Atheism is irrational, illogical and boring

Jump to Last Post 201-250 of 396 discussions (1882 posts)

93
Paragliderposted 16 years ago
These work for me
reply report
60
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
Jenny!! Yay!

OK I don't agree to anything just yet...I still need to read some posts!
reply report
1. 60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  you can keep talking, i have some morning routine stuff to take care of.
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I think all currently awake atheists have cast their votes. We are just waiting on a representative of the theists to confirm where there is an agreement.
  
  Take your time, though ... I have a life I can be getting on with!
  
  Jenny
  reply report
60
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
The NT accounts of the life of Jesus are accepted as accurate if there is a non-Biblical corroborating source.
Sorry, I don't agree, and It's not because there is none.
The NT is not one book. The books were collected and compiled as agreed upon scripture.
There are four detailed and separate accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus, not just one. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Generally speaking other historical documents are agreed upon with significantly, really significantly, less data.
We have agreed that the Bible is to be taken at face value unless it disqualifies itself internally or externally.
Paraglider agrees.
"EW says that it is standard practice to give the text the benefit of the doubt. Largely, I accept that, but against a sliding scale of probability: If the text says something reasonable, I'll accept it as probably true. If it says something outlandish, I'll consider it possibly true, but probably not."
I take a different stance, "If the bible says something outlandish, i'll consider it possible true AND probably true...on the account that the text itself has not been disqualified.
This is the reason that Aristotle's Dictum is the basis of Literary Criticism.
reply report
1. 74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I haven't seen this agreement yet.
  
  If Paraglider agrees, then why do you need to describe yours as "a different stance"?
  
  No railroading non-existent agreement, Ender.
  
  I have not seen anyone on the atheist side agree to accept something as fact on the basis that it is written in the Bible and hasn't been specifically disproven.
  
  I believe that the current offer on the table is that the atheists will accept as fact anything in the New Testament which is corroborated elsewhere, and anything which is unremarkable enough that it is credible even in the absence of external corroboration.
  
  Would you like to accept these concessions one by one as they come?
  
  Because if you hold out for "all or nothing", chances are it will be nothing, and then you will be forced to make your case without referring to anything in the Bible.
  
  I am assuming that your Apologetics course relied to some extent on the Bible, so it will limit the debate a fair bit if you can't get any of that material on the table.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Jenny
  
  I would like to suggest an external pole where we can cast our votes and come to an agreement using two separate polls because I can pretty much guess what will happen with it.
  
  And we would need to have some how verify that the people who have been participating in the forum are the votes reflected in the pole otherwise I can predict a bunch of ghost votes to lead the pole in the direction of the desired outcome that would disqualify the poll as credible.
  
  -or something like this.
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Hmmm, I am not sure how this would help. As you correctly point out, it would devolve into number-padding almost immediately.
  
  What we are trying to do is encourage intelligent discussion.
  
  My feeling is that we have a changing series of people in different timezones representing the two sides (or being agnostic), and as long as there is no violent dissent to something, it seems to have worked so far to let one or two people from each side confirm the agreement.
  
  If there is dissent on something, it just doesn't get added to the canon until the dissent is resolved.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
2. 74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Aristotle's Dictum may well be the basis of Literary Criticism, Ender, but you did not suggest a thread on Literary Criticism.
  
  You suggested a debate, in which facts can only be introduced under very specific conditions, by citing credible sources or using logical deduction from previously established facts.
  
  If you want to change the rules, that is your prerogative, but it would end this thread.
  
  I am not interested in moderating a thread which is a literary criticism of the Christian Bible, but I will continue to moderate this one, if you still want to play by your original rules.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
60
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
Let me rephrase.

If any written text or historical document is to be submitted, it must be verifiable.
You verify text with Literary Criticism. External evidence must pass the same tests as the document being compared.
Unless somebody can define another method of verification, we all must follow this science.
Literary Criticism is a science whether you like it or not. It is not a subjective standpoint.
reply report
1. 74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  OK, Ender, let's get very specific here. We're not going to devolve into general interpretation of Biblical texts in this thread - the atheists would all die of boredom.
  
  We are working towards evidence for the existence of a God, and all we are trying to do at this point is to reach agreement about what parts of the Bible can be entered into evidence.
  
  I believe you are are talking about Hermenuetics, here.
  
  Now I am quite sure that you will not get any agreement from the atheists to any form of revealed exegesis.
  
  That leaves you with rational exegesis. You should be able to get the atheists to agree to the use of that scientific discipline. (Rational exegesis bases its operation on the idea that the authors have their own inspiration, so their works result from human intelligence, not divine inspiration.)
  
  That discipline of literary criticism, however, is not the one which starts by accepting everything in the text under consideration is literally true.
  
  Note also that even rational exegesis is admittedly shaped by the pre-existing biases of the writer, and varies greatly in quality.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well, i'm not talking about Hermeneutics. I'm simply stating that what can be known about history follows certain criteria. All historical documents are viewed this way.
  I wouldn't be so hard pressed to argue this point because there ARE other recorded documents that sustain Biblical record, however if those documents don't follow the same rules as the Bible (an ancient document itself)then no evidence to either support or deny ANY claims of ANY historical event can be submitted.
  To throw this out is to say that history is unknowable.
  reply report
  86
  Sufidreamerposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Difficult to say yes or no - there are many types and styles of literary criticism.
  
  Not acceptance or rejection, but why not give a couple of 'trial' interpretations, for clarity. Not to create debate, just to let everybody see what exactly you mean.
  
  Must admit - it was never my speciality.
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I'm speaking about lower criticism, and i suck for generalizing!
  I'm saying that the Bible should be treated the exact same way as every other work of antiquity.
  External evidence to support historical, especially ancient, events sometimes isn't there. If the external and the internal evidence does not disqualify the document, then it can be assumed it is accurate in the context in which it was given.
  
  If the Bible says, "Jesus healed a blind man." We can assume that this is true because the document has not disqualified itself.
  
  We take into account that so far in the debate we have not agreed that the Bible should be taken spiritually, mystically, or religiously. That ancient people were technologically lame and scientific study was given to philosophers...not historians or tax collectors.
  
  So Luke, a historian, says that Jesus did this or that it can be trusted that Luke believed what he wrote was in fact accurate.
  
  Treated the exact same way as other works of antiquity.
  
  What is created when we don't have a way of discernment is a requirement to back up every ancient document with another until there are none left. There HAS to be objectivity.
  
  I saw an article in High Times a few years back that said Jesus cured blindness with the "sticky icky"!
  reply report
60
Pete Maidaposted 16 years ago
I was just wondering where the billions of people in the eastern religions fit in. I they considered theist because they believe in a god or are they considered atheist because they don't believe in the correct god? Maybe they are just considered children of a lesser god. They certainly do not agree that the world was created they way the west believes it was created. How is their vote counted or don't they count at all?
reply report
1. 60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  We are all are invited...I can only speak for Christianity, its my presupposition so it's what I defend.
  
  It's Theism Vs Atheism....all schools, camps, ideologies or lack thereof's are allowed to brawl!
  reply report
2. 0
  Leta Sposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, there's that. Most of those Eastern posters were ignored several pages ago. Then there is the women as children of a lesser god tone to the whole thread, too, . Then there is this tendency to want to lump literary criticism in with science...which I find a little funny, because as I have an M.A. in English, we never claimed to be scientific when spinning interpretations of works. Be that from a Marxist, feminist, formalist, or any other critical perspective.
  
  I do think the whole thread points out and offers proof why many are turned off and tuned out of evangelizing-type Christians, however.
  reply report
93
Paragliderposted 16 years ago
Ender - {{ "If the bible says something outlandish, i'll consider it possible true AND probably true...on the account that the text itself has not been disqualified. }}
Sorry, but you can't have possible and probable together. Probable always means probability greater than 0.5 Possible has two meanings:
1: probability greater than zero
2: probability greater than zero but less than 0.5

The AND function applied to case 1 yields possible = probable
The AND function applied to case 2 yields the NULL set.
reply report
74
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
Ender,

It seems that there is a basis for some productive agreement in what you say.

I think you will be able to get agreement from everyone that the Bible be treated like any other written work from the time.

Where a difference still seems to exist is in the arena of exactly what that treatment is. For example, I am not aware that it is common practice for historians to assume that all the words in any historical document are literally true unless falsified.

For example, historians studying Egyptian inscriptions from the time do not assume that because those inscriptions say that Osiris caused a larger than normal flood, that Osiris actually exists and further took a personal interest in a particular flood. They will assume, though, in the absence of any conflicting evidence, that there was a larger than normal flood that year.

Perhaps we can move on a bit if we can get the right wording for the facts we seem to have agreed.

It seems to me that nobody has objected to the original fact 6 I summarised, so I will add that to the canon.

I will further suggest that we potentially have agreement for:

7. For the purposes of providing evidence for new facts, the Bible should be treated in the same way as any other writings of the time.

Jenny
reply report
1. 86
  Sufidreamerposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I can see merit in that approach - for example. The Bible says that there was a series of plagues in Ancient Egypt - we assume that an event of such importance passed into the records. The Christian states that 'God did it.'
  
  The atheist points out that the Nile runs red occasionally, plagues of locusts were a common event in Ancient Egypt, and a disease that picks largely upon the firstborn is not outwith possibility - the recent Swine Flu seems to attack a certain age group.
  
  The only proviso, for me, is that we have to be wary of absence of proof. If there is no refuting evidence, it does not follow that 'God did it.' However, it helps to strengthen the case.
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly, proof of divinity must be made by another approach.
  
  I'm in agreement..Is everybody else?
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  My theory of a creator is that divine intervention is the difference between our human minds than all other life that we currently know of. This may be the only physical evidence of divine intervention however the mind has unknown abilities that we are unaware of.
  reply report
  86
  Sufidreamerposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I am happy with that, but then I am not an atheist!
  reply report
60
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
A little cross-posting action!
reply report
74
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
OK, time for a little update on progress. Here's where we are as far as I can tell.

Facts presented with credible source or valid logical deduction as per Rule 1

1. Statements cannot be proven true, but they can be proven false.
2. Believing something to be true is a choice beyond the rational, as the rational can only demonstrate that something is false, not that it is true.
3. The Bible makes reference to people, places and events which are historically verified by other sources.
4. The Bible contains some inconsistencies and/or inaccuracies.
5. There was a historical figure who corresponds to the Biblical Jesus.
6. The NT accounts of the life of Jesus are accepted as accurate if there is a non-Biblical corroborating source.
7. For the purposes of providing evidence for new facts, the Bible should be treated in the same way as any other writings of the time.

Are we all good with that?

Jenny
reply report
1. 60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I hate to say it but no. A strict rationalist position on historical events is not a debate at all. There are other approaches to finding objective truth.
  The debate is between world views and strict adherence to any one traditional methodology (Rationalism, Experientalism, Fidism or whatever) is self-defeating because they are unable to judge between different world views.
  As I stated before...you can both rationally deduce Atheism and Theism. The nature of this debate it to see which one is the more correct world view. Thus application of different truth tests are needed to present any argument that means anything to this particular debate.
  I don't mean to be a pain in the butt...i really do want to get cookin!
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  And there you go. Accept then that other people have different views than yourself and there is not test that can prove you right and prove another wrong.
  
  To prove Christianity is the truth you would literally have to die and come back again unscathed.
  
  Yet we know that this sort of thinking has lead to many deaths based on "faith" and none of them to this day have come back.
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  If there is no way to differentiate then by "faith" my dear, you hope there is no God.
  
  But I propose there is a workable method of testing truth statements.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  No Ender. You are praying that there is a god.
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  nuh uh...you're the one..
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Still ducking and diving I see. What exactly is this workable method?
  
  Although, I have proof that there is not a god. I do not need to hope.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Prolly death and resurrection and faith. He is prolly praying right now that god will come down and smite us for blasphemy but becoming more and more disappointed for it not happening.
  
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I would never pray for that.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Okay but you are prolly praying that we believe you. I believe that you believe it. nough'said.
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well why didn't you say so!? That could have ended the discussion 860 posts ago...you're a jerk for leading me on like that!
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I have been saying so for ages. It is mostly common sense.
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Do you actually think you are going to change someone's mind in here enderw1ggins? We have had quite a few similar discussions with basically the same people over the last year. The only people that might change their minds over a topic like this are spectators, which I guess makes it worth it.
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  We'll the Bible says that one soul is worth more than the entire weight of the world!
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Worth killing and lying for even..........
  
  You guys are so funny. Not one rational, logical argument have you put forward. Despite the fact that that was part of your ground rules. Now we are back to "listen to what I am saying, I am right!"
  
  Did you really spend 4 years in school to learn this?
  
  ciao.
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yep
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Quite right Make Money.
  
  All anyone has to do is look at this thread and make their own mind up. Which is why religionism is waning. Thanks dood.
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Hey do you agree with my argument about methodology?
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Of course. I'd even agree that miracles should be admissible like Sufi suggested a while back because some miracles have been witnessed by thousands of people, believers and non-believers alike. But then atheists would kick dirt and run away from the sand box.
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Alright!
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I would pose the thought that divine intervention would be favoritism. Would our creator perform divine intervention to save 1 dying child and let the other die? This is not logical to me.
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Because God doesn't do what you think He should do does't mean that He doesn't exist or that He is not a logical.
  
  I exist and I don't do what you particularly think is right. It is logical to say that there is a man on the other side of the internet code named: Ender.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  If our creator designed our minds to make our most rational decisions in life based from logic, would the creator not understand logic when the creation does? This is not logical
  report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Did i miss something? Why is The Creator not a logical being?
  report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  There aren't very many logical acts in the bible unless you pick and choose. If you read the bible with debate, you will see the contradiction within the lines. The bible itself is a contradiction to free will. If you want someone to have free will in their life, you do not tell them them have to live by a guide/bible. You do not impose fear to make them believe something. Fear of religion also imposes on free will and free thought.
  report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well you obviously don't believe in the authority of the Bible, that is an act of free will. You are given that choice as is everybody in the world. That is not a contradiction at all.
  report
  88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Freewill is an arguable subject. If a person is molded by the beliefs of a meme (say a religious group), by parents, by a society, they are not aware that they don't have freewill.
  
  You say a person has freewill to believe what they want. If they were never given choice in the first place, to be objective, to see myth from reality, to be fed epics full of strange events like the building of an ark to accommodate survival of a flood and be told this is true, how is this choice.
  
  The gullible among us will take your words and believe them. The rational and individual among humanity will sift through and be able to ask mighty questions and fathom for themselves what is right and wrong. Only then can freewill and choice be put in the mix. Great example of having freewill and choice taken away are the Nigerian witch children. One example of many available. Until you truly understand cause and effect and how it applies to your mind, don't talk about freewill.
  report
  88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  What is a miracle but something extraordinary happening withing the ordinary world. Doesn't make it an act of God. We silly mortals. The ability to do amazing feats in healing come down to a human's ability to draw from forces within themselves. Guess what? It's sexual energy. Not sex, but the energetic component that is activated under the umbrella of all things sexual. Those that had the ability to draw from these forces were burnt at the stake - by Christians of course. Miracles didn't have to be extraordinary - they were made to look that way to wow the masses. The ability to draw from these forces is a learned ability, no different to learning how to play an instrument. (I'm not talking about Reiki here), these abilities go way beyond vague movements of energy.
  
  Did you know that a woman who has regular sex is likely to live a much longer healthier life than a woman who rarely has sex.
  
  Isn't it amazing how sex became a digusting act in the eyes of the church? To dissempower a culture, outlaw what they innately know as truth. A miracle then became only an act of god - rubbish.
  reply report
  60
  JonTutorposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  "Sex is disgusting" in public but in private lives they totally dig it... too many cases of child molestation.... and there is that issue of pope condemning the usage of condoms.... Gosh.... Are we moving forward or backward.
  reply report
  88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Backward me thinks. It's a cunning way of control. Something so precious as experiencing and understanding sexuality is massive. Yes it can be abused, and of course it is. But it's interesting how much sexual misconduct can be directly linked to religion and oppression and suppression. Look at children subjectively, if they can't have what they want they have a huge tantrum don't they. The sexual urges are extreme and suppression is not the answer in most cases.
  
  It is known that men who undertake extreme spiritual practices are required to abstain from sex. There is an energetic reason for this which requires a massive context and I just can't do it justice here on this forum. Some spiritual initiates will fail in their early attempts simply because they have not undertaken periods of sex. Suppression doesn't work at all. If a person was to become a Priest say in the catholic church, my advice would be - go out and have as much sex as you want, then make up your mind. Sexual urges are an animal tendency that are difficult to control. If you want to control masses of people by saying sex is bad - you are creating hell on earth by default.
  And what is a really big mistake within the seminaries is that as soon as spiritual practices do begin, the organic process of sexual desire comes up. It's the mechanism of the human body for this to happen. Ignorance is not bliss on the subject of sexuality.
  
