But...we are all dirt aren't we? Mostly water and carbon, yes? And considering the weather we're having here in florida, that about sums up dirt.
And yes I edited your post Linkx. Try not to be so insulting to peoples beliefs and texts they deem important.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Does a child really know that being sent to the corner is actually good for him and that in the coming years it will actually improve his character and make him a better person? No, I am not defending the 'punishments' of the good nor the 'rewards' of the bad.
So why are infants "sent to the corner," with malignant cancer? They must have done something really awful in their couple months of life to deserve that kind of "punishment," right? You may characterize this concept god as love and mystery to your heart's desire, but that simply does not fit the world we understand. Mysteries leave room for imagination, but there is nothing we can imagine that would prompt a loving being to give a child cancer. So, assuming you would like to skip the step of actually verifying it is likely for there to be a god (again, we haven't established that), you certainly cannot infer that it is a just god or a loving god.
(Again, I am not saying anything about your mother or any of the countless people who have succumbed to illness, my own grandfather also passed from cancer as well as many other loved ones of mine and of my close friends, nor am I defending criminals or devil-incarnates but simply WE DO NOT KNOW what, who and how to judge properly).
You simply do not know if there is a god. I can't for the life of me imagine why you are now bending over backwards not just to insist that you know there is, not just that you know how it works, but also that you MUST be right about the who is judged "properly," and that is... quite disturbing.
So, how about we get back to why you think there is a god (I have not heard any evidence to suggest one way or the other) and maybe then we can start talking about what kind of god that might be, based on the evidence we have.
But...we are all dirt aren't we? Mostly water and carbon, yes? And considering the weather we're having here in florida, that about sums up dirt.
We are the product of billions of years of evolution that took us from chemistry to biology and then from basic single-celled life up to the homo sapiens sapiens that we are today. The concept that we were molded from clay by a divine intervention flys in the face of all scientific understanding.
And yes I edited your post Linkx. Try not to be so insulting to peoples beliefs and texts they deem important.
I think Link would be just as insulted that people would espouse beliefs that degrade the important scientific discoveries of our age. Perhaps I didn't get a chance to read his original post, but I don't know what was more insulting than the insinuation that people die of cancer for good reason, which is not-only unfounded, but simply arrogant and insulting to those of us who have lost loved ones to the disease.
While you are here moderating, how about continuing the conversation that we had going on up there?
It's talk like that that makes me avoid these discussions. There's symbolism in literature, who is to say everything in the bible is literal?
Possible scenario: God manipulates universe and evolution to have man created. At one time man is very simple so it needs a very simple explanation. So god tells man that they were made from dirt because essentially, they are the same thing.
Or you can go with literal translation if it helps you sleep at night.
And please leave the moderating to the moderators. I'm not going to allow bashing of anyone's beliefs in here.:)
If you want to nit pick about the history of biblical texts, lets do the same for science. And evolution is a theory. Plain and simple. You have as much faith in that as people have in god.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
It's talk like that that makes me avoid these discussions. There's symbolism in literature, who is to say everything in the bible is literal?
Who is to say what is and is not literal? That is a wonderful question! But, since we have no foundation on which to say wether or not there is a god: why are we holding it up above other literature as a place to find example or morality in the first place?
Possible scenario: God manipulates universe and evolution to have man created. At one time man is very simple so it needs a very simple explanation. So god tells man that they were made from dirt because essentially, they are the same thing.
That is, a possible scenario, but it is just as likely that there is no such god, or a god that is entirely diffirent than that. We simply have no grounds on which to make that proposition with any validity. So why are we trying to square our understanding of the universe, hard won from the effort of science and reason over the ages, with a book of what we can only describe as myths (because we have no reason at present to call them facts)?
Or you can go with literal translation if it helps you sleep at night.
That is even worse, because that literally involves not only trumping our hard-won knowledge with irrational assumptions, but it also forces the person to behave in an incredibly inhumane manner. Following Levitican law to the letter would be one of the most barbaric ways to live.
And please leave the moderating to the moderators. I'm not going to allow bashing of anyone's beliefs in here.:)
I'm not bashing beliefs, i'm questioning why they are held because I think there are reasons for them that many people don't stop to consider. Perhaps that is unsettleing to some, but I think those who continue to contribute are willing to consider that much.
If you want to nit pick about the history of biblical texts, lets do the same for science. And evolution is a theory. Plain and simple. You have as much faith in that as people have in god.
I wish you would stop repeating that fallacy as though it hadn't been overturned more than once in this very thread. The theory of evolution has stood up to scientific scrutiny, testing, observation, and empirical evidence. It is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on earth. If it were to be replaced by a superior theory at some point in the future, then the scientific community would do away with it. The fact that it has stood the rigors of scientific tests over time (for more than a century) should tell you something of it's validity.
If you want to claim that a non-evidential belief in god is based on the same ammount of certainty then I invite you to present your evidence. Until that time, what you have just said is an incredibly dishonest thing. We have no grounds on which to base a belief and we have not yet seen anyone present evidence for god or no god. There is zero certainty there.
I didn't say you bashed anyones anything. Linkx did.
I'm not saying that any of it is right or wrong. But as an atheist, you chose a self serving argument to undermine beliefs instead of presenting other ways of understanding it in order to make you correct and others wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
I'm not saying that any of it is right or wrong. But as an atheist, you chose a self serving argument to undermine beliefs instead of presenting other ways of understanding it in order to make you correct and others wrong.
You are saying that god exists, therefor you are claiming to be right where no evidence for that exists. As an atheist I am refusing to make statements of truth about things which I cannot know with certainty. I have not presented any arguments that were deliberately self-serving. Every argument I have made was written to be as transparent and understandable as I could in order to get my point across.
I don't know that there is or is not a a god, so I cannot really be right or wrong on that account. This is not a question of right or wrong. This is a question of making legitimate claims or fallacious claims and right now the claim that there is a god, the claim that this god operates one way or another, the claim that this or that text is the word of god, the claim that one religion is correct, the claim that all religions are correct, all of these things are based on fallacy. They are based on making assumptions we simply cannot make, based on the information that we have established.
I invite you to dispute this. I invite anyone to disprove this. We do not know that there is a god in the first place, there may be or there may not be. Establish that and we can move on to considering broader belief systems based on god. Right now; however, we just don't have the grounds on which to have those conversations.
I didn't say God existed. I don't KNOW anything. I can believe something. But there's not much I can know. But at the very least, I hardly even know what I believe.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
I didn't say God existed. I don't KNOW anything. I can believe something. But there's not much I can know. But at the very least, I hardly even know what I believe.
If you believe it to exist, then you are stating that it does exist. The fact you say you believe it, instead of know it, only means that you have no evidence to back that claim up. What I am asking you to do is to verify that claim with some kind of reasoning. At least inform me why it is you desire to hold that belief instead of holding a belief in some other unverifiable thing or holding a belief to the contrary? What is it about the belief in your god that makes it appealing enough to hold in spite of the fact you have no grounds on which to make that assumption?
Even if you hardly know what you believe, you have ideas in your head. You can connect those dots. Just identify for me how those dots are connected. Walk me through the thought process that is in your mind when you consider why you have that belief.
I think saying religious texts are fairy tales is just a little disrespectful. Although they do half involve questionable things that could be compared to mythology, as Umpa touched on they do provide some historical insight and some cultural insight on how things were back then.
To compare them with something like Mother Goose is just a underhanded way to express your distaste at religion whether you believe those texts or not.
I think saying religious texts are fairy tales is just a little disrespectful. Although they do half involve questionable things that could be compared to mythology, as Umpa touched on they do provide some historical insight and some cultural insight on how things were back then.
So does the illiad and the oddessey and they are both considered myths. I do not find the label the least bit disrespectful, unless you are making the apriori assumption that they are the word of god (and, just to re-iterate the umpteenth time: we have not established a god or not, much less a christian god vs. a greek patheon, etc.).
Then you lack the ability to see the perspective of others and there is no point in continuing the discussion. I agree with Dae. It's a tad disrespectful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Then you lack the ability to see the perspective of others and there is no point in continuing the discussion. I agree with Dae. It's a tad disrespectful.
It is not a question of respect. Myth is not a title that denotes untruth: "A traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon." All it means to me is that it is unfounded. The "myth," of greek fire was recently discovered to be a fact. In the same manner, one day, some biblical myths might be discovered to be facts.
