This is why lol
For the board atheists....
by Jack C. 79 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Jack C.
Onethewayout said:"I also wanted to point out that your comment on "openminded" suggests something- that atheists need to consider that the fairytale God of the Bible is real."
This is not what I meant at all. In fact I prefer that any preconcieved personal charactoristics of a universal creator should not be a point of discussion. It would only be relevent to someone who already knew or believed that said creator was real. Why can't debate about a creators existence be centered just around scientific and philosophical reasoning and not preconceived religious and cultural ideas?
Jack
-
xchange
The quote below, I think, adequately explains why it is difficult to have discussions between theists and non-theists. Just my opinion.
"The human understanding is no dry light, but receives infusion from the will and affections; whence proceed sciences which may be called 'sciences as one would.' For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from superstition; the light of experience, from arrogance and pride; things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless in short are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections color and infect the understanding."
- FRANCIS BACON, Novum Organon (1620)
-
Jack C.
Entirelypossibe said: "However, what you refer to is time dialation, not time travel. If you refer to being able to skip forwards or backwards in time or change the direction of the arrow of time then no, that has NOT been proven. It always amuses me when fundies try to talk science and get it consistently wrong."
First of all belief in a deity does not equal fundamentalism, duh. Second you are dead wrong in your statement about time dialation/travel. The faster any object travels relative to the earth the faster said object (or person) travels in time. This was postulated by Einstein in the 1920's and proven in the 60's by actual experiment. Your science is wrong. Go back and redo your homework.
Jack
-
Jack C.
For what it's worth:
Atheism counts on the non existence of deity and feeds on the existence of religion.
Religion feeds on the belief in deity and exploits the existence of atheism.
Deism depends, counts and feeds on the existence of deity, debates with atheism while painfully aware of the existence of religion.
The Deity is aware of the existence of deism, atheism and religion but depends on none of them to exist.
All debatable of course
Jack
-
OnTheWayOut
This is not what I meant at all.
Yeah, I understand it isn't what you meant, but that is what happens in these arguments. I covered it with "I am not trying to start any argument. My main side point is that every phrase or word we use does start arguments making real "rational" discussion nearly impossible."
Why can't debate about a creators existence be centered just around scientific and philosophical reasoning and not preconceived religious and cultural ideas?
Many atheists would be fine with that type of debate/discussion. Throw out the holy books and the default position is that there is no credible shared evidences (personal revelation/enlightment is not shared) that a creator exists. All that's left is a philosophical position to debate from then. Even though such debates/discussions are great to have, the best of them with expert panels with the likes of Richard Dawkins vs. learned priests and bishops don't tend to change the listeners' positions.
Actually, the Flying Spaghetti Monster debate does just that (stick to philosophy and evidence), but from the silly approach rather than the serious one.
-
Jack C.
I mentioned this you tube presentation earlier in the thread but it is highly pertanent to the subject being discussed. Don't worry this is not some kind of boring fundy religious blather or bible apologist that most of us shudder to think of. I'm not trying to villify the speaker in any way either; it's about the information he presents. As I said earlier, it will radically change your perception of things if you aren't already aware of the info, most people aren't.
Sorry but for some reason I can't get the hyperlink option to work so copy and paste this link to your browser. If it doesn't work for some reason go to youtube and put Jordon maxwell astrotheology in the search box. There are several copies of the same presentation listed, go to the one that has the entire presentation on one video.
Jack
-
tec
See if this works:
-
Jack C.
Thanks tec. Let me know what you think about it, either pro or con.
Jack
-
tec
As far as the Golden Rule, if a person sees a hot chick or dude and wants a hug or kiss from them, they cannot expect to run up and "do what they'd like done to them" and expect a pleasant result. For atheists, we'd flip the Golden Rule this way: "Do NOT do unto others that you do NOT want done to you." That's a little more accurate. Can't the OT authors get anything right???
I know you're teasing, but your 'flipping' has the same faults attached to it as you say the golden rule has. If you want someone to harm you (and there are people who do want that - some for fun, and some because they're already hurting), then you would have the eXcuse to go and cause harm as someone who runs up and kisses a hot chic, just because they wish to be kissed by that hot chic.
Jack C - I need more time on my hands to watch a two hour thing. If/when I get it, I will let you know what I think about it.
Peace,
Tammy