 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> Huh? The 10 Commandments needed clarification? I thought God was
> supposed to be infallible? Omnipotent, Omniscient, and all that?
they need to be clarified for stupid humans who, even then, may not get it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>> Or, as one fictional character phrased it:
>
>> You can't use logic on religious people, if you could, there wouldn't be
>> any religious people. -Dr. Gregory House
>
> I think that's a prime example of flawed atheist thinking. It strongly
> makes the assumption that:
>
> 1) All religious people who believe in God are unable to think rationally
> and logically.
No. They are unable to support their religious believes logically. That
has been my experience. It's also pretty much the definition of faith.
Most people of faith that I've met are unable to think rationally and
logically *about their faith*. Note I said most - a fair number can
manage it, but when pressed, fall back to the same arguments in support
that I've already found unconvincing to me.
> 2) No rational person who things logically and scientifically can seriously
> believe in God.
Of course he can. Whether you believe in science and whether you believe
in God are orthogonal. Many scientists are rather devout. It's *because*
religion is illogical that this is possible.
> 3) Any logical-sounding statement defending religion made by a religious
> person must be flawed. It's not possible to approach religion in any
> logical and rational way. Religion always equals irrationality and
> illogical thinking.
I don't think that's the case, no. Religion usually is illogical and
unscientific, but to the extent that there's evidence, I think it's no
longer faith. I.e., if you could logically convince someone of religion,
I'm not sure it would be religion any more. When people got convinced
that Thor wasn't real, it wasn't replaced with a different religion.
I'm pretty sure many atheists have read DeCartes, too.
> Usually atheist thinking also has strong prejudices, like:
>
> 4) Any religious person telling something in defense of religion in a
> calm and rational way is trying to convince me that God exists and
> that his religion is the truth, and thus I must fight against him
> with counterargumentation.
Well, it's not so much prejudice as stereotype, methinks. I don't think
you're trying to convince me to be religious. You seem to think I'm
attacking you, or insulting you, by denying that I'm convinced.
> It seems impossible for some people to grasp the concept of a completely
> normal, intelligent and rational person, perhaps one with a degree in a
> scientific area of expertise, talking about something like religion in a
> more or less philosophical way, without trying to "convert" anyone to his
> religion. "He is defending his own religion" always equals "he is trying
> to convert me into his religion, I must fight back".
I'd like to. Usually, tho, when one gets to the hard questions, the
other side fall back on "you only disagree because you don't understand."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I saw a web site that made a fairly convincing argument it was actually
> satan. For example, satan lives in the fire that burns without
> consuming, just like the fire of the bush. :-)
why do you listen to convincing arguments about Satan but not about God? You
seem selectively inconsistent in your atheism and logical reasoning.
> God could talk to me personally in a way that made it clear he really
> was God. (Now, I might be convinced but merely insane, as in,
> incorrect. But I'd still be convinced.)
God talks to us everyday in subtle ways. Besides, if he took the form of Morgan
Freeman and talked directly to you, would you believe it? no, of course not, He
should've take the form of a 20 meter gold talking statue for you to believe.
and even then you might think you end up wandering in a Hollywood blockbuster
set...
Now, don't you think it's too egoistical of your part, like a stubborn child, to
demand that God provides a particular show for your own enjoyment to restabilish
your faith?
> A religion where everyone actually believed the same things, and who
> always won wars of oppression against them.
not possible: the devil won't let it happen.
> Humans indistinguishable from us showing up from another planet saying
> they too were created by God and had essentially the same holy books.
what if they are not like us at all? ie. a highly intelligent gaseous life
form?
oh, I see! I can believe in ETs, elves or Santa, but not God...
> Jesus actually returning to actual Earth would be a good start, too.
Are you sure? Who would attest some guy, probably humble and poor, to be Jesus?
would you believe him? oh, I'm betting you would only believe if he started
walking over the waters or making fish rain...
> Someone announcing that they're going to pray for an end to cancer, and
> spontaneous remission of all cancers all over the world occurs shortly
> after.
that would be Jesus, right?
> A religion where no baby of religious parents is born with birth defects.
see original sin.
> A faith healer who can regenerate amputated limbs through the power of
> touch.
> Jesus said that moving mountains is easy for anyone with faith. So, move
> a mountain. Put Mt Fuji off the coast of San Diego for a week, and I'll
> believe faith can move mountains.
Mountains of problems. Don't read things too literally: Jesus used parables a
lot to get his point across. If God wanted everyone to be like Neo on the
Matrix he wouldn't have created physical laws in the first place. Let's be
consistent, ok?
> A ten-year period where no church of that religion is ever struck by a
> disaster or even lightning.
that's just lame. why ten year? Churches are human institutions and are just
as fallible and bound to the original sin.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom
says...
> > That your definition
> > deviates from those isn't all that relevant, especially since it also
> > deviates from most dictionary definitions too, which pretty clearly do
> > not include anything other than disbelief in gods in one, and list a
> > whole mess of stuff you have to believe to be the other. But, what ever
> > definition or denial floats your boat. ;)
> >
> AFAIAC an atheist is someone who does believe no God exists. I fit that
> bill. Don't know what I should be ascribing to more to be a genuine one
> in your book.
>
Hmm. Ok, let me change that to say, "The definition you appeared to be
using, based on you original mistake."
Think you will love this one. Bush and Co. often love to babble about
wars, conflict, etc. all disappearing if they got rid of those damn
atheists. Seems as least one of these morons gets the idea from this
quote:
"No matter what ideology they may espouse, those who perpetrate terror
over the world are, in reality, Darwinists. Darwinism is the only
philosophy that places a value on-and thus encourages-conflict."
It wasn't written by a 'good' Christian, like them, it was written in an
otherwise heavily plagerized book titled, "The Atlas of Creation",
written by one Adnan Oktar, AKA Haryun Yahya, who is one of those nasty
radical Muslims we are supposedly so worried about. Its quite
prominently displayed in the waiting room for Secretary of Commerce
Carlos Gutierrez. lol
And that doesn't even include all the Muslims Bush has "appointed" to
various positions, or hired to do everything from cut his hair to his
secret service. Mind you, these are probably not radicals (though given
Bush's views and what you have to think and believe to follow him...),
but its just crazy, especially since one of their ***biggest*** whining
complaints about Obama is that he is/was a follower of Islam too.
I think this should be chalked up to the nature of cranks that they, "do
not to care if other cranks (and denialists in general for that matter)
have variations on their own crazy ideas, just as long as the other
cranks are opposing the same perceived incorrect truth."
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/04/unified_theory_of_the_crank.ph
p
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I saw a web site that made a fairly convincing argument it was actually
>> satan. For example, satan lives in the fire that burns without
>> consuming, just like the fire of the bush. :-)
>
> why do you listen to convincing arguments about Satan but not about God?
I don't. By "convincing argument", I meant "backed up by reasoning and
biblical quotes." As opposed to ranting.
Perhaps "a fairly well-supported argument" or "fairly reasonable argument".
Perhaps I should have mentioned that it seemed like a spoof site, more
making fun of followers of JHVH than actually trying to convince you
that it's Satan leading the chosen people. Hard to say, tho.
>> God could talk to me personally in a way that made it clear he really
>> was God. (Now, I might be convinced but merely insane, as in,
>> incorrect. But I'd still be convinced.)
>
> God talks to us everyday in subtle ways.
Maybe to you. Not to me.
If you think God talks to me in subtle ways, you'll have to explain how
you know such a thing.
> Besides, if he took the form of Morgan
> Freeman and talked directly to you, would you believe it? no, of course not,
Possibly. It worked for Jim Carrey, after all. And I imagine if God is
actually omnipotent, he could manage to convince me even if we were
created in his image to that extent.
> He should've take the form of a 20 meter gold talking statue for you
to believe.
