly and without massive bias?
And let me give you a hint, Hovind isn't explaining anything, he's simply misrepresenting. Nobody could garble something as much as he garbles science unless they're mentally challenged or intentionally dishonest.
By the way, mandatory watching with respect to Hovind and evidence that he's full of s***:
This isn't the totality of everything Hovind has ever said being refuted, and Thunderf00t isn't without flaws himself. Even so, it should be plenty obvious that Hovind says things that are obviously nonsense. If Hovind is a scientist then why does he say such immensely dumb things?
|I see an interesting plot point in the Euro Crisis and would like your opinions (10) | Posted on June 10, 2012, 3:38 p.m.|
|There are rumors about an actual financial union being in the mold. That is, a central EU body that has to actually approve the national budgets of the member countries and grant any additional funding in case of deficits. I don't see Scandinavia or England joining that, but some of the other countries might. |
If that plan fails then the Euro is in deep trouble. It just doesn't appear to be very sustainable that countries with crap economies can hold countries with more solid economies hostage the way southern Europe is doing it now.
|Independents. Who has your POTUS vote thus far? (8) | Posted on June 10, 2012, 3:18 p.m.|
|He's talking about the drone strikes(huge collateral damage), and the fact that Obama redefined a militant as any male in a certain age group that was in the area.|
Currently the only alternative is to do nothing when these people flee across the border into Pakistan. Sending troops in after them is diplomatically impossible and asking the Pakistanis to do something is hopeless. It's either drone strikes or nothing.
And it's worth considering, before just automatically going for "nothing", that these people are the same evil pricks who controlled Afghanistan before the war. Think gang-rapes of women spotted out of Burqa, death sentence for not being Islamic, and acid in the face of small girls who go to school. Doing nothing gives these people power. Doing nothing will give them back the country. Doing nothing is effectively mass murder too.
|Seriously, Christians, respond to this. (93) | Posted on May 20, 2012, 12:05 a.m.|
|And by the way, let's not consider the odds of me being entirely sober when writing the above, on the morning of the day after Chelsea FC finally won the damn Champions League.|
Big cheers to Blues-fans everywhere. Today I'm carefree, and there's not a thing TFB or anyone else can do about it. :-)
|Seriously, Christians, respond to this. (92) | Posted on May 19, 2012, 11:58 p.m.|
|Prove that anyone has ever loved you.|
I have a grandmother. She is quite normal. All normal grandmothers love their grandchildren. Ergo I have been loved by my grandmother. I wish that I could do better than that, but love is a rather intangible thing that is perceived and interpreted in a great number of ways. And the decisions I make are not contingent on me having been loved under your definition of love.
Are you going to contrast this with your God, which is exclusively defined by Judaism, and presumably an important part of your decision making? Do I have to explain why I think that's a terrible comparison?
Yeah you do, that's what the word "definitely" means. "Definitely" doesn't leave room for doubt. Since you said before that English wasn't your forte, let me translate your statement for you "Jeg tror at der helt afgjort ikke findes guder".
I'll start with an English lesson. Definitely means "without doubt". It's a statement of certainty. If you have no doubts, you can reasonably say that you're certain of something or that "definitely something". FC Copenhagen definitely won't win the CL next season, for instance.
Now consider a die roll. If you roll a fair six-sided die ten times, it is reasonable for me to say that you won't get a 5 each time. The odds for that are 1 in 60.4 millions. Not much room for doubt in that. Do it 100 times and I'm without doubt to the point that I'd bet the life of my firstborn child and my sisters pet cats. Why? Because out of 6.53 * 10^77 outcomes, only one outcome would satisfy the conditions. You don't have a billionth of a billionth of a percent chance of doing that. Therefore I am certain.
But do I know that you won't roll a 5 each time? No, I actually don't. There's still an uncertainty in the outcome. Each roll is an independent event and 5 is an option each time. You could do it. I'm certain you won't, but since you haven't made your 100 rolls yet, I don't know that you won't. I'm just very, very sure you won't.
Similarly, I'm quite certain no gods exist. I have no doubt about this. I am quite willing to bet my immortal soul on it. But since God by definition is beyond my knowledge or ability to detect, my doubt or certainty is irrelevant with respect to his actual existence. Consequently I have a belief but I don't have knowledge.
By the way, I do thank you for telling me how to translate "definitely" into Danish. I honestly didn't know how to do that. That's why I used the word.
Any "but I don't claim to know it for a fact" is just ridiculous handwaving.
Some times it is, if the person is actually claiming to know the subject. I don't. I just claim a faith-based certainty. If strong belief is knowledge then faith is knowledge. Would you consider faith to be knowledge? Could I know that you're a talking mushroom just by believing it strongly enough? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. You're not a talking mushroom no matter how strongly you try to convince me.
|Seriously, Christians, respond to this. (91) | Posted on May 19, 2012, 11:56 p.m.|
|What a waste of time, TFB. You start out getting confused about my point, and now you're stepping it up to a full-blown contest of whose the biggest ass? And on top of that you're giving me English-lessons? I'm fine with Merc doing it, since he does have the skill (and proves it time and again), but can the same really be said about you? |
No, I say I don't have scientific proof. That's not reason to not believe, it just isn't a reason to believe. Big difference.
Actually, you not having proof is a very good reason to not believe. It isn't a reason to outright disbelieve or believe in the negative, but it certainly is a reason to not believe in the claim. Not believe is what weak atheists do. Disbelieve is what strong atheists do.
As for "not a reason to believe", this really applies to anything. Me being hungry isn't a reason to believe. You being a dick isn't a reason to believe. Chelsea winning the CL isn't a reas... Well, actually it almost is. Hmm. Food for thought.
Anyway, you went directly to admitting that you don't have tangible evidence. That's as I originally predicted in #55. You know, where I did make something that could be construed as a claim, even if it's not remotely the claim you seemingly think I've made.
As for your request that I disprove God, why don't we look at the context? I say that the only argument for God is handwaving, and you essentially respond by asking me to prove that God doesn't exist. That, TFB, is handwaving.
I believe he told it to Moshe, who then - with his fallible human understanding - wrote it down and then passed it on to a bunch of fallible humans who wandered in the desert for quite a while.
Why do you believe this to be true? Particularly since someone in your profession runs into a lot of people who hear s*** from "God". But this particular madman, with whom you've never spoken, was in fact inspired by the one true God and didn't manage to make a pig's breakfast out everything God said?
Again, it's the difference between an axiom and an internal inconsistency. I don't know why this reason is so hard for you to grasp.
It's not hard for me to grasp at all. What you're failing to grasp is the significance of an internal inconsistency of the magnitude in question. The rational thing to do, when facing a story built on an internal inconsistency, is to reject the story. The rational thing. But since neither Christianity nor Judaism is rational to begin with, what exactly does it matter what the rational thing is? It's just one more issue that you're more than happy to ignore because of faith.
It's the difference between (...) "I think there was a historical Jesus" and (...) "I think the historical Jesus was a vampire-reptilian from Mars who was later impregnated and gave birth to Elvis."
Can you tell me what the difference is between a vampire-reptilian from Mars who was impregnated with baby-Elvis and the son of God who is also God who turns water to wine, one fish to many, resurrects the dead, heals people with his touch, walks on water, and resurrects himself after he dies?
Belief in both versions is irrational. There just happens to be a cultural acceptance of one but if we gave vampire-reptilian Martians the same logical leeway we give Christianity then they'd be no more far-fetched. But we don't. Because the bloodsucker-reptiles didn't write a book that was then spread as gospel by the Romans.
I do understand the concept of logical contradictions such as married bachelors or triangular circles. That's not what Christians are doing in this topic, however. They're simply deciding, for no good reason, that something which by all rules should mean A is actually symbol-speak for B. Why do they do this? Because it feels right that way. Inconsistent, yes, but logical contradiction of the square circle kind, no.
|Seriously, Christians, respond to this. (89) | Posted on May 18, 2012, 5:31 p.m.|
|Hey, if we Jews handwave all the time, showing it shouldn't be hard.|
I didn't actually say that, but I'll have a go at showing it anyway, if you want. You say there is a God. I say prove it. You do what? Beat around the bush by saying you're not trying to convince me? Argue that not believing in God is as irrational as believing in him? Okay, you were honest enough to admit that your belief isn't rational. Would all Jews do that? Would all Jews admit to irrationally believing in ancient texts just because it feels good? No? Well, there's your handwaving.
Clams, the mollusk. Very nutritious, delicious, healthy and cheap. Also an absolute breeze to prepare. Goes great with white wine. My God, however, forbids me from eating them.
Your God only has a problems with clams if he exists. Does he exist? Did he inspire people to write the OT texts? Are those texts entirely truthful in their description of God?
And the same goes for you.
If I argue strong atheism, yes. If I argue weak atheism, no. Weak atheism is to reject your claim until you provide sufficient evidence. You've provided no evidence, therefore rejection. It's the same thing with invisible pixies. So no, I don't need to prove any axiom. You do. I'm waiting. :-)
I have no reason to believe anything about their existence.
You have no logical reason to believe anything about God's existence either. Yet you do.
I'm not claiming its rational to believe in a God, so trying to go that route isn't going to be fruitful.
Actually, if you agree your belief in God is irrational then why is it a problem that Christians have an irrational interpretation of some text? If their core belief is irrational anyway then what's the issue? Degrees of irrationality?
If I was trying to convince you that there is a God, sure.
Doesn't matter if you want to convince me or not. If you think he's there, prove it.
Except the difference is - again - the difference between a lack of a reason and concrete internal inconsistency. A very specific place where one can say "this doesn't make any sense at all." It's the difference between saying "There's no reason to believe this" and "There's a good reason not to believe this"
When the belief is fundamentally irrational anyway, I fail to see why a further bit of internal inconsistency is relevant? Is an irrational belief any more or less irrational because there's an internal contradiction in it as well? It still just adds up to "irrationality", and faith trumps irrationality anyway. Why else do you believe?
I say I feel that my God is real, but that I don't know for a fact. You say there are definitely no Gods at all. Mine has a lot fewer assumptions.
Way to misrepresent my beliefs. I believe gods definitely don't exist, but I've never claimed that I know this. Even if I did, my "knowledge" could be wrong. Be that as it may, while we're both believing in things for which we have no evidence, my belief doesn't involve supernatural super-beings and your belief does. That's undeniable. Do you really wish to argue that supernatural explanations involve "a lot fewer assumptions" than natural explanations?
|GOP defense bill worth $643 billions gets passed (40) | Posted on May 18, 2012, 3:04 p.m.|
|I'm stuck at work dealing with stupid people.|
So it's exactly like being a moderator here at GFAQs, then? Except being a moderator was unpaid and with no expectation of you to actually do anything?
Actually, I'm sort of curious about that last thing. If I was a moderator, I'd be more than happy to take outright oppressive measures against obvious trolls. It's not like they're hard to find here on 261. Take a swing in any direction and you'll hit one. So why did you and other mods letting them troll virtually unopposed? Why weren't they knee-deep in warnings and suspensions?
|Seriously, Christians, respond to this. (87) | Posted on May 18, 2012, 2:39 p.m.|
|Also, BS if you can show my God to be false, then please, be my guest.|
That old bulls*** approach, TFB? Really? Seriously?
I wouldn't mind being able to have clams.
Did I miss an i somewhere? It happens, unfortunately. My keyboard isn't amazing and occasionally I don't hit the keys hard enough to register. And since most of my exchange with Merc happened while I was severely sleep deprived, I had a hell of a time proof-reading it. But I guess you never make typos, TFB? I guess your English is perfectly spotless at all times, right?
Namely the axiom that the Torah is a holy text. And since the Christians need the NT to fit in with Torah, this means that there are a lot of spaces with no real wiggleroom, and because of that, Christians are forced into denial and cognitive dissonance as displayed in this topic.
You're stating the obvious. There's no contention about this particular disagreement between Christians and Jews. My challenge is that if we take a step back and question your axiom, you end up with similarly bad reasoning when explaining why the axiom is acceptable.
If you can demonstrate that the same is true for my religion, I shall happily renounce my faith and bake you a very big cake. Are you the man for that job?
If you're going to ask that I prove a negative, I just might take the trip all the way to Køben freaking havn and smack you with a wet newspaper. Something like the JP Sunday edition dipped in vinegar. >_>
It's not obvious that the Torah is a holy text. Can you prove that it is so? No? So you're just assuming? Right. Not really convincing, is it? Do you believe in invisible pixies? No? Why not? Because we have no evidence and it makes sod all sense to believe in the existence of things for which there isn't any evidence.