My position is to logically express what we know and what we do not yet know. If we do not know and yet we believe anyway, i'm curious to know why we believe these things. What makes these opinions so near and dear to our hearts? I think this kind of conversation is worth having and I don't know why you feel it is so offensive. Futhermore, I would really appreciate it if you could address some of those questions i've posed to you in #379. =)
If you can't put yourself in the place of someone else and see why calling it a fairy tale might be construed as disrespectful, I honestly see no point in trying to discuss anything because I have read nothing to lead me to believe that you are able to see past your own point of view. And if thats the case, there's really nowhere this can go. In any case, I'll come back to this thread later tomorrow night.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
If you can't put yourself in the place of someone else and see why calling it a fairy tale might be construed as disrespectful, I honestly see no point in trying to discuss anything because I have read nothing to lead me to believe that you are able to see past your own point of view.
If I were to genuinely believe that the bible is all that it claims to be, sure. But I don't think you or anyone else here has espoused a literalist point of view. But, let us compromise and say that it isn't a myth. Let's call it creative non-ficiton. Let's go ahead and grant that everything in there that isn't in defiance of all the laws of physics that we have come to understand could, obstensibly, be a real event. I am willing to say as much, and have said as much. The only thing i've changed is the label.
I am perfectly willing to say to you and anyone else who holds this kind of belief that they may be right. I have not said anything other than the established fact, from our current converstaions, that we cannot make a statement of certainty in this matter. So please, let us put aside this semantic argument and get back to the topic. I will leave the "m," word out of the conversation if you find it offensive.
I think there is a big difference between the terms fairy tale and myth. Not sure where fairy tale came up in this thread can't seem to find it but that's insulting. Fairy tales are something pretty widely accept as false and told to children at bedtime. A myth is different.
By that definition couldn't the Higgs boson be labeled a myth as well? It just seems like a wide broad brush you could pain lots of things with.
Fairy tale however is disrespectful. When you can use a more appropriate word like mythology or myth you should, even though we should just say it's a piece of theology.
I think there is a big difference between the terms fairy tale and myth. Not sure where fairy tale came up in this thread can't seem to find it but that's insulting. Fairy tales are something pretty widely accept as false and told to children at bedtime. A myth is different.
I don't recall having used the word fairy tale, and each and every time I used the M word, it was with the carefully placed caveat that it did not imply absolute falsehood. I do not intend to offend and I think an objective observer would agree that I have gone out of my way to be very gracious and level-headed about the way in which I have constructed my arguments so as to be bother clear and inoffensive.
By that definition couldn't the Higgs boson be labeled a myth as well? It just seems like a wide broad brush you could pain lots of things with.
You could call it a myth, but it isn't "A traditional story", which is the first part of the definition. As theories go though, the higgs is about as theoretical as they get and I don't know a single scientist who feels they have a great deal of certainty about it. I, for one, couldn't care less how someone referred to the Higgs. Unless they were claiming to have absolute certainty about it one way or the other, in which case they would be making a baseless assumption.
I don't recall having used the word fairy tale, and each and every time I used the M word, it was with the carefully placed caveat that it did not imply absolute falsehood. I do not intend to offend and I think an objective observer would agree that I have gone out of my way to be very gracious and level-headed about the way in which I have constructed my arguments so as to be bother clear and inoffensive.
Yeah I was just saying I don't know who started using that word but Fairy Tale and Myth are pretty different in my opinion.
Yeah I was just saying I don't know who started using that word but Fairy Tale and Myth are pretty different in my opinion.
I'm willing to make any concession necessary in terms of what we call things, so long as we're not being misleading. I just want to get back to the questions at hand.
Well I think I've explained my thoughts before, but to steer it back on topic I'll post again.
To me it comes down to the very basics. I look at the world and see how advanced everything is from the structure of atoms to DNA to earthworms to the perfect conditions that allowed life to exist on Earth.
Now when I ask myself was this all an accident? I just can't believe yes it was. I know it's possible but to me for some reason it seems more possible that some being created all this in one way or another.
Could be an alien, could be a god, could be the flying spaghetti monster if you want to be cynical about it. I just think at the base level rather than matter and energy being created out of nothing, something created the matter and energy at the very least. The world just seems far too complex down to every last detail for it to have been chance. Of course there is still the chance of that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And yes I edited your post Linkx. Try not to be so insulting to peoples beliefs and texts they deem important.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Well, thus far we haven't even been able to say there is or isn't a god. I think it's a bit premature to be talking about it's plans, don't you think?
So why are infants "sent to the corner," with malignant cancer? They must have done something really awful in their couple months of life to deserve that kind of "punishment," right? You may characterize this concept god as love and mystery to your heart's desire, but that simply does not fit the world we understand. Mysteries leave room for imagination, but there is nothing we can imagine that would prompt a loving being to give a child cancer. So, assuming you would like to skip the step of actually verifying it is likely for there to be a god (again, we haven't established that), you certainly cannot infer that it is a just god or a loving god.
You simply do not know if there is a god. I can't for the life of me imagine why you are now bending over backwards not just to insist that you know there is, not just that you know how it works, but also that you MUST be right about the who is judged "properly," and that is... quite disturbing.
So, how about we get back to why you think there is a god (I have not heard any evidence to suggest one way or the other) and maybe then we can start talking about what kind of god that might be, based on the evidence we have.
We are the product of billions of years of evolution that took us from chemistry to biology and then from basic single-celled life up to the homo sapiens sapiens that we are today. The concept that we were molded from clay by a divine intervention flys in the face of all scientific understanding.
I think Link would be just as insulted that people would espouse beliefs that degrade the important scientific discoveries of our age. Perhaps I didn't get a chance to read his original post, but I don't know what was more insulting than the insinuation that people die of cancer for good reason, which is not-only unfounded, but simply arrogant and insulting to those of us who have lost loved ones to the disease.
While you are here moderating, how about continuing the conversation that we had going on up there?
Possible scenario: God manipulates universe and evolution to have man created. At one time man is very simple so it needs a very simple explanation. So god tells man that they were made from dirt because essentially, they are the same thing.
Or you can go with literal translation if it helps you sleep at night.
And please leave the moderating to the moderators. I'm not going to allow bashing of anyone's beliefs in here.:)
If you want to nit pick about the history of biblical texts, lets do the same for science. And evolution is a theory. Plain and simple. You have as much faith in that as people have in god.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Who is to say what is and is not literal? That is a wonderful question! But, since we have no foundation on which to say wether or not there is a god: why are we holding it up above other literature as a place to find example or morality in the first place?
That is, a possible scenario, but it is just as likely that there is no such god, or a god that is entirely diffirent than that. We simply have no grounds on which to make that proposition with any validity. So why are we trying to square our understanding of the universe, hard won from the effort of science and reason over the ages, with a book of what we can only describe as myths (because we have no reason at present to call them facts)?
That is even worse, because that literally involves not only trumping our hard-won knowledge with irrational assumptions, but it also forces the person to behave in an incredibly inhumane manner. Following Levitican law to the letter would be one of the most barbaric ways to live.
I'm not bashing beliefs, i'm questioning why they are held because I think there are reasons for them that many people don't stop to consider. Perhaps that is unsettleing to some, but I think those who continue to contribute are willing to consider that much.
I wish you would stop repeating that fallacy as though it hadn't been overturned more than once in this very thread. The theory of evolution has stood up to scientific scrutiny, testing, observation, and empirical evidence. It is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on earth. If it were to be replaced by a superior theory at some point in the future, then the scientific community would do away with it. The fact that it has stood the rigors of scientific tests over time (for more than a century) should tell you something of it's validity.
If you want to claim that a non-evidential belief in god is based on the same ammount of certainty then I invite you to present your evidence. Until that time, what you have just said is an incredibly dishonest thing. We have no grounds on which to base a belief and we have not yet seen anyone present evidence for god or no god. There is zero certainty there.
I'm not saying that any of it is right or wrong. But as an atheist, you chose a self serving argument to undermine beliefs instead of presenting other ways of understanding it in order to make you correct and others wrong.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Fair enough, I apologize for misreading.
You are saying that god exists, therefor you are claiming to be right where no evidence for that exists. As an atheist I am refusing to make statements of truth about things which I cannot know with certainty. I have not presented any arguments that were deliberately self-serving. Every argument I have made was written to be as transparent and understandable as I could in order to get my point across.
I don't know that there is or is not a a god, so I cannot really be right or wrong on that account. This is not a question of right or wrong. This is a question of making legitimate claims or fallacious claims and right now the claim that there is a god, the claim that this god operates one way or another, the claim that this or that text is the word of god, the claim that one religion is correct, the claim that all religions are correct, all of these things are based on fallacy. They are based on making assumptions we simply cannot make, based on the information that we have established.