> and even then you might think you end up wandering in a Hollywood blockbuster
> set...
Well, yes, isn't that what miracles are all about?
> Now, don't you think it's too egoistical of your part, like a stubborn child, to
> demand that God provides a particular show for your own enjoyment to restabilish
> your faith?
"Reestablish"? (Just as an aside, I find that so presumptuous as to be
mildly offensive. I used to be much more offended by such things, until
I realized how many religious people are )
And no, I don't think so. I mean, after all, what did it take to
convince the Romans? Jesus returning to life, performing all sorts of
miracles. Why is it egotistical for me, and not for Apostle Thomas?
Of course, when you start from the axiom that God is real, present, and
obvious, then anyone who doubts is insulting said God. When you start
from the premise that God isn't real, the obvious question that springs
to mind is "what, outside the Bible, should I look at to be convinced?"
Here's a question for you: What would it take you to convince you that
ESP is real? Would you consider yourself egotistical to ask to see an
actual ESP experiment that succeeded? Or is just reading Doctor Mesmer's
writing good enough for you? If you came across a book written in the
1700s talking about how there was this one guy who could predict what
card was coming up next in the deck, would that convince you that ESP is
real? If not, why not?
>> A religion where everyone actually believed the same things, and who
>> always won wars of oppression against them.
>
> not possible: the devil won't let it happen.
The devil has no free will, as well as being less powerful than God,
yes? Or am I confused on that point? If not, then it's actually that God
won't let it happen. At least, JHVH won't let it happen. Maybe some
other God will.
Of course, if it's axiomatic (to you) that JHVH is the one and only God,
then of course it seems unreasonable to expect this.
>> Humans indistinguishable from us showing up from another planet saying
>> they too were created by God and had essentially the same holy books.
>
> what if they are not like us at all?
Then it's not miraculous, it's just evolution. Then it's just a faith
healer who cures headaches with a laying on of hands, as long as you
take some asprin too. Why would you think that would convince me of the
existence of a god any more than rabbits on earth would?
The main thrust wasn't that they show up with the Bible, but that
they're actually human. Which would imply either that evolution
proceeded *identically* on another planet, or that something intervened
to make it so. The likelihood of it being God that did the intervening
is merely increased by the identical holy book, which would tell you
which God it was that did the intervening.
See?
> ie. a highly intelligent gaseous life
> form?
> oh, I see! I can believe in ETs, elves or Santa, but not God...
No, I don't believe in them either. (I believe it's likely ETs are out
there, but I don't believe it's likely they're around here now.)
I'm not sure what the relationship with what I said was, so I hope that
the above clarification helps.
>> Jesus actually returning to actual Earth would be a good start, too.
>
> Are you sure? Who would attest some guy, probably humble and poor, to be Jesus?
> would you believe him? oh, I'm betting you would only believe if he started
> walking over the waters or making fish rain...
Yep. Which he probably wouldn't mind doing, if he actually returned to
earth, see. I mean, isn't that the next scheduled appearance? The
miracle of the Rapture?
I'm asked for a list of events that would convince me, as an atheist,
that there really is divine supernatural power. I provide a list of
miracles, and your answer is "well, duh, that's not going to happen,
that would be miraculous!"?
>> Someone announcing that they're going to pray for an end to cancer, and
>> spontaneous remission of all cancers all over the world occurs shortly
>> after.
>
> that would be Jesus, right?
Not sure what you mean. What would be Jesus? I don't care who it is that
announces it, or prays for it. Whoever announces it and does the praying
probably knows which is the right God.
Do you see how you're starting from the presumption that you know you're
right? Do you see how each response you make implies that the God I
would wind up believing in is the same one you believe in? That while I
should believe in your God without miracles, believing in someone else's
God even with miracles is wrong?
>> A religion where no baby of religious parents is born with birth defects.
> see original sin.
Which one? The JHVH one? The Viking one? The Roman one? The Mayan one?
How do you know that the original sin you speak of is really the
original one?
And, somehow, the fact that Adam disobeyed God before he knew any better
is justification for deformed babies who have done nothing wrong in this
life? Somehow, *my* knowledge of good and evil seems to be incomplete,
if this is true, so why am I being punished?
>> A faith healer who can regenerate amputated limbs through the power of
>> touch.
Funny how nobody seems to argue with this one, isn't it?
>> Jesus said that moving mountains is easy for anyone with faith. So, move
>> a mountain. Put Mt Fuji off the coast of San Diego for a week, and I'll
>> believe faith can move mountains.
>
> Mountains of problems. Don't read things too literally: Jesus used parables a
> lot to get his point across. If God wanted everyone to be like Neo on the
> Matrix he wouldn't have created physical laws in the first place. Let's be
> consistent, ok?
I am. It's called "a miracle". You're the one that's trying to ridicule
me for stating that I'd believe in a God who can actually produce miracles.
Put Mt Fuji off the coast of San Diego thru the power of prayer to
*anyone*, Jesus or Zeus or Quetzalcoatl, and I'll believe that God. That
you think it's unlikely is simply your lack of faith in the power of
your own God.
I wasn't asked "what reasonable, likely events will make you believe in
God." That would be a much shorter list.
>> A ten-year period where no church of that religion is ever struck by a
>> disaster or even lightning.
>
> that's just lame. why ten year?
It seemed a reasonable number. Anything where the likelihood of it
lasting is exceedingly unlikely will do. It could be one year, if you're
willing to count (say) every structure with a cross on the top.
The Vatican has a lightning rod on the top. Clearly, someone believes
prayer by the Pope is insufficient to prevent burning down St Paul's.
> Churches are human institutions and are just
> as fallible and bound to the original sin.
Even the Mayan temples? The Pele shrines? See how you assume you're right?
Would *you* believe in Pele if her followers could walk across magma
without injury, and her shrines were never damaged by volcanoes? That's
a serious question: If some other God started performing miracles, what
would be your response?
In any case, now you're explaining why expecting miracles is
unreasonable. That doesn't negate my point, however. Yes, expecting
miracles *is* unreasonable. That you have a rationalization doesn't mean
I should believe. I find believing in God, especially in the type of god
you get in monotheistic religions, is unreasonable. Hence, it takes
something unreasonable to change my mind.
In any case, I thought baptism got rid of original sin or something? Is
the Pope really still being punished in this world for Original Sin? I
thought believing in Jesus and/or doing the right rituals got rid of
that original sin? That whole "Jesus died for our sins" isn't right? Is
there anything one can do to stop being punished for Adam's "sin"?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <47578a92$1@news.povray.org>, nos### [at] nospamcom says...
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:25:23 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
> > Jim Henderson wrote:
> >> I might go as far as saying "This drug has not been proven to cause
> >> cancer", but I don't know that "This drug does not cause cancer" is
> >> something that would not be disproven over time.
> >
> > We're speaking scientific proof here, which is always open to revision.
> > You can certainly prove that to a statistical degree, certain things
> > don't have certain properties.
>
> True, but when it comes to scientific proof of something "supernatural",
> there's always room for doubt (as there's always room for some degree of
> doubt in a scientific proof). Most who ask for proof of God's existence
> are looking not for scientific proof, but absolute proof. Perhaps you
> are different from most who engage in this type of discussion.
>
I would certainly hope so, since even using the terms "proof" or
"proven" are an abomination in science. You can use them in math,
because they means something very specific in that context, which isn't
the same as the general use of them. In general use, for **virtually**
everyone, the term "proven" implies that you have the right answer, and
its impossible for further evidence, discussion or data to change the
result. While I am sure some scientists fall for this thinking on
occasion, in my experience its **usually** only outside their own field
of study that they do so. Within their own fields they are very careful
to avoid such silly errors, and when they don't, they often find
themselves without jobs (unless they go work for the Discovery Institute
anyway..).
That said, I bloody well hope Darren isn't looking for "proof", just
evidence. ***Any*** evidence, that doesn't add unneeded complications,
isn't arbitrarily central to the person making the claim, instead of the
claim itself, can't be better explained by far more well known things,
or isn't so vague and unspecific that its impossible to discount 10,000
other possibilities in favor of the one some believer insists has to be
the answer.
Put simply, the evidence has to meet *at least* the standards used to
imply that Big Foot exists, which despite how unlikely, unbelievable and
probably hoax based, never the less contains enough points of
contention, enough unknowns and enough uncertainty that it *might* be
true, unlike pretty much **every** claim made about miracles, or other
'evidence' ascribed to the God hypothesis. And if you can't even beat
out Big Foot, with respect to the evidence available and likelihood of
your existence, there is a serious problem. lol
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4758485d$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > Why does it have to be Christians, though? How's about Buddhism?
>
> That's fine. I don't think Buddhists are theists, tho. Or, at worst,
> they worship someone who said "don't worship me." However, I'll happily
> admit I know very little about buddhism.
>
I don't know a *lot* about it either, but strictly speaking there are
two reasons you don't see them as powerful as Christianity (though
technically Islam is at least twice as large as Christianity and more
cohesive, so...), or as prone to kill/conquer and/or convert people to
make them Buddhists. 1. Most of them are not theists. Some are, but that
is a fairly recent issue that imho arose when some of them decided to
try to consolidate Jesus with Buddha, and figured the only way it worked
was to make Buddha a new version of Jesus. The fact that almost none of
the silly woo woo stuff Buddha insisted enlightened people could do
didn't work any more than anyone else's woo probably didn't help to
prevent it. 2. They *tend* to be pacifistic and inclusive, taking an
almost new age woo view of enlightenment, by which you can get their by
many paths, even the silly and stupid ones, so there isn't much point to
killing off a bunch of people that opt for some other path.
It should be noted that some of them *have* gotten violent in recent
years, but unless I am mistaken, the ones that did so are the same ones
that chose to follow Buddha as a god, not the ones that followed his
original teachings. The original version is little more than atheism
with alchemy and magic pasted over it. The *new* Buddhism is basically
the same BS as every other religion, and just as prone to defends its
"God" via violence as all of the rest of them.
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.4758434f922777ebf48316a30@news.povray.org>,
nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> > The "burning bush" that Moses saw could have been anything - it could'v
e
> > been something red and glowing that, I don't know, aliens used as a
> > communications device.
> It could've been only in his own mind, indeed. His very personal experie
nce
> of the divine. Still, it has led us today where we are. Believers or
> non-believers all drawn into the same whirlwind of events chained by the
> Jewish Christian sect being adopted and spread by the Roman Empire and
> decidedly influencing the course of human history...
So it influenced human history. So what. So did a lot of things. That
doesn't mean it didn't influence it *wrongly*, or that its prevalence,
mostly via violence, war, subversion, threats, torture and assassination
(directly or via its acceptance by those that both believed it and used
such tactics), makes it somehow better than other alternatives that
*could* have happened.
Its not a valid defense of its value, its existence or if the invisible
friend behind it is real. For thousands of years China managed to make
the "Christian" world look like complete fools, while believing that
their Emperor was a god and descended from dragons. By your logic, had a
few key moments in history been different, you would now be sitting here
arguing that our Emperor really is a God, and that he is a direct
descendant of dragons, because it can't be otherwise and there still be
a Chinese empire.
Its even worse, given the fact that you can trace virtually **every**
story in the Bible back to some prior religion, and that not one of
those religions believed in the same God that the Jews eventually
insisted was the real one, and many of them believed in ***multiple***
gods. What, the real one wandered around among a hundred different
tribes pretending to be multiple gods, then one day got bored and
decided to tell them not to believe in any of them other than the one he
decided to stick with?
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom
says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom
> > says...
> >> Note to Patrick: you might think that if I tell you I am an atheist th
at
> >> you know what I think and how I should behave. Believe me, you haven't
> >> got a clue.
> >>
> >
> > Odd. And here I thought I mentioned the whole "herding cats" concept at
> > some point. lol But seriously, as long as you are not one of those, "If
> > we are nice to the wackos, then eventually we will win!", types, we
> > might get along.
>
> Me? I am one of the wacko's, I'd think.
>
> > If you are, then I would remind you that we have been
> > trying that for the last 150 years and they **still** think we are the
> > spawn of Satan, out to destroy them, and too militant, strident, close
> > minded and/or confused and ignorant of the truth as they did 150 years
> > ago.
>
> Somewhere I mentioned that I am dutch. Things are a bit different here.
>
Yeah, I noticed. I mean, its telling when you find a study, like the one
I did a while back, which shows 100% of Europe on the side of free
thinking and general non-traditionalism (in the sense of only ever doing
what their religion says to do), while the US looked like a bloody
octopus, which some tendrils jammed up through the center of the Middle
East part of the map, all the way to the edge of it. Basically, there is
a tendril of stupidity in this country that makes radical Islam look
sane, in that its even "more" strict, more obsessed with traditions and
even more religiously motivated than the biggest wackos in *any* country
over there.
Its kind of uncomfortable realizing that, however small their number,
there are people around you that have about as much common ground with
you, or just basic reality, in some cases, than a wolf has with a
rabbit, and that the only two things you have going for you is a) the
majority are sitting some place in a mass in the middle, and b) that
there is another tendril sticking through the middle of the European
views, that is more liberal, nontraditional and anti-authoritarian than
anything in Europe either (and I would say, sometimes as batshit insane,
irrational and just plain unhinged as the authoritarian, traditionalist,
radical religious group).
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <47584b83$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Warp wrote:
> > It seems impossible for some people to grasp the concept of a complet
ely
> > normal, intelligent and rational person, perhaps one with a degree in a
> > scientific area of expertise, talking about something like religion in
a
> > more or less philosophical way, without trying to "convert" anyone to h
is
> > religion. "He is defending his own religion" always equals "he is tryin
g
> > to convert me into his religion, I must fight back".
>
> I'd like to. Usually, tho, when one gets to the hard questions, the
> other side fall back on "you only disagree because you don't understand."
>
We have people talk about religion from a purely philosophical
perspective all the time. Then the religious people show up and start
insisting that we are all wrong, don't understand anything, never read
anything, etc. There two favorite *defenses* of their position is,
"Obviously you never read <insert Bible verse of crazy book full of the
same old, over used, arguments>", and, "You just don't understand it,
and until you accept Jesus, you never will!"
Case in point. I read one long thread, just between two people, which
had like 150+ posts in it. They started out talking about the
philosophical positions, but by about post 100, you could start to see
the cracks forming in the religious position, and by post 130 or so,
every possible argument that could be made for religion had been, and
been countered with logical reasons why they didn't work, make sense, or
imply what the believer wanted them to. By post 140+ every single post
from the believer consisted of either, "But have you read this...", and,
"Well, if you just accepted that any part of it was true, or allowed
Jesus into your heart, you would understand why my arguments *actually*
make sense, even though I don't have one scrap of new information, or
one new argument, or any valid statement that would suggest that you are
not 100% right about everything I said so far." In other words, he
***knew*** he wasn't going to win, since not one argument he made was
convincing to *either* of them, and he admitted that this was the case
in his own rebuttals, so he fell back to, "You just don't understand it
the way I do!".
It was both enlightening, and at the time, funny as hell to read. Now, I
just find the fact that this is *always* the result of such purely
philosophical arguments with such people a bit depressing.
Don't believe me, then try it yourself. I absolutely guarantee that, no
matter how smart or literate the believer, and how careful you are to
"only" deal with the arguments they bring up, and be completely fair to
them, it will *inevitably* sink to the point where their only defense is
that they believe, you don't, and until you do, you won't understand the
sublime genius of their position.
--
void main () {
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