  But I'm guessing at the Council of Nicea they knew exactly what they were doing.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Not to mention the stigma attached to religious sexual oppression is likely the cause of child molestation and other "morbid" sexual acts... the retention of it needs to be released or you go crazy which seems to result in this sort of behavior.
  
  Suppress the homosexual community enough what happens? Some commit suicide over confusion of their natural "feelings", others exiled from their families, churches and society. Some marry into a heterosexual lifestyle which inevitably causes problems in the marriage.. The partner feels betrayed, maybe the lack of sexual involvement, cheating, aggression etc..
  
  or... a decoy
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Ender, you were the one who wrote the rules in the first place.
  
  Any fact must be supported by citing a credible source or using logical deduction in order to be admitted to the debate.
  
  While it is appealing to be able to dodge the requirements of Rule 1, and almost everyone has tried to, it is Rule 1 for a reason.
  
  And it is YOUR rule.
  
  If you have decided that the game as played by your rules is no fun, declare the game over now and start a new thread.
  
  Jenny
  
  P.S. I will not volunteer to moderate a thread which is not based on facts and logic, though. People may want to broadcast incompatible world views and express opinions about the world views of others, but I can't see that there will be any meeting of the minds without the basics of logical argument and agreed premises.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  With all due respect, if free thought has boundaries, how free can it be? One of the boundaries could rule out the possibility of progress to truth.
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Logical argumentation includes the Law of non-contradictions. Both theism and atheism cannot be true at the same time.
  Rationalism is simply a methodology used in logical reasoning, in which both truth statements can co-exist. But there are other methods of logical reasoning. Its true.
  I will cite my source.
  
  "The Justification of Truth Statements Within a World View
  Establishing the truth of a world view is a special problem and demands a specific test for truth. We have concluded that the traditional tests for truth will not suffice because they are inadequate to judge between world views. More than one world view may be true on the grounds of rationalism, experientialism, evidentialsm, and so forth. However, unaffirmability can falsify a world view and undeniability can verify a world view.
  Supposing this to be the case when judging between world views, we now come tho the problems of determining what is true within a given world view. It is here that combinationalism or systematic coherence seems to be the most adequate test for truth for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is difficult to find undeniabulity in historical and experiential matters." (Dr. Geisler, N. C.A. Formulating Adequate Tests for Truth)
  
  Whew...!Dr. Norman Geisler everybody!
  
  Ok ive cited it, logically deduced it.....please don't go...i'm begging you!!!
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  lol
  
  So all rules out the window - just listen to what you have to say huh?
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  THe rules have been followed to the T. Rationalism is just one method or logical reasoning. What I proposed was logical...Mr.Spock.
  Not only did I state the argument but I have also sited a source word for word on why it is appropriate.
  
  The only thing that you have contributed was a whole lotta "don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain" jive.
  
  You make truth statements with nothing to back it up ever. Your arguments are still childish!
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  ...coming from the assumption that there is a given world view... or that the world view you were given is true for all views.
  
  You really can't see how redundant you are?
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Here was the last thing that was mentioned...lets resolve this and move on.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure what a Truth statement is, unless he means the Truth - as in I have irrationally decided I have the Truth with a capital T with nothing to back it up except a book written by people who also had the Truth..
  
  You guys really are entertaining though.
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Saying there is a God is a truth statement. Saying there is no God is a truth statement. Both of which can be rationalized as possibly true but never necessarily true. When I made the above proposal i was staying within the defined terms of logical reasoning. There are more methods than just Rationalism. Dood.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Saying there is or is not a god is not a truth statement either.
  
  Who has the truth to know the truth?
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Dood - I understand what you are trying to argue. You are trying to argue that because it is not possible to prove god does not exist - he therefore exists, and a decision that he does is just as rational as deciding that he doesn't.
  
  Given the complete absence of proof and it being logically impossible to prove a negative.
  
  So, therefore we need some other reasoning to determine that he does indeed exist.
  
  Like I said - you guys are funny. But go ahead and present your reasoning as you have decided we will no longer be using any facts.
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  or indeed does not exist for that matter. both camps win.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I heartily suggest you keep away from the usual suspects:
  
  I cannot concieve of there not being a god.
  We are here therefore we must have been made by a god or it makes no sense for us to be here.
  That tree is proof of god's love.
  
  Those sort of things.
  
  By all means dress them up with sesquipedalian terms, but you can expect me to cut them down for you.
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  No way...i hate that kind of esoteric crapola! Lets say for instance you had the sweetest conspiracy evidence to blow my whole system out of the water.
  The problem with strict rationalism is that your point will never be valid...ever. A combinationalism or systematic consistancy methodology allows historical events to be put into play and deduced logically.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  And there rests the entire basis of your argument. Which may well wash with a few Southern Baptists, and sell a few books that help people to justify their irrational beliefs, but I do not accept the basic premise that every single thing taken to be true is an irrational decision - therefore believing in god is just as rational as not.
  
  Some truth statements are more equal than others.
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I think i edited it but it didn't work.
  report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Oh well. God works in mysterious ways.
  
  How about we see if we can find a "truth statement" that we both agree on?
  
  I will throw a few out and then you do the same, see if we can find one?
  
  Gravity exists
  Trees grow
  Some birds can fly
  
  report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Dune is the best sci-fi book ever wrritten
  Fear is the mindkiller
  I wish we were mentats
  report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  All true.
  report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Dood, my neighbors just built the biggest bomb in the world and I need to watch this thing rock! Be back soon!
  report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Ah - is it still the 4th where you are? In which case, happy Independence day. Bastards. !
  report
  61
  tksenseiposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Don't frighten the boy, I think he's in France.
  report
  61
  tksenseiposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Are we talking about Islam now?
  report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I swear you burn Dune and the Lord will strike thee!!!
  report
  61
  tksenseiposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  M' jus' sayin'
  
  And you know a lot of that 'sand people' stuff was based on Islam/Arabic culture.
  report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Oh your just sayin!
  I love that argument. It's like you can say any offensive thing you want and then add "just sayin" to the end and get away with it. I do it to my sister all the time! Just sayin.
  
  Check this out! Every time i read the Bible I get frustrated cuz I want to be like the Apostle Paul or Timothy and I just cant seem to get it..so at the end of my Bible's concordance i wrote "just sayin"!
  report
  61
  tksenseiposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  It is very convenient like that.
  report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  As a theist, I am not entirely sure that you want to open the door to unaffirmability = falsity, Ender.
  
  That was Paraglider's original point, and the one which Mark Knowles keeps making in his uniquely blunt manner.
  
  The Christian world view is inherently unaffirmable, so you will lose before you begin if you go down that path.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I say and do dangerous things! Anyway, i missed you.
  
  If you're with it, i'm with it. If you want to throw it out i wont push it.
  
  You are doing an excellent job.
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks!
  
  For the sake of having the debate continue and make progress, I am going to insist that we stick to Rule 1.
  
  At the moment, the sticking point in the debate is that you haven't yet agreed to Proposition 7.
  
  Can you please either agree, or propose an amendment which would make it acceptable to you, which we can then put to the atheists?
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed
  reply report
2. 60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  This was the last thing that most agreed upon except I threw a wrench into the whole thing...
  reply report
61
marinealways24posted 16 years ago
When man had a vision to go to the moon, it was first a vision before it was physically done. The vision was not taught or read in a book, it was unseen. Did man not have to first develop the idea to get to the result? If you count out the thoughts for only the physicalities, you could be preventing progress to a result.
reply report
1. 60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  True statement
  reply report
2. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  A man saw the moon and wanted to go there... not hard to figure out.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  It is very hard to figure out. What is the science that shows how we get the vision of what we are not shown or taught? If we would have only relied on what we knew, what would we learn? More of what we already know? If you do not first have the idea, you do not have a basis. The physicality has to come from the idea. Was Einstein taught his theory or did he rely on physicalities?
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Win
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Quite right. Once we have dispensed with the religionists views, we can achieve all sorts.
  
  Although - we always covet what we see and cannot reach. And the moon has been something to covet since we became self aware. We used to worship the moon. Now we have conquered it - who knows what else we might conquer next?
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  <snipped - no name-calling!>
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I think you mean begot.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  lol
  
  I have started reporting it. I have yet to see it say anything substantive other than one word attacks on me and others who do not subscribe to it's rather limited word view.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well they might move on to two word attacks just to prove they are capable.
  reply report
  88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You can open your mind a little wider to see, doesn't mean it's God persee. http://hubpages.com/hub/Consciousness_- … _the_head_
  http://hubpages.com/hub/Consciousness__ … _the_Brain
  
  Am not using these hubs to advertise, only to open ones thought processes a little wider. Mapping consciousness is not easy, but it's by no means impossible.
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  And there is a documentary airing this week questioning whether the moon walk actually happened or not. Not Michael Jackson's. I like how the preview shows the US flag blowing on the moon where it couldn't have possibly been in that atmosphere. A little off topic but ...
  reply report
61
marinealways24posted 16 years ago
One more thought, how do inventors make an invention? They are not taught the invention or they wouldn't be the inventor. There is no physical proof that I know of that shows how someone invents something that is not taught. The inventor turned a mental image into a physical result.
reply report
1. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Have you ever used your imagination?
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Where is the physical science that explains imagination and why it is different in every individual is my question.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Prolly cause physical science cannot take into account every observation made by each individual that ever lived let alone find one specific way to process it.
  
  You do know that the brain makes new pathways to process new material right? Ask yourself how something that you have never seen before can even be processed in the brain without building new connections to process it.
  
  When an overwhelming event occurs in a persons life that is hard to take in the brain makes sudden electrical impulses to execute it to it's new storage location.
  
  Sometimes this overwhelming response causes a synapse and you end up having a seizure however after the brain as put it together or something without your conscious help, you are able to recount and make sense of what happened.
  
  Other times you forget thou the material is there and the person has to use his own minds capability to reconnect. In other words you have to go through and find the new pathway.
  
  -anyways this is about a half hazard explanation so look it up.
  reply report
61
marinealways24posted 16 years ago
I would like to know why so many believers of religion or individual belief or often closed for debate? If it is true belief, someone should welcome debate to arrive at truth. Maybe if david koresh followers would have had debate, they would have found logic as with Jim Jones followers. If they would have debated, would they still have been followers? I believe many take their belief personally and attach emotions with belief causing them to deny debate at times. If you involve personal emotions, you will contradict logic.
reply report
1. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  maybe there is no truth...
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  If we never looked for a truth, it would be guaranteed there is no truth.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  marinealways24... who knows the truth to determine its validity?
  
  Pick something that makes you happy and then keep it for yourself.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I would see this as content with knowing nothing. I would like to know everything possible before I die although I'll still likely die knowing nothing on the large scale of things.
  reply report
2. 68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  The Second Vatican Council of the 1960 started an ecumenical dialog between the Catholic Church, the denominations and other religions. The outcome after over 40 years is basically the same as this forum thread, next to zilch.
  reply report
74
Eaglekiwiposted 16 years ago
An Ignorant person does not understand truth, because he doesnt recognise it
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Or maybe because they refuse to look when they do recognize it.
  reply report
2. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  much like yourself.
  reply report
3. 88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That's very true, which is why blind faith is dangerous. It fosters ignorance.
  reply report
60
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
Well im hanging on for Jenny...lets not blow this thread up with insults and junk. Jenny gets to this and has to sift through every little baloney thing.

Lets get on topic. Choose our battles, if we are talking about Prophecy every body talks about prophecy. No random thingys here and there.

The discussion is piloted by the moderator. The topic: Shes gonna leave if I don't fight right! Can we agree with my argument about methodology or not?
reply report
61
marinealways24posted 16 years ago
I also see from many post people debating what is fact and not fact without throwing out a theory of why and how the hell we are here. Are we here by chance? Do we have a purpose? Is there reason?

Why are people scared to theorize? Because of our judgemental society?
reply report
61
marinealways24posted 16 years ago
Another question I would like to ask. I do not believe the bible as our creators word. I believe it is mans word used for control and power. With me not believing the bible and seeing it as mans irrational attempt to understand the unknown, would your God use divine intervention to favor you over me by allowing your mind to believe?
reply report
68
Make Moneyposted 16 years ago
Enderw1ggins I am coming to the conclusion that we are not just dealing with a handful of atheists here but a fairly well organized little group of possibly Rosicrucians or some other group that has an objective to destroy Christianity. We all know they will never succeed but some of the attacks just seem to be too vile for people that just don't believe in God. What do you think about this with your 8 days of HubPages so far? Keep in mind I have seen over a year of it now.
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Why does a lot of religious minds assume someone doesn't believe in a creator just because they don't believe in the religious God? Did God favor you to see different?
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  hense marine24, it where you drop the use of the term god or creator because those terms are being used as objective and exclusive to a couple of religions and using it as their divine authority over what man should and should not believe.
  
  god gave us noses so we can smell the bs
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  well its good to hear you acknowledge God gave us something Sandra
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I never assumed that...I like your arguments about thoughts and the evidence of the invisible.
  
  What do you think of my argument on methodology?
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I missed that one. Please post again and I will read.
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I wasn't referring to you in the previous post marinealways24. I have no idea what you believe in. As far as I know you could believe the creator is JobAlOn or something like that.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I believe in individual belief that does no harm to others or is judged by others.
  reply report
2. 60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe so, but Jesus tells us to "love our neighbors as we love ourselves" not "love other Christians as we love ourselves".
  
  I agree with you about the overall meanieness. Although, i have talked a bunch of playful trash myself!
  
  Take for instance how mean I was to Onthewriteside...i was deceptive about how i argued but he and I are friends and we respect it.
  
  Sandra, "Just you and me punk rock girl"!
  
  Point is, religion is an emotional subject for most people so i take the slander with a grain of salt. Maybe even change some perspectives on how others view Christians.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You just pointed out the overall delay in progress in my belief. Many religious minded will get personally offended when belief is challenged. Why is this? Why would belief be closed to debate? Do you think you will let "demons" in? I believe a debate cannot be considered "logical" when emotions are entered.
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Theist team is a winner! Thats what this debate is about. THe only reason that Christianity is being argued is because nobody from the other Theist posse's have shown up and stayed in the game. You have good points.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Thank You. Is this good?
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Our belief is what we were debating marinealways24. No problem there.
  
  Yep looks like the Theist team won enderw1ggins. It's just too bad we won by default and the other side left the sand box. Possibly we didn't have an unbiased moderator all along.
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Give me a break, Make Money! I have to sleep sometimes.
  
  It so happens that the majority of Christians seem to get online in North American hours, and since I am currently in Europe that is when I sleep.
  
  Every morning I get up and face 200 or so posts at once.
  
  And I haven't yet lost my sense of humour ...
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  59
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I have and pointed out that the Vedas are older than the Bible and considering your intelligence it was a poor statement you made that the Vedas are not authentic.
  reply report
  59
  usmanali81posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Something old does not mean it's authentic or praise worthy. Latest BMW is more praise worthy and more reliable than a 30 year old BMW
  reply report
  59
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  So in that case the Quran is also old and not very authentic.
  What the Quran said fifteen hundred years ago was written in the Vedas a long time before that.
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Mohit, Ender did later agree to the proposition that the Bible be considered in the same way as any other ancient writings, so the Vedas have equal billing now.
  
  Of course, equal billing simply means that if you want to argue that an event described in the Vedas is literally true, you will need to provide corroborating evidence from elsewhere in support of that claim.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  59
  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Both the Bible and Vedas are too old to support such proof.For me both are the work of sages.
  Like the Bhagwat Gita or Ramayana-did Krishna or Rama really exist? God knows but the wisdon in these masterpieces is what is important for me.
  reply report
3. 88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think the aim is to destroy Christianity. The aim is to find truth within oneself. I'm of the opinion Christianity will end up being destroyed by the people who are within it, and it will be destroyed by them doing very little in the way of being christian. That's my conclusion, just like you formed your conclusion. Opinions are great.
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  What? Another paranoid delusion? Rosicucians indeed! You just have trouble believing and project that in your posts. The only other tool you pull out is scripture, which I do not believe as stated before.
  reply report
4. 88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I dare say the stimulation of intelligent people is to his satisfaction?
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I told you we were in the midst of a coven enderw1ggins.
  reply report
  88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Mikey dear one, you're welcome to come visit so I can teach you if you're open to it? Nothing mysterious about it at all. It's physiology in essence, not psycho babble.
  reply report
5. 93
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Mike - I am a member of no organised group except Sonnet Central where we discuss poetry. It's better to see people as individuals than as labels or as 'conspirators'.
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I figured that Paraglider. If you read back through this thread you might want to say that to some others.
  reply report
  0
  Leta Sposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  The thread is exhausting, though. Makes my eyes glaze over. And this feeling I think all of you might have is not necessarily shared by other kinds of theists, either.
  reply report
  93
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Because of time-zones, I tend to join this thread when everyone else is off to bed, otherwise I'd contribute more.
  