I'm not the one making the outlandish claim here, so I'm not the one who needs to demonstrate anything. You are. And you've got no solid, tangible, non-ambiguous evidence whatsoever. I don't generally have a problem with that, since we're talking about religion. It just sounds funny to me when you then go on to bash a Christian for making an outlandish claim for which he has no evidence. Either we can make outlandish claims in the name of faith, in which case the Christian is off the hook, or we can't, in which case all theists necessarily have problems.
And yes, this affects me too, in a way. I too make an outlandish claim, based on my faith. I'm one of rather few people around here who is openly a strong atheist and I believe I'm the only one exclusively citing faith as my justification. I'm making a positive claim just as much as your are.
You say God exists, I say he definitely doesn't. Both statements are irrational. I like mine entirely as much as you like yours, and I'd really like if our personal faith-based irrationalities could peacefully co-exist, without us having to fight wars over them. But that's going to be hard, unless we apply the same standard to all the wacky s*** people believe because of "faith". Yours and mine, not just one or the other.
|Seriously, Christians, respond to this. (84) | Posted on May 18, 2012, 9:54 a.m.|
|Dammit, my writing in the above was terrible. There's a solid argument to make against staying up all night and writing around seven in the morning, I suppose. Anyways, my thanks for elaborating a bit on the obscure references. |
The James Joyce reference is because his novels are entirely unreadable unless you got your secret decoder ring from the Dean of English along with your MA in Lit, only $45,000, and even then everyone knows you're lying if you say you actually understood Finnegans Wake.
Just googled Finnegans Wake and Wiki's plot summary alone seems like something I'd need to take notes on, if I ever wanted to catch any meaning from it. If you'll pardon me for saying this, yuch! I'm so glad I decided to study simple things, like general business economics, logistics, and the odd bit of programming. At least in those areas, if articles or books seem "empty", it's usually because they are.
One question on Joyce, though: Is he a brilliant artist or a perverse hack that took pleasure in writing things that he knew readers wouldn't understand? Or both?
And I don't buy into either.
That seems fair enough.
But page after page of architectural detail describing what anyone else would describe using... page after page of architectural detail strikes me as page after page is architectural detail.
And as I said, that's quite the reasonable argument, or at least it appears to be just that to me. Christians may not have a good answer to give you.
But where my questions come into play is, if I were to ask you, why you think that the being described by the texts in the Old Testament is actually alive, could you give me an answer that would satisfy me any more than the Christian answers in this topic have satisfied you?
|Seriously, Christians, respond to this. (82) | Posted on May 17, 2012, 10:52 p.m.|
|Given that I was *****ing from the get-go about their practice of persecution and, hell, making it a capital crime to win a debate against them, do you not see how "welcome to the life of an atheist" was pretty, uh, what's the word of the day, irrelevant?|
Given that you were complaining about how they "handwave" whenever you corner them in a debate, meaning (I'm assuming) that they use bulls*** arguments to magic their way out of the corner, no, I don't see how my comment was irrelevant. Because they do magic their way out of corners when debating atheists. In fact, they do that all the time.
And please, please tell me that you're not pissing on millions of persecuted Jews by making any kind of reference to their plight after being fed a can of stupid by some random Christian on the Religion board of f***ing gamefaqs.com, as if that had any resemblance whatsoever of the treatment they were given.
If that's indeed what you were doing then I'll admit that I hilariously misunderstood you and made an ass of myself. Let's all laugh, then, as BS totally failed to understand how Merc was upset over being given crap answers by a Christian and consequently made a reference to how millions of Jews have in the past been persecuted, oppressed, beaten, threatened, and killed.
Maybe that's totally a non-issue to you. Maybe you've become so used to being a minority that you always pull out Jewish persecution whenever something doesn't go your way. If so, I sincerely pity you.
|Seriously, Christians, respond to this. (81) | Posted on May 17, 2012, 10:29 p.m.|
|Now lay. Off. The. Drugs. Or give up on the English. It's not your forte.|
Of course English isn't my forte. Danish is. And a few other things. But english is really just a language that I'm quite good at, at least for a Dane.