I invite you to dispute this. I invite anyone to disprove this. We do not know that there is a god in the first place, there may be or there may not be. Establish that and we can move on to considering broader belief systems based on god. Right now; however, we just don't have the grounds on which to have those conversations.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
If you believe it to exist, then you are stating that it does exist. The fact you say you believe it, instead of know it, only means that you have no evidence to back that claim up. What I am asking you to do is to verify that claim with some kind of reasoning. At least inform me why it is you desire to hold that belief instead of holding a belief in some other unverifiable thing or holding a belief to the contrary? What is it about the belief in your god that makes it appealing enough to hold in spite of the fact you have no grounds on which to make that assumption?
Even if you hardly know what you believe, you have ideas in your head. You can connect those dots. Just identify for me how those dots are connected. Walk me through the thought process that is in your mind when you consider why you have that belief.
To compare them with something like Mother Goose is just a underhanded way to express your distaste at religion whether you believe those texts or not.
So does the illiad and the oddessey and they are both considered myths. I do not find the label the least bit disrespectful, unless you are making the apriori assumption that they are the word of god (and, just to re-iterate the umpteenth time: we have not established a god or not, much less a christian god vs. a greek patheon, etc.).
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
It is not a question of respect. Myth is not a title that denotes untruth: "A traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon." All it means to me is that it is unfounded. The "myth," of greek fire was recently discovered to be a fact. In the same manner, one day, some biblical myths might be discovered to be facts.
My position is to logically express what we know and what we do not yet know. If we do not know and yet we believe anyway, i'm curious to know why we believe these things. What makes these opinions so near and dear to our hearts? I think this kind of conversation is worth having and I don't know why you feel it is so offensive. Futhermore, I would really appreciate it if you could address some of those questions i've posed to you in #379. =)
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
If I were to genuinely believe that the bible is all that it claims to be, sure. But I don't think you or anyone else here has espoused a literalist point of view. But, let us compromise and say that it isn't a myth. Let's call it creative non-ficiton. Let's go ahead and grant that everything in there that isn't in defiance of all the laws of physics that we have come to understand could, obstensibly, be a real event. I am willing to say as much, and have said as much. The only thing i've changed is the label.
I am perfectly willing to say to you and anyone else who holds this kind of belief that they may be right. I have not said anything other than the established fact, from our current converstaions, that we cannot make a statement of certainty in this matter. So please, let us put aside this semantic argument and get back to the topic. I will leave the "m," word out of the conversation if you find it offensive.
By that definition couldn't the Higgs boson be labeled a myth as well? It just seems like a wide broad brush you could pain lots of things with.
Fairy tale however is disrespectful. When you can use a more appropriate word like mythology or myth you should, even though we should just say it's a piece of theology.
I don't recall having used the word fairy tale, and each and every time I used the M word, it was with the carefully placed caveat that it did not imply absolute falsehood. I do not intend to offend and I think an objective observer would agree that I have gone out of my way to be very gracious and level-headed about the way in which I have constructed my arguments so as to be bother clear and inoffensive.
You could call it a myth, but it isn't "A traditional story", which is the first part of the definition. As theories go though, the higgs is about as theoretical as they get and I don't know a single scientist who feels they have a great deal of certainty about it. I, for one, couldn't care less how someone referred to the Higgs. Unless they were claiming to have absolute certainty about it one way or the other, in which case they would be making a baseless assumption.
oh yeah i can see how people believe in that...
Yeah I was just saying I don't know who started using that word but Fairy Tale and Myth are pretty different in my opinion.
I'm willing to make any concession necessary in terms of what we call things, so long as we're not being misleading. I just want to get back to the questions at hand.
To me it comes down to the very basics. I look at the world and see how advanced everything is from the structure of atoms to DNA to earthworms to the perfect conditions that allowed life to exist on Earth.
Now when I ask myself was this all an accident? I just can't believe yes it was. I know it's possible but to me for some reason it seems more possible that some being created all this in one way or another.
Could be an alien, could be a god, could be the flying spaghetti monster if you want to be cynical about it. I just think at the base level rather than matter and energy being created out of nothing, something created the matter and energy at the very least. The world just seems far too complex down to every last detail for it to have been chance. Of course there is still the chance of that.