 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-Jan-09 3:24, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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.
For all practical purposes the non-existence of God is the base of my
ethics, so count me in.
>>> 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!!"
I know what you meant, but to me it sounded rather similar to that
infamous: "here is a bible, read it!".
[snip]
>> 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",
And my problem is that I know too many people that don't and would
justifiably be angry if you would question their motives based on
suspicion. Basically what you are saying, or at least suggesting to say,
is that if someone belongs to a church you can not trust them anymore.
> 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.
Ah, 'teach' may be the important word here. Most people I have met are
not from churches that teach missionary actions. Apart from the Jehovah
witnesses that come to the door (must be 9 years since I saw the last
one). Catholics here tend to not take serious anybody from the ranks of
bishop up. I have yet to meet a Muslim that has taken it's faith serious
enough to even know how to explain his faith to an infidel. In short,
all religious persons I know personally that are serious about their
faith and every church they are in are not of the missionary type.
Remember, I live in the Netherlands.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-Jan-09 6:34, nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> But seemingly there are lots of reasons to start flamewars about it. :)
>
> He's also The guy who defined man and woman. ;)
And there is silly old me that still claims that there is no consistent
definition of man and woman. Apparently I have to yield to a higher power.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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.
You missed me once again, this paragraph was because you don't need a
pedant trolling to say "I think what you say is wrong because has no
foundation" or something like that, I forgot to clarify that I wrote
that paragraph because I felt insulted and denigrated not because of the
issue we are talking about and this post was to Patrick alone Darren
Hehehe, I don't believe Atheist are monsters, I believe ALL Humans are
created equal(don't take it so literally/rationally I meant as dignified
persons not exact copies) and this I think is religiousless.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I don't believe, and you missed me again, I because I believe in God
know everything, I don't even know why you and Darren keep saying that
of me, I too say "I don't know" but if something indicates a exceptional
fact and is "safe" to say belongs to God, I give credit to Him.
And you are wrong!!! I have being A LOT more respectful to everything
you and Darren have wrote that you both have bein with me, I've being
more open minded that both of you, but OK, is a tie, this discussion has
reached a death end so good bye and GOD BLESS YOU, lol.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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. :-)
>
Rhetoric answers that assumes too much about me, and I'm the insulting
part here? I wrote Athesit can love and love is irrational on extreme
doses, so yes Atheists can and will go irrational at some point in their
lifes, see? you didn't read the fine print... :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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?
Sorry, nope.
> If not, what am I missing?
This question denotes wisdom because you are willing to search and learn
contrary to Patrick that only writes "you are deluding yourself you are
being a moron, for your own sake STOP!!!".
On the subject, I think that quality of love depends on each person,
I've known of religious persons that made great religious leaderships
while their family suffered horribly, is not religion, is you and you
alone. If you correct your child on the measure of his/her mistakes, are
kind but not spoiling and other good principles like that I think that
is love, we know what love is, all humans do also we have a sense of
right and wrong, so I think people that will go to hell is the ones that
deliberately go wrong and against love or twist love in a sick way(9/11
kinda of stuff).
> Do you think atheists are cold-hearted?
A little, just a little but I don't say ALL, maybe, just maybe most of
them, because I don't actually know the entire Earth population, so is
mostly kinda of a little pretentious assumption of me.
> That they don't have feelings?
man, hehe, I don't know why you keep saying thighs like that of me.
> That it's irrational to attempt to move the car without divine
> intervention?
is irrational anyway that is why faith helps and was more like lifting
the car in flames kinda thing, and every adult person knows the
consequences of such an act, but also I'm not saying an Atheist wouldn't
do it, I'm saying he/she MIGHT be too rational about it. I'm also saying
religious/spiritual persons will try to find a logical solution that
actually will work but in this case, as people write/tell about it was
in a situation like: alone in a road or in a place where she couldn't
ask/get help or find a good solution that would actually worked. I don't
say I'd do the same, may I'd be too rational about too, I don't know
what I'd do in such a horrible situation, all I can think of is saving
the child the best way possible, I think you think that too and every
human for that matter.
> 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?)
>
Not just pray to God, God helps the one that helps him/herself, He does
the part you can't do to get to your goal and it depends on the belief
of your faith, George Lucas actually beliefs in The Force, I believe The
Force is God intervention, the Bible states if you have enough faith you
could do wonderful thing, but without love you'd be nothing, so is not
only faith is also the "big L" necessary for good deeds.
Once a long time ago, maybe 15-20 years ago I heard of a Holy man in a
Country with lots of desert that he could take an ordinary cup, fill it
with sand from the desert, invert the cup, let the sand fall and the
sand would stop falling until he turned the cup straight up again,
people said he was a man of lots of faith.
I understand why Atheists probably will never see the way
religious/theists see things, faith in God is completely irrational
because God doesn't manifest in rational ways, all I can say is what
Jesus said, "be happy those who belief without seen".
Don't expect I say you: "OK, you say you are trying to understand me so
you want a rational proof of God, here it is, now belief". The way to
God is that, A WAY, A PATH to follow and on some point, He will come to
you. The Bible states that if you CHALLENGE God to come to you He will,
he has give you free will and wont disrupt the deal unless you want it so.
One more curious "fact": some people affirms seen San Martin praying in
the middle of the air,on his knees, because he was on sucha God's grace,
so is not a proven fact but if you dare to take this as a fact for a 2
minutes you see there is no reason why he has to be "flying" to be in
God's grace but that's the way God works. People claims he was alone in
his cell on pray time of the day. But fairy tail at the end, right?
fine, so be it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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?
>
I should think it more deeply? are you sure is not the other way around?
Cancer and other stuff is part of Nature, how it works.
As I stated on another post is IMO good to ask God for a cure because
God helps you complete your goal when you have done all you can.
God leaves nature alone until He see fir to intervene, this is what
theists/religious people have deducted (nobody can't tell how God thinks
or act, we deduct from facts attributed to Him/Her/It) over time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> This question denotes wisdom because you are willing to search and learn
> contrary to Patrick that only writes "you are deluding yourself you are
> being a moron, for your own sake STOP!!!".
Yes. That's why I said I'm an atheist, but not like Patrick. For one thing,
I've accepted that irrationality is not always bad.
>> Do you think atheists are cold-hearted?
>
> A little, just a little but I don't say ALL, maybe, just maybe most of
> them, because I don't actually know the entire Earth population, so is
> mostly kinda of a little pretentious assumption of me.
I think so. You seem to leap from "you don't believe in my god" to "you're
cold and rational." There's no basis for that belief except uninformed
prejudice. I suspect confirmation bias in your observations of your atheist
friends: that when they act cold and rational, you attribute it to their
atheism, while when they act irrational, you attribute it to normal humanity.
Not unlike the way many people attribute personal failings to their own
sinful nature and personal successes to God.
>> That they don't have feelings?
> man, hehe, I don't know why you keep saying thighs like that of me.
I quote:
> I think an Atheist maybe would be too rational for a situation like this
[...]
> being cold thinking and maybe endangering the child [...] the best
> solution is go more with your feelings on that small time interval
I took that to mean you thought the atheist would be less willing to try to
move the car via brute force. You say "they're too rational and cold
thinking and more likely to endanger the child". How am I supposed to
interpret that?
In any case, there's documented evidence of desperate people lifting cars
off their children. There's no documented evidence of divine intervention
lifting cars off of children. That means trying to lift your car yourself is
*more* rational than praying to God for help.
>> That it's irrational to attempt to move the car without divine
>> intervention?
>
> is irrational anyway that is why faith helps and was more like lifting
> the car in flames kinda thing, and every adult person knows the
> consequences of such an act,
OK. It seems to me like you're making statements much more exagerated than
you mean them to be. My personal suggestion is to phrase more of your
comments as questions rather than statements.
Plus, I can *easily* imagine an atheist nerd trying to use The Force to lift
the car. Completely irrational, and less likely to work than actually trying
to lift the car with brute force.
> Not just pray to God,
Well, no. Pray to god to give you the strength, obviously. Because, you
know, no proper religious person would think that God would manifest in ways
that could really only be explained by supernatural intervention. Of course
he won't lift the car *without* someone trying desperately to move it with
brute force, any more than he'd actually cure a disease that non-believers
get better from also.
> the Bible states if you have enough faith you could do wonderful thing,
Actually, it states that if you have even the tiniest spec of faith, you can
move mountains. There really isn't a question of "how much faith is enough."
> I understand why Atheists probably will never see the way
> religious/theists see things, faith in God is completely irrational
> because God doesn't manifest in rational ways,
Sure he does. He stopped the sun in the sky for three days, he turned the
Nile to blood, he flooded the entire world, bombed Sodom and Gomorrah,
parted the Red Sea, raised the dead, cast the evil eye on a fig tree, ....
He just stopped doing that sort of thing when the camera was invented.
> Don't expect I say you: "OK, you say you are trying to understand me so
> you want a rational proof of God, here it is, now belief". The way to
> God is that, A WAY, A PATH to follow and on some point, He will come to
> you. The Bible states that if you CHALLENGE God to come to you He will,
> he has give you free will and wont disrupt the deal unless you want it so.
And I have. And he didn't. What do you say to that? That I opened my heart
to him in the wrong way?
> One more curious "fact": some people affirms seen San Martin praying in
> the middle of the air,on his knees, because he was on sucha God's grace,
Yep. And some people think they're Napoleon too. Note that I'm not saying
this in a belittling way, but for me to change my life based on "I once
heard someone saw some guy floating in mid air" is a bit much, don't you think?
> so is not a proven fact but if you dare to take this as a fact for a 2
> minutes you see there is no reason why he has to be "flying" to be in
> God's grace but that's the way God works.
OK, let's even grant the possibility that he really was praying in the
middle of the air. Let's even say he can do it on demand, and scientists
can't explain it.
Why does that have anything to do with God?
--
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:
> Darren New wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> I should think it more deeply? are you sure is not the other way around?
Yep. I already thought about it deeply and have come to my own conclusions.
> Cancer and other stuff is part of Nature, how it works.
I thought nature works how God wants it to work?
I'm just confused how "free will" comes into your child being pinned under a
car. I don't think any child says "This morning, I choose to get pinned
under a locked car." Where does "free will" come into the situation?
I mean, it was "miraculous" that everyone got off the plane in the river
alive, but it wasn't "miraculous" that the plane crashed in the first place?
It was "free will" that the plane crashed?
> God leaves nature alone until He see fir to intervene,
How do you know?
> this is what
> theists/religious people have deducted (nobody can't tell how God thinks
> or act, we deduct from facts attributed to Him/Her/It) over time.
This is the bit I don't follow. You "attribute" facts to God? Isn't it,
therefore, the people attributing those facts that determine how God
behaves, and not God itself?
Notice how any time you actually *measure* the facts attributed to God, God
fails to manifest? It's only when you look after the fact, and say "might
God have done this, knowing what we know about what we think of God?" and
then the answer comes out?
--
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 don't believe, and you missed me again, I because I believe in God
> know everything, I don't even know why you and Darren keep saying that
> of me, I too say "I don't know" but if something indicates a exceptional
> fact and is "safe" to say belongs to God, I give credit to Him.
That, I think, is the primary difference.
> And you are wrong!!! I have being A LOT more respectful to everything
> you and Darren have wrote that you both have bein with me,
I believe you're reading disrespect into my disagreement. Regardless of
Patrick's feelings, I don't disrespect you. I merely disagree with you. I'm
also hearing the same tired old statements that don't make any more sense
from you than they did the first 100 times I heard them. But that statement
isn't being disrespectful - it's just a fact.
The whole "if only you'd open your heart, God would fill you" bit is
disrespectful because it implies willful ignorance on the part of the person
you're talking to. But since I understand you don't intend it as
disrespectful, you should understand that I don't intend my statements as
disrecpectful.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