Oh, wait, because I used the word "you" in my explanation, you seem to think I was actually talking about you.
It's not entirely that simple, though I'll admit that I'm not always sure what the hell you're talking about. But I'll share something that an English teacher told me many years ago. If you're intentionally not being very explicit in your language, you can't really expect anyone to correctly figure out what the hell you're saying. Just an advice she offered me.
Yeah, give up on the English. Not your bag.
Of course it isn't. I'm a Dane. There's a whole lot of culture that gets in the way of us communicating clearly. It's a well-known phenomenon and hardly something you can claim to be unaware of. One would have thought that an awesome communicator like you could work around that easily, no?
Again, I draw the line at someone having his head so far up his ass he doesn't know when he's being made fun of for not knowing what the word "facetious" means.
Right. So because I played along with your crap metaphor, since that seemed to be the language you wanted to use, I'm the one who doesn't know what "facetious" means? Is that what you're trying to say? That because I didn't object to magic decoder rings or nuking fires, I'm clearly not aware that you're using intentionally volatile wording that shouldn't be understood literally?
And is it really too much to expect from a linguistics-geek that he is remotely conscise about his points to someone that he knows to be terrible at English?
Is it me, or does every conversation I have with this guy invariably wind up with him complaining about me using English that he doesn't quite grok?
Interestingly, you seem to be the only person around here with whom I have that particular problem. It's kind of strange, actually. I can understand books about philosophy or scientific articles with relative ease, but your posts I can't ever seem to comprehend properly. Quite the oddity, no?
|Seriously, Christians, respond to this. (80) | Posted on May 17, 2012, 10:29 p.m.|
|You asked what my attitude problem was. The word emotion was involved. I remember that much. I explained that if he all he had to say was "irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant", I wasn't going to show respect to him either. That's it That's the entirety of the conversation about "respect". I have NO ****ING CLUE where you're getting the rest of this **** from.|
Right. I essentially call your religion "irrelevant crap", you state that you don't offer respect to those who disrespect you but with no clear address as to whom you don't offer respect to, I say that this goes both ways, and then work my way around to restate my questions, since you failed to answer them.
It could be that you feel disrespected by Christians who fluff their way out of your very honest and sincere questions. It could be that you feel disrespected by me since I've mockingly offended Judaism a number of times in the past, even calling it a dead religion once. How the hell can I possibly know when you intentionally being vague as f***?
I assumed you meant me, since I didn't notice any actual disrespect in this topic from anyone else, but I suppose it's possibly you didn't. But what does it really change, either way?
The questions remain the same. You seem very angry, butthurt even. I'm curious why that is, because it seems like you're upset because Christians reject your questions the same way they'd reject atheist questions, which is with fuzzy reasoning and appeals to emotion. Why does that upset you and do you not do the same thing to justify your religion? Those were and remain the main questions I felt like asking.
You've since then largely answered the first question, why are you upset. The answer is that you're an ass. Not much reason, not much logic, but a solid answer regardless. Frogs jump, snakes slither, and asses are emotionally unstable. Not the answer I was looking for, but I can live with that answer.
That leaves the second question. Are you not doing the exact same damn "disrespectful" thing? Are you not using fuzzy reasoning to justify Judaism? Of course, if I accept the previous answer that you're an ass, the answer to this question becomes irrelevant, since potential hypocrisy is perfectly consistent with being an ass.
|Seriously, Christians, respond to this. (78) | Posted on May 17, 2012, 9:21 p.m.|
|Look, BS, you can whinge about us theists being hard to argue with and handwaving and blah-di-blah, but at the end of the day, you don't hear "Atheist" being used as an insult, derogatory term, slang for theiving etc. I hear that for "Jew".|
That's good. Entirely irrelevant, since I wasn't claiming that atheists are persecuted, but it's really good regardless. Conveys a lot of emotional distress.
You can walk around with a shirt saying "there is no God" without a care in the world.
Sure I can, except some of the nazi f***ers are fanatic Christians. Others will take the fact that I'm wearing a pro-atheism t-shirt as a sign that I'm probably some leftie who doesn't hate Muslims or Jews or gays or what have you, and then I'm no less screwed than you are.
I can't walk around Nørrebro or the hood around my apartment with my yamulke or my magen david.
That is sad. But again, I'm not making an "atheist persecution" argument and I don't think Mercury was initially making a "Jew persecution" argument either. So why are you suddenly interpreting my comment, as if we're talking about general persecution rather than terribly annoying debate strategies?
By the way, you won't hear me, the Jute, disagree with any notion about how terrible Copenhagen is. It's what I've been saying for years, as it happens. It's a terrible place full of dickweeds, tossers, and assorted utterly useless people. If anyone from those parts are any good, they're either foreign or they're from Jutland or possibly Funen.
I'm not sure Aarhus is all that much better, but at least we have less gun incidents here. But the smaller cities, in my experience, tend to be less overcrowded with militant f***ers who solve any dispute with violence. I grew up in one without ever getting my ass kicked, and I was a grade A oddball.
|Seriously, Christians, respond to this. (74) | Posted on May 17, 2012, 8:55 p.m.|
|Again, no offense, but how many genocides against the atheists have there been?|
How many times have you been the victim of a genocide? Zero times? Right. Same as me, then. You see, I don't think the Christian handwaving in this topic has sod all to do with the persecution of Jews, and I really cannot believe that you'd bring the historical persecution of Jews up just because a couple of Christians are a bit dodgy in their reasoning. Of all people, you'd be the last person I'd expect would trivialize Jewish suffering like that.
Are you afraid to live in half the first ****ing world
I actually am afraid. There's a large group of people, of varied affiliations, who would be more than happy to beat the living crap out of me, were I to explain what I believe in. As it happens, since I'm a big fan of religious freedom and quite opposed to racism, the same people who would kill you for your religion would kill me for my ideological beliefs. And since I'm a capitalist, the ideological opposite of the spectrum, the far leftists who would not dream of hurting you, would also happily skin me alive.
Then you can tell me about the atheist perspective, the one I used to have before I became a practicing Jew.
So what does any of this have to do with atheists being giving the same handwaving that you're getting? Nothing whatsoever?
I draw the line at people with their heads too far up their asses to know what the word "facetious" means.
You seem to be making some sort of vague implication here, though I take comfort in the fact that you certainly can't be directing the head-ass thing at me, since you're not a complete idiot. That said, I do believe the question you failed to answer was valid. Why is it okay to believe in irrational stuff, but not okay to have an irrational interpretation of some text that you irrationally believe to contain some form of description of God's work?
You're asking a hockey fan(atic) doing his best to drop a nic-habit in the middle of playoffs why he's on edge. Do the math.
The way I brain it, I'm just being an ass to people who act like asses, only moreso because I find it's much easier to fight fire with an atomic bomb than with fire (water is for fish and recovering alcoholics).
I'm not sure it's a remotely sane idea to fight fire by burning everything remotely flammable down to the ground before the fire even gets there, but I suppose this does answer one of my questions.
Then you need to lay off the drugs. I'm not trying to prove my religion is anything but incompatible with Christianity, and so I don't see where the "handwaving" even comes from other than my having already used the phrase and your desiring to be a nudzh.
I say A, you give me some useless crap about respect that has nothing to do with A, I call handwaving, explicitly because it's something you previously accused Christians of doing against you, and now you're telling me to quit the drugs and that I'm trying to be pest. Or at least I'm assuming that's what it means, though you're being a vatnisse by using a word from a language that you know I don't speak.
Be that as it may, I'm really still not seeing you comment on A at all. In case you forgot, A is the claim that you'll handwave as much as any Christian when someone starts asking you to justify your religion, only then it's suddenly okay to do so. Apparently it's only a problem when Christians do it. But hey, what do I know. I'm a nudzh on drugs, after all.
|Seriously, Christians, respond to this. (61) | Posted on May 17, 2012, 9:05 a.m.|
|Yeah, I'm really impressed by them having sticks up their arses about you guys for a couple centuries. Come back in 1700 years and complain. No offense.|
I think you missed the issue here. You complain that Christians handwave when cornered by Jews. Well, just about all theists, not just Christians, tend to handwave when cornered by atheists and them being cornered happens with some regularity.
why bother showing respect to someone who won't respect you?
Indeed. Why would I bother to respect people who piss on my lack of faith? Why would I bother to respect those to whom faith in something with sod all evidence to support it is a sign of superiority?
Case in point, I describe your religion from my atheist perspective and immediately you're offended, in a topic where you're being offended that Christians interpret some text differently from Jews. So it's okay for you to throw your Jewish perspective around but the moment I'm doing the same with my atheist perspective, I'm being a disrespectful dickhead. Exactly what respect are you offering anyone who isn't a Jew?
That being said, I'm not seeing any evidence that your religion is relevant and rational and not a load of fluff. What I do see is some handwaving about me being disrespectful.
That's fine, though. It's your choice to believe and there's absolutely no need for you to justify that belief to some atheist dickhead. Just like it's a Christian's choice to believe in some odd interpretation of a text and get a different picture of God than what the Jews have. You believe in a being that gives us bacon and then tells us we can't eat it, and Christians believe in a man-God hybrid-thing that was also a temple.
Which leads us back to where this becomes the least bit relevant in this topic, which is me asking why you're being so aggressive? Why does it seemingly annoy you that Christians have an "illogical" interpretation of what that third temple is? Why does your emotional attachment go beyond simply curiosity that so many people believe in such an odd interpretation of a text?
Because I do not read James Joyce. I do not believe in magic decoder rings handed out that allow one to reveal the secret meaning of a text. Again, at a sentence or two I'm willing to accept symbolism as an excuse. At four chapters, four whole chapters, more time than was spent on all of creation, I start to think, "huh, maybe this is about whatever he's talking about, and not some absurdly awkward extended metaphor I need to twist my psyche into a pretzel just to wrap my head around."
Two things. One, you do believe in magic. The OT is full of magic. God does this, God does that, God hates Egypt so f**** 'em if they're not going to play ball. If magic is fine then what's the problem with magic decoder rings? How do you draw that line?
Two, I think most of us comprehend at this stage that you disagree with the Christian interpretation. You do. That does not mean it is wrong. Is it irrational? Well, is that a standard that any theist wish to use in the evaluation of a belief? Is it rational to believe in the God of the OT?
And for the record, I did understand why you think their interpretation is bunk. I can read, sort of, even if it doesn't always seem to be the case. I'm curious to see their answer too. But why the hostility?
Although I point out that Judaism makes no claims of omnibenevolence.
Sorry. I had a vague recollection of this, but I wasn't sure. My apologies for implying false attributes onto your deity. Even so, the story is still odd as hell, and stories like Jonah or Noah are still ridiculous.
|Seriously, Christians, respond to this. (55) | Posted on May 16, 2012, 9:40 p.m.|
|This is why Jews HATE arguing with Christians. We corner them, they handwave. We corner them, they handwave. We corner them, they enact a law that makes it a capital offense to beat them at a debate.|
Welcome to the life of an atheist.
That being said, I'm actually kind of puzzled over all this emotion over what seems to be a load of crap in some really old texts that struggle to remain the least bit relevant in the 21st century, if you'll pardon me for being blunt. This is where you'll presumably protest and call your religious texts relevant, meaningful, and totally not a load of crap. I'll ask you to show any kind of tangible evidence that they're not just crappy fiction. You'll either handwave or admit to have sod all evidence.
Whether we're talking Judaism or Christianity, it still ultimately boils down to a belief in some super-being with no tangible evidence in support, and also the belief that certain texts are accurately inspired by said being, which is another claim for which there's no tangible evidence. We call this faith, and faith doesn't need to be logical or rational or anything else, at least not when it comes to something unknowable like religion.
So tell me this: If you can imagine that an omnibenevolent being tortured the f*** out of Job just to make a point and had Jonah sail around inside a whale then what's so hard about imagining Jesus as a walking church? Why is that, of all things, too irrational or too far-fetched?
|British cops arrest 6 people for making anti-Semitic remarks on Facebook (12) | Posted on May 16, 2012, 8:07 p.m.|
|I didn't mean that sarcastically, I'm actually all for the internet being one big law-free zone. Kinda like international waters.|
So you're okay with child porn and bomb recipes floating around on the internet? And you'd be fine if I posted your name and address online and offered a reward to anyone who sodomizes you with a rusty pipe, as long as I strictly do it over the internet?
