Cerise Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Any religion that professes to know the one true way cannot help but become abusive and harmful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Oops. Never mind. What I posted was crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Any religion that professes to know the one trueway cannot help but become abusive and harmful. Any person who is up at this hour when they don't have to be, is a little nuts too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 who said I didn't have to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 who said I didn't have to be? You don't. You're just messin' with me now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 See what I mean? You're gone already. Probably fell asleep on your keyboard and you're going to have key marks on half of your forehead and one of your cheeks for the next day or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Suppose an organization formed up, and had as they stated purpose, "to provide free medical care to kids." Now suppose that most of the members of the group went out and, instead, kicked old ladies in the shins. There are three statements that we could make about the group. 1) It is an evil organization, because it's people do evil things. 2) It is a good organization, because it's stated purpose is good. 3) The organization has a good stated purpose, but it's members do bad things, things that are not compatible with the goals of the organization. Which of these is the most accurate statement? We can clearly distinguish between the organization as an idea and the organization as it's consituitive members. If we can distinguish between them, then it's also appropriate to distinguish any judgements about the qualities of each of those parts separately. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We're talking here about the possibility of being a rational, open-minded and free-thinking person of faith. The argument is made that most people involved in faith-traditions don't engender those qualities. My argument is that Christianity, as a set of ideas, is openly compatible with those qualities, even if most of it's people don't engender them. We can distinguish between those two things, the idea and the adherents, and I think it's appropriate that we do just that. Ok then the organization sounds like a nice idea. So, we let it continue mostly because the Emperor says we must for another 50 generations and we find that many of its members still kick little old ladies in the shins. Do we need to continue the experiment any further to see if the nice ideas are really nice. What if we were to read the history of the founder and find that not only did he kick shins he broke everbody's legs including children, infants and cows. (1sam15:1-3) Would we be justified in judging the organization then, nice ideas or not, as a bunch of hooey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 And it was the Bible that said you would judge based on the fruit, it wasn't our idea! So if the fruit is bad, the tree is bad too. i.e. if the organization spews out bad stuff, then the organization is bad. According to the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invictus1967 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 We are not restricted to the authority of the Bible, we simply choose to accept it. We are “free” to think of a Creator, but we can also reject Him as you have done. Once you reject the Creator, your thoughts are no longer “free”. In regards to our origin, you are not “free” to think in terms of anything beyond abiogenesis and evolution. Your thoughts are restricted to those areas because anything beyond them implies God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathWorship Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 We are not restricted to the authority of the Bible, we simply choose to accept it. We are “free” to think of a Creator, but we can also reject Him as you have done. Once you reject the Creator, your thoughts are no longer “free”. In regards to our origin, you are not “free” to think in terms of anything beyond abiogenesis and evolution. Your thoughts are restricted to those areas because anything beyond them implies God. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i'm sorry to sound so insulting.. but that is just fucking retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 We are not restricted to the authority of the Bible, we simply choose to accept it. We are “free” to think of a Creator, but we can also reject Him as you have done. Once you reject the Creator, your thoughts are no longer “free”. In regards to our origin, you are not “free” to think in terms of anything beyond abiogenesis and evolution. Your thoughts are restricted to those areas because anything beyond them implies God. I've noticed you're a person that like to create conflict, probably for the reason of raising the heat in the debate. But you're almost start sounding silly... I have the choice to believe anything I want today, which I didn't as a Christian. My only guide today is reason, trust, personal and subjective considerations and rationalizations. I don't follow one book, I follow my mind and many books. You're free will is limited to the box called the bible, my free will is limited to the box called the universe. I can read any book I want and can believe anything I want. You can not say the same! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invictus1967 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Once you have rejected a Creator, how are you "free" to think of anything beyond abiogenesis and evolution? Enlighten me, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathWorship Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Once you have rejected a Creator, how are you "free" to think of anything beyond abiogenesis and evolution? Enlighten me, please. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> because all things are irrelevant, why does it even fucking matter how we got here? i could believe a giant sentient chocolate cake shat the universe out and we rotate on a sour apple gumdrop. wouldn't make a bit of difference. your belief carries about as much weight as mine, when we both die.. that's it, it's over, no thought, no experience. so i could care less how we got here. to answer your question, what i believe does NOT dictate how freely i can think. that is just.. ugh.. tiny-minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Once you have rejected a Creator, how are you "free" to think of anything beyond abiogenesis and evolution? Enlighten me, please. You like to twist things, you spin-master you! If evolution was proven wrong, and abiogenesis was proven wrong, and God proved himself, or gods or any other divine superbeing, I'm willing to change. I'm taking the shortest path to my belief, I don't sugarcoat and add supernatural beings to explain things I don't understand. I don't have to. That's the difference. You have the need to believe in God for the things you don't understand, I don't need that. I'm free to make my choices on a day to day basis, while you have to double check your choices and your opinions against a book. I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invictus1967 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Mr. Longing-for-death, Not giving a flying flip about anything is probably the worst of all. Your thoughts are not restricted yet they are not “free”. They are also not irrelevant because they don’t exist at all. I suppose it goes nicely with deathworship. --------------------------- HanSolo, You don’t sugarcoat your belief because you don’t have one. You have no theory or philosophy as to how the universe came into existence. Evidence of “free” thinking is actually having thoughts. What are yours? Is your only “freely” formed thought simply that mine is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathWorship Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Mr. Longing-for-death, Not giving a flying flip about anything is probably the worst of all. Your thoughts are not restricted yet they are not “free”. They are also not irrelevant because they don’t exist at all. I suppose it goes nicely with deathworship. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> you reveal yourself as a true mental-midget for taking my username seriously.. but i digress.. to be even more precise, if you read one of my other posts in another thread, I DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN FREE THOUGHT. it can't truly exist because true SENTIENCE can't exist. HOW can we be sentient if we are made of non-sentient matter???? tell me THAT. conciousness is just an emergent property. all that you know, see, taste, smell, touch, and hear.. are just waves and vibrations. all things are irrelevant, including god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 HanSolo, You don’t sugarcoat your belief because you don’t have one. You have no theory or philosophy as to how the universe came into existence. Evidence of “free” thinking is actually having thoughts. What are yours? Is your only “freely” formed thought simply that mine is wrong? Exactly, I don't need to sugarcoat my life with an extraordinary explanation for things I can't explain. But you do. You need that extra silver lining to help you accept things that are unknown and unexplained. I could accept the existence of a God, but can you accept the non-existence of God? I don't know how the universe came to existence, so I don't maintain one particular hypothetical speculation to explain it. But I do maintain alternative speculations to it. You see, I’m agnostic, and I believe that we can’t prove God existing nor prove God non-existing. Currently I don’t believe there is a God, but I could change if enough evidence proved me wrong. The whole God concept is eluding our senses and logic all the time, and when you’re trying to prove God, you will fall into paradoxes as well, and you have to take a leap of faith to overcome those paradoxes. There are paradoxes of science as well as religion, and that’s why we can’t say one side is the only truth. I’m only holding a soft position of my belief that there is no God, until proven otherwise. But I know this, if there is a God, it will NOT be the God of the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest smoothmoniker Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 you reveal yourself as a true mental-midget for taking my username seriously.. but i digress.. to be even more precise, if you read one of my other posts in another thread, I DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN FREE THOUGHT. it can't truly exist because true SENTIENCE can't exist. HOW can we be sentient if we are made of non-sentient matter???? tell me THAT. conciousness is just an emergent property. all that you know, see, taste, smell, touch, and hear.. are just waves and vibrations. Then why are you trying to change people's minds? It's an emergent property, the sum total of chemical and electrical organization, then who gives a damn what somebody else thinks? Who gives a damn what they themselves think? On your view, they don't have a mind to change, right? In fact, the only way to change their mind would be through the introduction of some material or chemical agent, something that changes the physical properties (since there are only physical properties) of the brain in order to change the mind, why even deal in evidence, argument, logic, structure, reason, any of it? You are right though, to allow for the mind starts a dangerous ball rolling - it opens up the door to something metaphysical; but tell me this, is it really easier to believe that there is no such thing as mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Then why are you trying to change people's minds? It's an emergent property, the sum total of chemical and electrical organization, then who gives a damn what somebody else thinks? Who gives a damn what they themselves think? On your view, they don't have a mind to change, right? That’s why we have a website for Ex-Christians to discuss things with each other. But most of the time we get Christian visitors that like to try to convert us. And we really do like discussing things and pointing out our opinions. We do have the right to do that on our site, don’t we? Or should I go to a Christian site and demand they can’t try to convert me? No, rather I would expect them to try it! Every mind can change, but can we know from the ordered chaos of quantum mechanics if we were supposed to argue and someone changed their mind? We follow the patterns of nature, and if it’s free will or not, we really don’t know yet. In fact, the only way to change their mind would be through the introduction of some material or chemical agent, something that changes the physical properties (since there are only physical properties) of the brain in order to change the mind, why even deal in evidence, argument, logic, structure, reason, any of it? Sound waves are physics too. Pattern recognition in the brain of the same sound waves is also science and not free will. Evidence, argument, logic, structure, reason is the higher order of information that is passed through the pattern of sound waves. You are right though, to allow for the mind starts a dangerous ball rolling - it opens up the door to something metaphysical; but tell me this, is it really easier to believe that there is no such thing as mind? It sure is, but if Quantum Entanglement shows otherwise, are you willing to retract that statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathWorship Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Then why are you trying to change people's minds? It's an emergent property, the sum total of chemical and electrical organization, then who gives a damn what somebody else thinks? Who gives a damn what they themselves think? On your view, they don't have a mind to change, right? In fact, the only way to change their mind would be through the introduction of some material or chemical agent, something that changes the physical properties (since there are only physical properties) of the brain in order to change the mind, why even deal in evidence, argument, logic, structure, reason, any of it? You are right though, to allow for the mind starts a dangerous ball rolling - it opens up the door to something metaphysical; but tell me this, is it really easier to believe that there is no such thing as mind? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i dont' remember saying "YOU SHOULD BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE CUS I SAY SO" so i'm not trying to change anyone's mind. i don't disbelieve in the brain. i know that the brain is real because of medical knowledge. what i'm saying i don't believe in, is anything outside of what our 5 senses tell us.. and our 5 senses are just physical molecular/chemical signals. so yes, WHY deal in logic, reason, evidence, assumption, FAITH?? i don't know. it's irrelevant.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invictus1967 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Mr. Longing-for-death, It doesn’t take a mental-giant to know that a name give to someone by another person means little in who the recipient of the name really is. But, a name given to oneself as the result of “freely” formed thoughts is very revealing. But I digress, I do stand corrected. I said your thoughts were not restricted because they were non-existent. I was wrong. You have thoughts and they are restricted to only what is irrelevant, meaningless. You are restricted to being meaningless. Why do you even bother posting these “irrelevant” thoughts? --------------------------- HanSolo, What a very nice way to say- “I have no freely formed thoughts on the subject”; all the while being very generous with your criticism of someone who was able to form a thought. Your entire argument consist of- “I don’t know anything other than you are wrong”. How restricted is that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathWorship Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Mr. Longing-for-death, It doesn’t take a mental-giant to know that a name give to someone by another person means little in who the recipient of the name really is. But, a name given to oneself as the result of “freely” formed thoughts is very revealing. But I digress, I do stand corrected. I said your thoughts were not restricted because they were non-existent. I was wrong. You have thoughts and they are restricted to only what is irrelevant, meaningless. You are restricted to being meaningless. Why do you even bother posting these “irrelevant” thoughts? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mr. "I Believe in a Talking Snake in a Tree" Death Worship is my bands name, so lets drop that one. also, if you would try and understand what I mean by "irrelevant", you would know i mean MORE than my thoughts, ALL THINGS are irrelevant.. as are your thoughts. God only exists because you want him to, outside of your reality, what is God? Nothing, does a tree KNOW it's a tree? No, it's only a tree because we gave it that name.. same with God, he only exists because we (not all of us) want him to. outside of our reality, all things are irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 HanSolo, What a very nice way to say- “I have no freely formed thoughts on the subject”; all the while being very generous with your criticism of someone who was able to form a thought. Your entire argument consist of- “I don’t know anything other than you are wrong”. How restricted is that. Really? So if I think you’re making a mistake by claiming that you have the ultimate proof that God exists, I have no right to argue the opposite position of it? I have freely formed thoughts about the subject, and they are that I don’t currently hold any belief in a God, but I can change. And that makes me not a candidate to argue with you? I just have to swallow your arguments, is that it? When you tell you believe so and so, and your argument is categorical, then I can’t argue against you? So I have to be a hardcore atheist or Muslim to argue with you? Agnostics don’t apply? I argue against you because you’re taking such a strong point of being right and everyone else are wrong, and I think you’re wrong in being so hard core in your views. You’re basing your arguments on assumptions and want everyone else on this site to dance around you and cheer and call “Hosanna! Hosanna!” You are truly a piece of work. If you come up with arguments, I have the right to counter argue them, regardless of my personal POV. And here you see the free thought in action; I can maintain alternate ideas and solutions simultaneous, while you only maintain one. This is one of my skills, that I can easily argue pros and cons for a proposition, and if you take that as a weakness, that’s your prerogative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invictus1967 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Mr. Longing-for-death, “All things” would include your thoughts, right? You admit to being restricted to irrelevancy. The worst part of it being that it is a self-imposed restriction. Again, why bother posting your “irrelevant” thoughts? As far as the name goes, it is what it is. You pick it out all by yourself, so be proud of your irrelevant name. ------------------------------ HanSolo, I have never once said I had proof of God, I always use the word EVIDENCE. I am sure you understand the difference. What right do you have to argue against my “freely” formed thoughts without any evidence or thoughts of your own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathWorship Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Mr. Longing-for-death, “All things” would include your thoughts, right? You admit to being restricted to irrelevancy. The worst part of it being that it is a self-imposed restriction. Again, why bother posting your “irrelevant” thoughts? As far as the name goes, it is what it is. You pick it out all by yourself, so be proud of your irrelevant name. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> alright, it is evident i am dealing with a fucking nimrod mongoloid, so i will treat you accordingly.. you apparently can only think in a linear fashion. BY IRRELEVANT, I MEAN I APPLY NO IMPORTANCE TO ANYTHING, DOES THAT CLEAR IT UP FOR YOU SPARKY? my idea that true sentience doesn't exist is a work in progress i'm formulating with my physics major friend, and physics DOES state that all things we experience are just waves and vibrations... i admit my idea is flawed, but to me it makes sense, and that is all that matters. and if all you can do is repeat yourself and insult my username, then you should just bow out, because i'm not about to continue to debate with such a self-righteous asshole. so be proud of your irrelevant, meaningless, couldn't save me if i WANTED him to, God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts