 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Free will.
Just so you know, that's a very pat answer. Perhaps you should think about
this more deeply, and give a response (if only to yourself) that actually
makes a little more sense.
Would "free will" be the same answer as to why people pray to be cured of
prostate cancer but not be mad at God that they got cancer in the first
place? If so, what decision did they make that gave them cancer of their own
free will?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> 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 '...'
I dunno. I leave friends all the time with the admonition "Be well!" That
doesn't mean that I think they need reminding, or that my well wishing will
have any specific effect.
Do you also go off on the clerks that tell you "have a nice day" when you leave?
Now, if Saul said he'd pray for us to see the light that we're so sadly
missing before we wind up in Hell, it would be a bit insulting, but that's
not how I took it. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> And there is no observation, or combination of observations, which is
> inconsistent with the existence of God, nor can there ever be such.
First, define God.
> All proofs of atheism rest on one or more premises that are assumed to be
> true without evidence.
It's a different kind of proof. I can prove that distilled water is not a
significant cause of cancer, but that doesn't lead to absolute certainty.
Plus, most atheists don't claim there is no God, but only that there's no
reason to think there is.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-Jan-09 19:58, Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> And there is no observation, or combination of observations, which is
>> inconsistent with the existence of God, nor can there ever be such.
>
> First, define God.
Something outside space and time that can not interact with our universe. ;)
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, when actually the best solution is go more
> with your feelings on that small time interval. I'm not saying Atheist
> can't love.
Here, it certainly sounds like what you're saying is "I love my child more
than you love yours, because I'm willing to pray to my God for my child's
welfare and you're not." Have I got that straight?
If not, what am I missing?
Do you think atheists are cold-hearted? That they don't have feelings? That
it's irrational to attempt to move the car without divine intervention?
Would you consider yourself cold-thinking and rational if you got in this
situation, prayed to God, still weren't able to move the car, and you didn't
try to invoke the Force from Star Wars? Why not? You've *seen* Yoda lift an
entire X-wing fighter. (I'm completely serious with this question. Why
wouldn't you try praying to Zeus, Satan, and then using the Force?)
--
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:
> You call me ignorant,
You call us fearful and cold-hearted. It isn't personal. :-)
> I put excuses to delude myself in airy tail
> because Science and specially you have an answer to everything,
No! No no no! We do *not* have an answer to everything!
That's exactly the point! *You* have the answer to everything, namely God is
the answer to everything for which you don't already have a better answer.
Most atheists are pretty happy saying "Gee, I don't know how that works."
> I see is just a scared man afraid and angry man because someone pointed
> the possibility of a spiritual side of thigs,
You're deluding yourself if you apply this to me. I'm neither afraid nor
angry, except to the point that religious people are so certain they have
the answer to everything that they screw up my life.
> all, right, there are things that don't have and probably will never
> have a rational explanation there
But we're not afraid of not having all the answers, nor are we angry about it.
> outthere and you and Darren simply make evry effort not to see them,
See, here's the thing. You have this image of what we are, what we're like,
why we are that way. No matter what we say, you think we're doing it to
defend ourselves against the reasonableness that is "Saul's God exists."
We're not making every effort not to see them. We (at least I) am talking to
you, trying to see it. You're just failing to make it clear to *me*. Just
because it's clear to you doesn't mean that I don't see it because I'm
trying to avoid seeing it. In truth, it's really not obvious.
> 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.
Maybe! I think that's probably closer to truth. That doesn't mean I believe
in your diety, tho.
> 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...
Annnnnd... That's All, Folks!
Canned theist having nothing less to say response number twenty-seven:
"I told you you should believe in my god. Since you don't, you obviously
either secretly do and refuse to admit it because you're afraid, or you're a
subhuman monster. Likely both."
Once again, we see the "you can't *really* love your friends and family,
because you don't believe in my diety" statement. Just so you know, that's
exceedingly insulting.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 17-Jan-09 19:58, Darren New wrote:
>> John VanSickle wrote:
>>> And there is no observation, or combination of observations, which is
>>> inconsistent with the existence of God, nor can there ever be such.
>>
>> First, define God.
>
> Something outside space and time that can not interact with our
> universe. ;)
I'm happy with that definition. In that case, there's neither reason to
believe in it or disbelieve in it. There's certainly no reason to worship
it, pray to it, or tell others what it wants you to do. I'm all for that
kind of religion. (Incidentally, it's called "deism". Lots of the folks who
founded the USA had that religion.)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Would you consider yourself cold-thinking and rational if you got in this
> situation, prayed to God, still weren't able to move the car, and you didn't
> try to invoke the Force from Star Wars? Why not? You've *seen* Yoda lift an
> entire X-wing fighter. (I'm completely serious with this question. Why
> wouldn't you try praying to Zeus, Satan, and then using the Force?)
And if not all of those help, I heard praying for Joe Pesci yields some very
practical results. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> 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?
>
Hmm. I suppose that is possible, but I don't think I have met anyone
that uses "that" as their reason for helping anyone.
>> 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 provided a link, stating that his personal definition of what atheists
where like was wrong, and this was an "example" of someone that didn't
fit. Not **real** clear how the heck giving an example is "forcing"
something? I certainly didn't force him to go there, force him to read
it, force him to "anything", including forcing him to ignore it the way
he did. By comparison, the second link was 10,000 times more "forceful",
in that reading the post made reading the man's interpretation of events
mandatory. But, if that is "forcing", then quoting, paraphrasing, or
linking to anything is. It smacks of the tried and true whine you get
from some people that, "Expressing a difference of opinion is bad
enough, but confronting me with facts is going too far! Stop persecuting
me!!"
If that is all it takes.. We are all screwed.
>> 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.
>
No, nor is the last statement I made about it having to do with what the
"author" said. Its **suspicion* of motive, based on observation, and he
even says, very clearly, in his own comment, that its not possible to
prove if they had that motivation or not, so one has to take in on face
value, even "if" they are suspicious of it being true. I agree. Its not
possible, unless they admit it, through actions or words. The problem
is, a lot of them "do", then claim that having the alterior motive makes
what they did "superior" to everyone else's expression of the same
thing, due to it including "pleasing god", not just "helping people".
> 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.
True enough. But, again, the principle tends to be undermined by the
fact that, for anyone that claims to really "believe" in certain
religions, there is no justifiable difference between being a person of
compassion and being a missionary. And, that creates a serious problem
for people that don't think the two need be, or should be, connected. It
means that "all" motives from them must be at least "somewhat" suspect,
even if you badly want them not to be. To discount that element of those
religions, is to be dishonest about what they teach, and how they expect
people to behave.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
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, when actually the best solution is go more
> with your feelings on that small time interval. I'm not saying Atheist
> can't love.
No one is rational in a situation like that. And, even if they where,
the "logical" solution is to attempt to move the vehicle anyway, even if
you know you can't, since any other action, including inaction, would
fail. The irony here being, rationally making that decision wouldn't
trigger the same hormonal effect, so it would still fail. But, this only
proves that "irrational" action has benefit, due to how it effects that
brain, not that being "irrational" connects you to some higher power,
which then, while ignoring the purely biological mechanisms involved,
magics things into happening. All your proving is that Vulcans would do
poorly at saving children under cars, while ironically, by invoking the
argument, undermining the intended intended explanation you started with.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
