I think an Atheist maybe would be too rational for a situation like 
this, and try to find a reasonable solution being cold thinking and 
maybe endangering the child, when actually the best solution is go more 
with your feelings on that small time interval. I'm not saying Atheist 
can't love.

Post a reply to this message

You call me ignorant, I put excuses to delude myself in airy tail 
because Science and specially you have an answer to everything, and what 
I see is just a scared man afraid and angry man because someone pointed 
the possibility of a spiritual side of thigs, that Nature didn't make it 
all, right, there are things that don't have and probably will never 
have a rational explanation there (too many to put here and I don't 
recall any now but I have seen many many cases on documentaries and I'm 
sure there is something spiritual if not divine out there) are many 
outthere and you and Darren simply make evry effort not to see them, 
hahahaha and I'm  deluded? oh, think againg, maybe Nature does it all 
but has this non-material side or there is actually a spiritual world 
and you are the ignorant here. but no you and the Atheists are the 
owners of the truth, OK, so be it.

And on all those studies you have, as a very eloquent, logical, rational 
trolling pro, did you made the majored in manners, kindness or do you 
even have a friends and family that you actually love or you are just a 
cold, pedant, disrespectful, longly and scared guy? Oh you stated you 
are not scared... hahaha, yeah, right...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Think about one of those extreme situations I described... 
>  > you wouldn't hold to any peace of belief/faith
>> you can grasp? 
> 
> By the way, this is something I've always been curious about.
> 
> Wouldn't it be easier for God to just prevent the child from winding up 
> underneath the car than to grant the mother unusual strength to pick the 
> car up?  I mean, why is it that everyone getting out of the crashed 
> plane alive is a miracle, but the plane crashing from a freak series of 
> events isn't a miracle?  Why isn't the mother just as likely to be 
> pissed at God for endangering her child as she is to ask for help?
> 
Free will. I'd like to kepp on the subject but this is just not going 
well, you make fun of me at some point and that is disrespectful so as I 
don't want to be disrespectful to you back I'm gonna call it quits. 
Sorry to see this ends like this when it was going so well.

Best Regards.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> My thoughts:
> 
> Clarification: I haven't read all posts.
> 
> Recently, creationists have claimed that they have found a proof of 
> creation: something to do with a radiation emitted by certain atoms on 
> peace of matter, I was very sleepy at the time of seen this on a 
> sleepless night.
> 
> So, that "proof" as any other theory is only that. As some people 
> pointed out, you cant actually find a single proof of God existence and 
> probably you wont in your lifetime, hence the belief in God is by faith 
> and by faith alone.

And there is no observation, or combination of observations, which is 
inconsistent with the existence of God, nor can there ever be such.  All 
proofs of atheism rest on one or more premises that are assumed to be 
true without evidence.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 17-Jan-09 3:40, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I don't know if it is where I live or who my friends and acquaintances 
>> are but in my experience the group that tries to express their believe 
>> by living as an example of what faith can do to a person is so large 
>> that you can not neglect them. The group that you refer to is more 
>> visible as a group, but I are less likely to meet them as they tend to 
>> stick together. The group I mean is not so recognizable as they are 
>> friendly people and you have to know them better to understand what 
>> rôle faith plays in how they interact with other people. Sometimes it 
>> may turn out that that faith happens to be atheism, but we were not 
>> talking about those.
>>
> 
> Hmm. Just to be clear here, what "faith" are you talking about with 
> atheism? 

That sentence was meant to be short for: "Sometimes when you find out 
what makes them tick and what is their ultimate motivation it turns out 
that they don't believe in a god but are atheists and have taken the 
non-existence of god as their primary inspiration for helping others."

Small question, possibly on behalf of my daughter (see separate 
'international english' thread): is this a rhetorical device that does 
not carry across cultures?

> Last I checked the only "faith" involved there was the same 
> ones those who have "faiths" apply all the time, like, "I have faith 
> that the laws of physics will let my car start in the morning, not turn 
> me into a grapefruit." Sorry to be picky here, but since we are, 
> supposedly trying to make "clear" distinctions about things talked 
> about, and people, it might be useful what "faith" you seem to think an 
> atheist has that makes it the "same" as a religion...
> 
> That said, your comment does re-bring up a point that Saul danced around 
> a bit. Since he won't read the blog of an atheist, 

given the way you tried to force it on him, I can't blame him.

> I will post a 
> paraphrase of his statement on "compassion", as it was applied to a case 
> of a family that had a child diagnosed with hydrocephalus. 

I did not understand the following until I followed the link in he other 
post. So, as an abbreviation it leaves something to be deserved. ;)

> The doctors 
> stated that she would either be still born, or only live a short time. 
> The chaplain's statements about the matter:
> 
> 1. Thumbs up to the christians that chose to follow their own creed of 
> loving others.
> 
> 2. The two who they helped might not have made it without such help and 
> compassionate people with them.
> 
> 3. Not impressed with the god in the story, who seemed to be unable to 
> do anything at all that the doctors didn't already predict.
> 
> 4. "Four, I wish that the friendships that abound in this story would 
> have been accomplished without the framework of religion to constrain 
> them. This story speaks poignantly of both the power and the depth of 
> human empathy and compassion. Danny, Danielle and Bobbi didn’t need a 
> deity; they needed other people. The Christians didn’t need a deity; 
> they had tremendous strength and love within themselves. Danny, 
> Danielle, the pastor and all of the church people have sold themselves 
> short. Instead of recognizing their own virtue, they believe that the 
> source of all their goodness is a small god who performs pitifully small 
> miracles. That’s almost as tragic as the death of baby Bobbi."
> 
> Mind, the first poster on the reply thread suggested that #1 may have 
> been a bit "artificial", in that many such people are far more 
> interested in getting people "into" the club, and saving souls, than 
> truly showing compassion, without strings attached. And, he is right. 
> Its very hard to tell the difference some times.

There is nothing is this story that suggests that the people in the 
church did it with the goal of converting the father. Suggesting that 
that was the actual goal and from that building up to a condemnation of 
their actions is rhetorically not sound and I would be livid if someone 
would question my intentions in this way.

To answer what I think is your underlying question: Compassion exist and 
is present both in atheists and theists. When people interact closely 
for some time they can grow philosophically closer together. Sometimes 
that results in people dropping out of a church sometimes into it and 
sometimes they move churches. The fourth option will not result in 
anything visible from the outside, that does not mean that the internal 
changes can be just as profound. If I or e.g. Saul behave friendly 
towards a fellow human being we do that just to do that. We might hope 
that the other follows our example, but that does not make any of us 
missionaries.

Post a reply to this message

On 17-Jan-09 4:12, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> On 15-Jan-09 2:16, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>  >> In Short, I'm searching the truth... about God... that implicitly
>>>> tells me how to follow him (most Religions fail at this purpose, 
>>>> ironically).
>>>
>>> Well, I am also searching but being an atheist, I look via a 
>>> different path.
>>
>> I and wish you the best of lucks my friend. I'll pray for you...
> 
> Hmm, I am sure he will, "keep a padded room open for you, when you 
> decide to get help". ;) Saying you will pray for someone that doesn't 
> believe in it is either a) meaningless, since its no different than 
> suggesting that you will, "wave at them through the computer", or b) 
> implies that it "has" some sort of meaning for them, other than being 
> colloquial, and thus accepting it is the same as admitting they believe 
> after all. I think we can both take it in the terms you didn't intend 
> though, and just say, "Uh, thanks, but I didn't sneeze, nor do I believe 
> my soul will leave my body through the nose if you don't say it."
> 
> Mind, I can't really speak for Andrel on the subject, so.. maybe he will 
> have a different take.

I just see it as a phrase that is used in some groups that has no actual 
meaning. Though I am a bit disturbed by the ominous '...'

Post a reply to this message

On 17-Jan-09 6:09, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I think an Atheist maybe would be too rational for a situation like 
> this, and try to find a reasonable solution being cold thinking 

Have you ever met an atheist??

> and 
> maybe endangering the child, when actually the best solution is go more 
> with your feelings on that small time interval. I'm not saying Atheist 
> can't love.

Post a reply to this message

On 17-Jan-09 6:58, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> Think about one of those extreme situations I described... 
>>  > you wouldn't hold to any peace of belief/faith
>>> you can grasp? 
>>
>> By the way, this is something I've always been curious about.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be easier for God to just prevent the child from winding 
>> up underneath the car than to grant the mother unusual strength to 
>> pick the car up?  I mean, why is it that everyone getting out of the 
>> crashed plane alive is a miracle, but the plane crashing from a freak 
>> series of events isn't a miracle?  Why isn't the mother just as likely 
>> to be pissed at God for endangering her child as she is to ask for help?
>>
> Free will. 

?

> I'd like to kepp on the subject but this is just not going 
> well, you make fun of me at some point 

I don't think he did. Nor would I expect Darren to do something like that.

> and that is disrespectful so as I 
> don't want to be disrespectful to you back I'm gonna call it quits. 
> Sorry to see this ends like this when it was going so well.
> 
> Best Regards.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Small question, possibly on behalf of my daughter (see separate 
> 'international english' thread): is this a rhetorical device that does 
> not carry across cultures?

It does. I understood what you meant, at least.

I think in this case it's a reaction to implying that "atheism needs just as 
much faith as theism", which is a common but incorrect meme that religious 
people often try to assert.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I think an Atheist maybe would be too rational for a situation like 
> this, and try to find a reasonable solution being cold thinking and 
> maybe endangering the child,

Oh. So only someone who believes in God is capable of being irrational?

Wow. Just .... wow.

I can't figure out whether you're insulting yourself or atheists more. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message