You're not okay with that? *sigh* Some law-free zone. :-(
|Why do democrats ignore the scientific definition of life? (60) | Posted on May 14, 2012, 6:12 p.m.|
|Recognizing what constitutes a human life is now considered chauvinistic!|
I never called you a chauvinist, did I? I said that it takes a chauvinist bastard to categorize abortion as murder, which is a far cry from calling you a chauvinist for "recognizing" that a fertilized egg biologically speaking constitutes human life.
In other words, it's entirely up to you if you wish to fall into that category or not. I made no such claim about you. But I do find it interesting that you think I did. Do you, deep down, feel a bit defensive about your stance on this issue?
|Why do democrats ignore the scientific definition of life? (57) | Posted on May 14, 2012, 5:44 p.m.|
|You can dress it up all you want in order to justify it to your own ego, but at the end of the day it's still killing a human life.|
Sure it is, biologically speaking. But from a more practical, non-chauvinist perspective, what's really happening is that a fertilized egg with the same level of sentience as your average rock is prevented from further growth inside its only viable environment. Yes, the egg dies and never manages to grow into a baby.
It's all very sad for the baby that never was, but it's nowhere close to being actual murder. Unless you're a chauvinist bastard, mind you. In that case I'm sure it's murder that women can have sex and still get to choose whether to have a baby or not
|Why do democrats ignore the scientific definition of life? (56) | Posted on May 14, 2012, 5:34 p.m.|
|it is easier to focus on the one thing that arguably doesn't and pretend the rest of my argument didn't exist isn't it?|
That's what you get for arguing with trolls. They'll pretend they're capable of discussing something and when you take up their offer, they respond with a mind-numbing level of stupidity, which is essentially when you know that you wasted every second and every joule of energy spent on giving them a remotely decent response.
Really, Bacon should fix the moderations so they stay in the modding history for a year and then add a court jester avatar to any account that has been hit 5-6 times for trolling. That way people would have a good indication in advance of whether a poster is worth replying to or could safely be ignored. And of course the jester spreads onto all accounts on the user map so useless clowns can't just create alts to carry the torch.
|Romney proposes more deficit spending, lambasts fiscal conservatism, (11) | Posted on May 14, 2012, 1:36 p.m.|
|Ummm no? The spending of our economy is different and goes to different areas. It certainly would affect public sector spending. It would not necessarily have an effect on private sector spending (unless the cuts targeted various research grants). |
People employed in the public sector obviously spend some of their public sector money on stuff from the private sector. Which is why taking away a huge chunk of the public sector spending in one go will affect the money that American citizens spend on private sector things.
This has f*** all to do with whatever school of macro you subscribe to, it's strictly a matter of basic mechanics. The macro schools come into play when we try to predict how the market will respond in time to such a situation, but there's no doubt whatsoever that if you cut out a trillion then that will initially have a strongly negative effect on consumer spending.
Balancing the budget is a nice goal, but there's a smart way and a braindead way to accomplish it. The braindead way is to simply hack stuff off the budget with an axe, consequences be damned. The smart way is to reform the principles behind your spending, avoiding massive spending on useless pet projects and hopeless systems and ensuring a documented return on investment for every tax dollar spent.
Paul doesn't want the smart reduction because he knows it doesn't have the rhetorical impact and he knows it can't possibly happen anyway. Too many people would lose their corporate welfare and reforms require a level of cooperation that isn't there under the current climate. Much easier to just throw huge arbitrary numbers around and pretend to have a f***ing clue what you're doing, even if you don't.
|What's the meaning of this passage in Exodus? (44) | Posted on May 14, 2012, 11:50 a.m.|
|Lots of people ITT have trouble understanding clear literary cues regarding the literalism or aliteralism of a passage.|
Lots of people, TRJ? Lots? The vast majority of non-Christian posts were made by a mere three posters, those being Beta Squadron, Thuggernautz, and myself. Would you care to be somewhat more specific about the large number of people in this topic who, in your opinion, have trouble understanding literary clues? Please?
Anyway, you could at least offer your own interpretation of the Bible quote in question. I'm sure you're quite right that its not supposed to be taken literally, even though we both know that some people would so regardless, but what exactly does it mean to you? Is it just a clumsy way of saying that God is so awesome that he'd blow our minds if we ever saw him? Is there a deeper meaning than that?