  Have you been to Rome? One of the many ancient churches has a huge zodiac mosaic right in the central isle. Maybe the Catholic Church considers astrology satanic nowadays, but it clearly didn't a few hundred years ago. I'll see if I can find the name of the Church.
  reply report
61
marinealways24posted 16 years ago
If everyone believed the same religion, we would all believe the same thing and be thinking alike. If we all truly believed, there would be no debate. If there was no debate, what would seperate humans and animals if no individuals existed? No individuals would exist if we all followed the same religion. Why would religion want individualism, they would lose followers and power. Religion also knows that control and power is in numbers. This is why I believed the bible was written. For control.
reply report
74
Eaglekiwiposted 16 years ago
I beleive in what I beleive in ,not everyone is me ,so no I know everyone believes /or doesnt believe (in whatever)
Man I wonder if real authors babble as much as hubbers do
reply report
60
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
i'm sorry is what good?
reply report
1. 61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know. We have proven the bible false by logic, so how did we get here and why are we here?
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  We havent proven false? as a matter of fact we have proven it more credible but not in its entirety.
  
  I would skim the posts by Jenny shes the one who decides what is canon.
  
  As for me...it's the 4th of July im gonna eat some hamburgers and blow some stuff up!
  
  See ya later everyone!
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Nobody has proven the Bible false by logic. See you.
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Logic has proven the bible false by logic. Have a nice 4th.
  reply report
61
marinealways24posted 16 years ago
A comment I would like to add about Jesus. Him dying for me is a nice gesture and all, but where is the honor in that? This is flawed. I believe someone should answer to their own fate if there is an afterlife. If I screw up, I don't expect anyone to answer for me. I would find it far more honerable to be held accountable for my actions rather than someone else be accountable.
reply report
1. 60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well world religions debate is another fight altogether, save it for another time
  reply report
0
Leta Sposted 16 years ago
This thread is 945 posts long. Aren't you all bored to tears yet? One very narrowly defined focus?

It's still a very interesting psychological study, but I'm beginning to wonder what the real motivations are with this need of 'proof.'
reply report
1. 74
  Eaglekiwiposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  love your directness
  reply report
2. 61
  Eric Graudinsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Some people have a lot of time on their hands.
  reply report
68
Make Moneyposted 16 years ago
Earney the Zeitgeist movie has been completely debunked.
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/200 … -the-film/

Here is a good alternative to the Zeitgeist movie about the Money Masters.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 0256183936

It turns out we didn't have an unbiased moderator after all and the atheists kicked dirt and left the sand box. So this thread is pretty much toast. Looks like the Theist side won by default. Have fun.
reply report
1. 61
  Eric Graudinsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Care to explain that outrageous statement?
  
  Just because Jenny may have a personal view, I can't see where it has affected her moderation of this thread.
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Scroll back, she quit. Although she might start again now that the troops have been rallied. Have a wonderful "discussion".
  reply report
  68
  Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Are you a quitter mike? Like Sara?
  reply report
  60
  JonTutorposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  She was doing an excellent job.... accusations/allegations are totally a christian thingy... sour grapes old man.
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I did NOT quit!
  
  I told Ender to play by the rules or declare the game over.
  
  Until Ender declares the game over, I will moderate this thread.
  
  I will, however, take regular breaks, sometimes hours long, for sleeping, travelling, exercise, and snuggling up with my loved ones.
  
  If it will reassure people of my continuing attention and devotion, I will announce each break individually. Sigh.
  
  Jenny
  
  Jenny
  reply report
2. 72
  SweetiePieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  It is only an opinion that someone is moderating the thread. People can think that and I am sure she is graciously handling the comments very well, but unless someone has the power to delete and ban people they are not the official moderator.
  reply report
  61
  Eric Graudinsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  SweetiePie, if you read back a bit, you'll see that Inspirepub offered to perform moderation duties in this thread, and participants agreed.
  
  She cannot delete threads and ban people due to the limitations of this forum. But this does not prevent her from acting as a moderator.
  reply report
  72
  SweetiePieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  If you recognize her as such that is fine, but I simply offering a divergent viewpoint. Personally I could care less about this thread, but I would not recognize anyone as the official moderator until Maddie grants them the ability to ban and delete. That is just my way of thinking.
  reply report
3. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Its always about winning but never about freedom huh?
  
  By default is the only way you could win after everyone else is killed by your own sick creations then all the hordes of gold and money being stored up in the catholic church that was plundered from the poor can be given to the murdering believers.
  
  And before you go thinking that you would be part of this in the end at the gates of the new Jerusalem, don't be so quick to believe they wouldn't turn their backs on you too.
  reply report
4. 70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Mike, my name is not Earney it is Ernest, but you can call me Ern. I went to see the links you left, and listened to the first three. I will now check their sources and expect to find many of the "authorities" to be Christians. I do not think the arguments between those who believe the movie and those who don't is finished yet by a long shot. Scripture can be selectively used on both sides of an argument!
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Or scripture is being used to force the outcome "using" un-expecting believers to further "the devils" agenda.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  -edit for Mike, if the movies theme doesn't sound plausible and all out debunked to you, you can read this...
  
  http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4335.html
  
  check the dates on it too while you are at it and tell me that there isn't someone out there that knows a little more than you do.
  reply report
5. 88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Mike, I'm not sure how you can debunk it. Have a look around you, experientially how can you say it is not true. Zeitgeist has been debunked by christians, which means it's not really debunked.
  reply report
6. 74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Zeitgeist is a rabbit hole - please move this discussion to another thread.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
74
Eaglekiwiposted 16 years ago
So was it decided that Atheism is irrational ,illogical and boring?

Reading many of the entries ,I was thinking ,this must have been what it was in the San Hedrin all those years ago.

Lots of talk and not much action ,hehe
reply report
60
JonTutorposted 16 years ago
I guess the core question raised by Eric is valid..... find this topic interesting... until this point nobody questioned her personal stand.... maybe make money is on the losing side.... sour grapes.
reply report
1. 74
  Eaglekiwiposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  or many observers already knew the answer without pages of jibber jabber lol
  reply report
  60
  JonTutorposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Are you gonna change your beliefs based on few topic discussions... unless one has life changing experiences...I was a catholic.... now a recovering human being.... I work PT at a motel owned by Indians....find those folks far more tolerant and kind....find the Buddhists far more peaceful.... although haven't had much more exposure to the eastern beliefs but based on my studies and personal observation.... biggest fundamentalists exist in Christianity and Islam... willing to kill, steal, lie for GOD.
  reply report
68
Mishaposted 16 years ago
Hi Sandy
reply report
1. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Misha!
  reply report
  60
  JonTutorposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Sandra You never got back to me... Statistic religion topic... Just wanna let you know...You rock Sandra.
  reply report
  88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  She does rock. Am pleased she is back to herself. I missed her there for awhile.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I was doing a little Investigative reporting. you rock too Jewels.
  
  You whole gosh darned bunch of heathens rock!
  reply report
  60
  JonTutorposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  She fights like a ninja... verse for verse... You girls are making this topic interesting... getting ready for action... go kick some ass... those fundies asked for it.
  reply report
  68
  Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Hey, you have no idea how much she rocks!
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  oh I didn't know there was a question there. I will check. and thanks so do you.
  reply report
  60
  JonTutorposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  take your time.... that topic can wait.
  reply report
60
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
Hey, i'm setting my family's neighborhood on fire and i pulled out my phone to see what was going on. Let me get this str8. Who gave up? And why the heck is Zeitgeist being brought back up?
reply report
68
Make Moneyposted 16 years ago
Jewel when I say miracle I mean a lot more than just gathering the eye of a newt and some wormwood to make a potion.

There's nothing to quit here Misha, it's not a discussion anyway.

See you.
reply report
1. 88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I also am not talking about eye of a newt Mike, which really shows me the category of your ignorance in such things.
  
  How to pass this would you ending up in the gutter? There are mechanisms within the human body that are activated and cultivated through acts of sex which can also be activated and cultivated by the use of the breath and awareness of internal structures within the body. These internal structures are not common knowledge yet everyone has them. The art of awareness of these structures is all but lost. The activation and cultivation gives the ability to heal oneself. At the very least one who has the ability to master this, and you know, it's not like it takes a lifetime to master, has the ability to heal others.
  
  This is a very very tangible experience, that does not need eye of newt Mike, though thank you for your sense of humor. When you understand subtle bodies and structures and have the ability to see them (which is not voodoo either), then you have little use of pharmaceutical products.
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Jewels,
  
  I agree with everything you say, having experienced it myself.
  
  (For those who missed it in other threads, I have experienced my own series of miracles, including growing 2 inches taller in my late 30s as a result of healing some traumas.)
  
  I am agnostic about the "true source" of such miracles, but cannot deny that they occur, and can be triggered consciously.
  
  However, this is really a topic for another thread ...
  
  Sorry to interrupt what is a very interesting discussion, but it might get better participation in its own thread anyway.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks Jenny for respecting the content. I understand it's off topic, was a response to Mike's miracles!
  reply report
68
Mishaposted 16 years ago
There is no shame in not knowing it at 21, especially coming from a family like yours

Hope Julie will guide you here
reply report
1. 60
  JonTutorposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for being nice to me.... Maybe sandra was right about you being a father figure... I see we gonna have a love/hate relationship....LOL
  reply report
  68
  Mishaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  LOL Thank you
  
  When you are back, you may want to try to start here http://hubpages.com/hub/Third_Eye_Meditation
  
  Also, Anjali has an excellent series of hubs on the matter, starting here http://hubpages.com/hub/chakras-theindianway
  reply report
2. 88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  LOL - oh gods third eye and Ron Paul - ewe!
  
  The third eye is the gate that goes inward to the space of consciousness and to inner 'worlds.'. It is a device for vision, not only internal but fascilitates sharp external awareness.
  
  Mike may be interested in this: From a spiritual point of view, in both the Christian and Hindu traditions one finds texts that compare the body to a temple. If we were to develop the analogy we could compare the third eye to the temple's portal. In the buddhist tradition the precious jewel that is placed on the forehead of statues of buddhas represent the third eye and the ability to go inward. The eye of Horus is seen as the Third eye. Every orifice of the physical body is an external gate - eyes, ears, mouth, nose, anus. The only gate that goes inward is the third eye.
  
  What's interesting is the lack of teachings/understanding in Christian teachings that there is a correlation between prayer and inner reflection and the third eye. Why is this?
  reply report
68
Make Moneyposted 16 years ago
Get behind me Lilith.
reply report
1. 88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
2. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You realize only the devil can caste the devil out.
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Your wrong again oh blessed virgin Sandra.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Did they teach you that in church? I will guess yes.
  reply report
68
Make Moneyposted 16 years ago
You know Jewels they still do exorcisms if you ever decide to seek help.
reply report
1. 88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I'll exorcise you Mike if you're not careful
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  ZOMG ROTFLMAO!
  reply report
68
Make Moneyposted 16 years ago
I doubt that.
reply report
1. 88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  So you're not open to it?
  reply report
68
Make Moneyposted 16 years ago
No I pass on that dark stuff.
reply report
1. 70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Way to go Mike, if it doesn't fit within your belief system it must be the devils work.
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Oh are you part of the cabal too Earny?
  reply report
  70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  No Mack, just another opinion.
  reply report
2. 88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You have a misconception within your belief system that this is dark stuff. It isn't, but you have been taught that it is. The Christian doctrines teach you this - just what S'atan' wanted.
  
  Satan is so clever he fooled the Christians. Mind you my understanding is that Satan is only an influence if you buy into it. Darkness is the absence of light and light in sexuality is divine.
  
  If you put integrity into sexual energy it is phenomenal. You're missing out Mike.
  reply report
68
Mishaposted 16 years ago
LOL Mike, all commies are out to get you. Look under the bad, there are a few there
reply report
1. 70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yeh, after owning and managing ten or so businesses I may not fit the commie tag too well!!
  reply report
68
Mishaposted 16 years ago
All atheists are commies, you just did not know that
reply report
1. 70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Hey thanks Misha! A lesson a day....
  reply report
60
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
What in the world happened here? I just had some blowing-stuff-up action and i come home to this piece of crap? Three whole pages of God only knows.

Paraglider, glad to see you buddy. Any thoughts?
reply report
1. 60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  What happened was - you threw all your rules out the window and the agreed moderator quit:
  
  reply report
60
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
The debate is Theism Vs. Atheism. The spirit of this particular thread is solely for a more formal discussion of the topic. There are rules...which obviously can be broken but should be followed out of courtesy.

1.) Sources for arguments of fact need to be cited. There are exceptions to this rule if the argument can be logically deduced. Also when posting a new argument state your world view and make it clear.

2.) There is also no particular format so pissing contests and rabbit trails are discouraged. Stay on topic...Theism Vs. Atheism.

3.) If you value your dignity, think before you write because the consequence is public humiliation and shame. This is a warning to all those "Shut up, Jesus loves me!" wussies and Davinci Code quoting pseudo-intellectuals!

4.)Insults are fun. What is not fun is sexism, racism, or prejudice comments about one's sexual preferences. Be aware that when it comes to religion/atheism, discussions about these topics are sure to come up. Use common sense when arguing.

5.) Comments are very welcome. Root for your favorite team or dis the opposition!

Here are the rules
reply report
60
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
And if Jenny ever decides to come back and say my "argument is childish", then i will push it no longer.
reply report
91
Bibowenposted 16 years ago
I'm not clear why it has to be repeated that rationalism as a belief system is self-refuting. The idea was stillborn; stop playing with it; it stinks by now. Just bury it. Now, reason as a method, that's different. Who argues against it? Theists should stop beating that dead horse about rationalism being self-refuting. It's been explained. But unbelievers have to hold onto rationalism because it's all they have. Is reason the best belief system for interpreting all of reality? How would you prove such a thing?

There are many things that we hold as true and are reasonable to believe them, but we can't prove them true: the continuity of past events or even of ourselves, the existence of truth and error. These phenomena have value to us, not because we can validate them, but rather they convey some truth that is important to our existence.
reply report
1. 60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Heres the thing i'm not trying to leverage a position for or against my world view. Read the source i provided.
  The purpose is to avoid meaningless arguments from both sides.
  To allow historical accounts to be admitted objectively...thats all.
  reply report
2. 88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  This is no different to the experiences of an atheist. Why do you see yourself as different automatically because you align to a set of scriptures. Conveying a truth that is important to an existence is also an argument for Atheism.
  reply report
  91
  Bibowenposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't mention the scriptures. God's existence is knowable apart from them. As for your last sentence, I don't think it makes sense. But if your tying to say that atheism is just as reasonable an answer for why there are some things that are true, but we can't validate them, then that really makes no sense. How can the belief in the non existence of a being explain anything besides your mental condition?
  
  Besides, my point was not to offer theism as the better explanation for how it is that we can know things that we cannot rationally validate (although I think it is). Rather, my original point was to note those things that we accept to be true apart from any ability to rationally verify them as evidence for the intellectual poverty of rationalism.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  
  Intellectual poverty? Just exactly what do "we" accept to be true apart from any ability to verify them?
  reply report
  91
  Bibowenposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I gave three examples on post #1049...
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  
  I will go back and count the posts then. Sorry.
  
  1. the continuity of past events or
  
  2. even (the continuity) of ourselves,
  
  3. the existence of truth and error
  
  Is this the best you can do?
  
  None of these are accepted to be "true," but it is fair to say we have a wealth of information suggesting the the continuity of past events is unbroken. Why, just look at this thread. I do not see any breaks in the continuity. Therefore I accept that it has continued at the pace it has because I have verifiable evidence.
  
  LOL Semantics dood. Let me think of something vaguely unprovable such as the continuity of past events, and then logically deduce that if I can accept this without being able to prove it conclusively, then there must be a god and it is unreasonable to deny this god because I have already accepted one thing I cannot prove, then everything else I cannot prove must be.
  
  What exactly is truth and error? Both rather subjective don't you think?
  
  You religionists get deviouser and deviouser, your irrational beliefs to support................
  
  Intellectual dishonesty, I believe "we" would call it.
  reply report
  60
  enderw1gginsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Dood, your intellect is so broke! Poor house, ghettoish even. I saw your intellect at Pick and Save...school shopping! Your intellect needs to cut his hippie hair and get a real job...contribute to this family! lol
  reply report
  91
  Bibowenposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  First, had you read the post carefully, you would have known that the comment about the continuity of past events (and the others mentioned) was not an argument for the existence of God, but rather an argument that there are many things we accept as true apart from our capacity to verify them via reason.
  
  Second, it's just dishonest to say that the reason you accept the continuity of past events is because of the reasons you state above. You accepted the continuity of past events as true long before you created that justification which you just employed. You accepted it as true first; you rationalized the acceptance of them later.
  
  Third, you are using your knowledge of the past to justify your rationale on why we might be within our epistemic rights to accept the continuity of past events. Think about it...
  
  As for the suggestion that a belief in truth and error is "subjective," just what kind of suggestion is this?
  reply report
  88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  What if you experienced past lives, and the continuity of same, and could explain it through rational means, would that then be considered rational because its then experiential? If the means by which you could cognize this became commonplace, would that then be considered rational?
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Bibowen,
  
  Are you proposing the argument that because our capacity to reason develops after age seven, yet we start believing things before age seven, that therefore it is dishonest to claim that any childhood belief we choose to retain after rational adult examination has been retained for rational reasons?
  
  Or are you proposing that because we believe without reason as children, that we should continue to believe without reason as adults?
  
  Or are you proposing that unexamined beliefs are just as likely to be true as those which have been retained after critical examination?
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  OK - I will wait for you to get to that bit. But - be honest - the only reason you bought it into the discussion was for the purpose of demonstrating that of we take one thing as "true" without evidence, surely it is logical tp take another. Which does not follow logically.
  
  No - it is not dishonest. I have always taken this continuity for granted, and have never had a reason to doubt it. On reflection - the reason I do take it for granted is because it has always demonstrated itself to be "true." I drop a lump of metal on my foot, it hurts, the next day it is swollen. After treating it the swelling goes down - no break in continuity., etc etc etc - except for a couple of weekends in my youth involving alcohol and drug abuse, and two nasty concussions, it appears to be unbroken.
  
  I have thought about it and the 48 years of almost solid evidence that there were no dis-continuities is acceptable to me.
  
  No - I did not mean "belief" in truth and error. I mean the concepts themselves.
  
  I am reminded of a study I did some years back in school regarding this. I cannot recall all the details, but there was a crime taking place, and four different people gave an eyewitness account.
  
  They gave different accounts based on their vantage point. None of them agreed and none of them gave an account of what actually happened. they all told the "truth." Subjective.
  reply report
  88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I'm of the knowledge that everything is provable, we currently don't have the physical means to do so. Why not say "I don't know" instead of "it's God's will."
  reply report
  91
  Bibowenposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Everything? First, I wonder how you would prove such a claim, that is, everything is provable. Second, I assume that if you do hold such a view that you take it by faith.
  reply report
  88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  No, I don't take it by faith. I've spent 10 years exploring and building the ability to feel subtle bodies. Additionally expanding consciousness through experience. Having tangible experiences and seeing the results.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That is interesting. Another interesting thing is that it is only possible to truly do this once you have let go of the notion that "god did it, therefore I have all the answers."
  reply report
  88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed Mark. A questioning mind will never live on faith alone. I think that's part of being intelligent isn't it?
  reply report
  91
  Bibowenposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Nobody lives by faith alone. That expression is usually used to describe the means by which one comes to God, meaning, without works. The only people that lived by faith alone aren't alive to tell about it.
  
  But my point still stands. Your claim that everything is provable is a statement of faith.
  reply report
  88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Often the reason people turn to god is because they are miserable with their lives. Call a spade a spade. I believe my statement was one of reason and expansion of consciousness. Proven many times by technological advances. In the 1920's we would not conceive of the idea of an ipod. Look at computers of course, sattelites messing up the atmosphere! If we only stood in faith we would not expand our minds to see further and what's possible.
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I am declaring this particular theme off-topic for this thread.
  
  Perhaps you guys could start a new thread on whether a belief in the process of scientific research is or isn't a faith.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
60
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
I forgot to say hello to my main ninja Jewels. Whassapaneen?

Alright gang, i think i threw this thread into a dangerous new philosophical zone. It does help weed out more esoteric and relativistic arguments by adding unaffirmability and undeniability as truth tests within any given world view. As stated by Jenny this could ruin my whole day.
We'll see if anybody else agrees to the proposition and go from there.
I personally would like to save Jenny the hassle of sifting through a bunch of posts to get to the meat of the argument. So i suggest that if there isnt any body to fight...dont hang around to just agree with each other or start an off topic brawl.

Goodnight everybody.
reply report
1. 88
  Jewelsposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I notice you ignoring me. Nite friend. I'm about to turn into a pumpkin myself, promised myself an evening away from the computer. I have 7 minutes left!
  reply report
60
enderw1gginsposted 16 years ago
Oh and thanks a lot Jenny, i know i'm a pain in the rear!
reply report
88
Jewelsposted 16 years ago
No probs Jenny. Nite.
reply report
74
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
OK, all, here's where we are now.

Facts presented with credible source or valid logical deduction as per Rule 1

1. Statements cannot be proven true, but they can be proven false.
2. Believing something to be true is a choice beyond the rational, as the rational can only demonstrate that something is false, not that it is true.
3. The Bible makes reference to people, places and events which are historically verified by other sources.
4. The Bible contains some inconsistencies and/or inaccuracies.
5. There was a historical figure who corresponds to the Biblical Jesus.
6. The NT accounts of the life of Jesus are accepted as accurate if there is a non-Biblical corroborating source.
7. For the purposes of providing evidence for new facts, the Bible should be treated in the same way as any other writings of the time.

Now, would anyone like to make a new proposal?

There has been some discussion about some possibilities - including non-Christian texts, for example, or using some version of logic to try to argue that since we believe X without being able to prove it, we should therefore believe Y also.

Anyone want to seriously try to get one of these added to the canon?

Jenny
reply report
1. 93
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Being pedantic perhaps, but we don't necessarily 'believe' X even if we act as if we did (because we find it useful). We assume that the laws of nature will behave tomorrow as they did today (e.g. gravity, radiation from the sun, etc). But that is to find some order in life without which there can be no justification for any action. And I think this is the difference between an expectation and a belief.
  reply report
93
Paragliderposted 16 years ago
I've noticed a few recent posts about the poverty of rationalism as a belief system. OK, it's lousy as a belief system because it isn't one. It is more of a tool set.

The danger, with any belief system, is the risk of limiting our capacity for wonder. And that is a great loss.

Most people at some point rise above the basic survival level of sating preponent needs, and begin to ask difficult questions like why are we here, where did we come from, what happens when we die, and so on. That sense of wonder or awe at the vastness and complexity of the natural world, and the mystery of our place in it, is the source of our own creativity, whether in science or the arts. It was also the source of theology (which I see as one of the venerable arts)

The tragedy is that there are so many people poised to plug every question with a 'certainty'. It is a tragedy because each certainty closes off a little corner of the mind.

Bibowen cited our own continuity as individuals through time as something that we all have to take on faith because it can't be proved. But that is just one of the many phenomena of consciousness that we can't fully explain. The wonder of sentience is just that, a wonder, a field for discovery.

On life's journey, the scenery is wonderful until spoiled by dogmatism, of any flavour.
reply report
1. 74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps some of the posters haven't read the canon.
  
  Proposition 2, agreed by both sides in the debate, is that belief is outside the rational. No amount of rational discussion can affect a belief, and no belief can carry weight in and of itself in a rational discussion.
  
  This is why we have Rule 1, requiring evidence other than belief, before we accept anything as true for the purposes of this discussion.
  
  Just because something is inadmissible to this discussion, though, doesn't prevent anyone from having it and enjoying it to their heart's content - and even sharing it on other threads.
  
  Just not this one.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
61
marinealways24posted 16 years ago
If possible, someone please explain why the human mind is elite to all other life that we know of? Is this divine intervention or just coincedence? As we see in today's society, some individuals or follower minds never evolve. Can anyone explain this?
reply report
1. 60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Destroying the planet with pollution, fishing and hunting species into extinction and threatening to blow each other up with atomic weapons is elite?
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Take it to another thread, kiddiewinks, it's off topic ...
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  93
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I suppose it is, though I tried to answer in a way that is only a small step removed
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Mark, I left some room for interpretation. Thats why I say "some" minds never evolve.
  reply report
2. 93
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I touched on that on my previous post. Let's assume that the mind is a production of a (living) brain. At some point in history, I have no idea when, the human mind appears to have acquired the spark of sentience or self awareness. I suspect this is the 'engine' that led to everything that makes us different from other animals. The development of language as an answer to the need to express our awareness and formulate thoughts. The (much later) invention of written language that greatly improved our ability to pass forward knowledge. And so on, with mathematics, reason, and recently technology.
  I'd suggest that the incredible rate of our 'emergence' can be seen as a bootstrap process (or positive feedback). The direction we have taken might have been very different, but it seems to me that the single necessary trigger was that spark of sentience. The 'innocence' and relatively stable state of the rest of the animal kingdom from long before our emergence tends to support this theory. What caused that first spark? No idea!
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe the first spark can be referred to as enlightenment. Maybe enlightenment was a divine intervention to give man power to seperate from animal? I don't know, just throwing things out there.
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  marinealways24,
  
  If the things you are throwing out there are unrelated to the seven propositions in the canon, would you please "throw them out there" on another thread?
  
  This thread is busy enough as it is!
  
  Jenny
  reply report
0
Will Apseposted 16 years ago
I won't knock religion because it is so necessary for so many people. On the other hand there are no reasons to believe in God and so many reasons why human beings should invent divine forces.

We are tiny fragile creatures in a universe of terrifying physical forces.

We are all going to have our deepest fears realised- old age (if we are lucky), sickness and death.

We are social animals genetically programmed to be needy and dependant.

We carry all the emotions of infancy into old age.

We can never be sure of anything and have a desperate need for meaning, order and security.

Why wouldn't humans invent all comforting Gods who can triumph over death, reassure us that our lives have meaning and have an awareness of our otherwise insignificant thoughts and feelings which are so desperately importance to us?

God is better than a mobile phone for the illusion of connectedness.
reply report
60
Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago
Jenny has spoken, although I move to include this as the original idea of this thread was to debate theism vs atheism, and this has a strong bearing on whether or not we were "created," or "evolved," and at what point self awareness came into the picture.

The idea that we evolved and then by some unexplained reason became self aware is actually a crucial point. Clearly this contradicts the idea that we were created. I know what I would be arguing if I were in the other camp.
reply report
1. 93
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  If I'm right in saying sentience or self awareness was the spark that kicked off our (archaeologically and historically traceable) emergence, it would seem also to have been the source of morality which we don't find in lower animals. I propose that our self awareness led to our invention of language, art, music, god and beer (not necesarily in that order). In this, I agree with Mohit - we are god.
  
  EDIT - meaning that we are the creators of our total mental landscape.
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  LOL - I agree with that also. There is an argument that all the great apes are self aware, and I would hazard a guess that the decision to change our lifestyle was the beginning of true sentience. Once we stopped worrying about where to find berries and how to catch food, we started to turn our excess energies inwards. I tend to agree with Douglas Adams that we made a big mistake coming down from teh trees in the first place.
  
  But then there is beer.........
  reply report
74
Inspirepubposted 16 years ago
Paraglider, do you have a Proposition 8, then?

Something to do with the spark of sentience, that you could state as a proposition and we could offer to the theists for their agreement?

Jenny
reply report
1. 93
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  How about this:
  Proposition 8:
  "Though we do not know how it first appeared, the spark of sentience triggered the development of our mental landscape, including language, the arts, reason, and many derivatives".
  reply report
61
marinealways24posted 16 years ago
With all due respect: This debate will continue to run in circles if you only debate what is known. How can you expect to make progress with boundaries on debate? How can you expect to understand the unknown when you only debate the known.

On the bible end of things: Is a believer favored over a non believer? No in my belief, this is not logical. You can't blame an individual for having an individual idea. So if you do not believe in favoritism, the bible is false. Logic proves the bible false to the logical who read both sides of whats written rather than picking and choosing the positives to base belief.
reply report
1. 74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  The purpose of this thread is not to "understand the unknown".
  
  The purpose of this thread is to continuously expand the pool of "facts" which are accepted by both theists and atheists, with the ultimate aim of demonstrating that one or the other camp has a position which is by its own admission, given the facts accepted thus far, untenable.
  
  It will take a long time to accumulate a sufficient pool of facts AGREED BY BOTH SIDES, but if we don't start doing that then all we get is two sides yelling incompatible "truths" at one another, and that's boring.
  
  So far we have seven propositions agreed by both sides, and the one currently on the table is:
  
  Proposition 8:
  "Though we do not know how it first appeared, the spark of sentience triggered the development of our mental landscape, including language, the arts, reason, and many derivatives".
  
  Feel free to agree or disagree with the proposition, giving your reasons. Alternatively, if the methodology of this discussion bores you, start a thread which interests you instead!
  
  Cheers,
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps "Without specifying how it first appeared ..." might be more likely to get agreement ... ?
  
  We may have to wait a few hours for the theists to wake up and answer, though.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  93
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. So, we have:
  
  Proposition 8:
  "Without specifying how it first appeared, the spark of sentience triggered the development of our mental landscape, including language, the arts, reason, and many derivatives".
  reply report
  60
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I can go with this.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I third.
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I am going to provisionally add this to the canon. I haven't had a "yes" from a Bible-loving Christian yet, but I have had one from a non-denominational theist, and that's good enough for a provisional inclusion.
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Wow...so isn't that like saying God didn't exist until Man invented him? Or are we not including religion as being one of the "many derivatives"?
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Well, that's the next logical place to go, isn't it?
  
  Is God one of the many derivatives, or is God the source of the spark ... ?
  
  Remember Rule 1 when you make your case for one or the other!
  
  Jenny
  reply report
  61
  marinealways24posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I believe "individualism" is responsible for the "spark". Question to me is, why do some of us individualize while some of us remain followers? Why do we have the power to individualize when an animal doesn't? Are we favored over animals?
  reply report
  93
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That is an interpretation, certainly, and it was what I meant. I see theology as a venerable artistic expression, like music or poetry. I think it got elevated beyond its status, because of the nature of its content and its ability to control people.
  
  But, even the believers have to admit that without sentience there would be no language, art, philosophy etc. Their loophole could be "God wasn't known until man discovered him" or "until he revealed himself".
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yep I can see that coming...
  reply report
  86
  Sufidreamerposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Evening, folks - a lot of catching up, there! This thread rumbles onwards.
  
  You have agreement from another theist
  
  However, I have a slight concern that this could bring evolution/creationism into the debate - that is a potentially huge rabbit hole. It presupposes that evolution occurred, so may be difficult for the more Biblically inclined to accept.
  reply report
  60
  onthewritesideposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I agree Sufi...and I see some circular arguments coming...
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I also concur.
  reply report
  93
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, but consider this: No-one has said that the first book of the Bible was written by Adam. In other words, everyone accepts that sentient humans were around long before Moses put quill to parchment. Now whether you consider that these pre-Mosaic humans were created or evolved doesn't change the fact that sentience preceded religion, just as it preceded art, music and mathematics.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I agree but it's still a rabbit hole because even though I understand where you are coming from... history would tell us that this will lead nowhere but to arguments and name calling. So I still agree with Sufi.
  reply report
  93
  Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I think I have circumvented that in my last response to EnderW. And here's another example of how sentience (whether evolved or created) must always precede god-knowledge:
  The world has plenty of sentient atheists who 'could' in time come to God. But there are no (can be no) nescient theists, because by definition, nescience is unaware.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Okay I agree but I still think the debate will go know where due to the lack of sentient beings being aware of this. So, it stands.
  reply report
  86
  Sufidreamerposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I hear what you are saying folks and, as you all know, I am a committed evolutionist and share your sentiments. Just trying to head off potential roadblocks before they occur!
  
  Let's see what happens
  reply report
  74
  Inspirepubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, you underestimate the power of rationalisation, Sufidreamer.
  
  The spark of sentience cannot possibly have occurred more than 6000 years ago, in their world ... so no problem!
  
  Jenny
  reply report
93
Paragliderposted 16 years ago
@Mark - very likely. Sentience isn't an absolute. But 'the spark of enough sentience' isn't a lovely phrase!
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 2 3 4 56 7 8 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Atheism is irrational, illogical and boring

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Atheism is irrational, illogical and boring

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies