Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Logic: There is no God

Page 8 of 9 [ 142 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

31 May 2007, 8:22 pm

Ragtime wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
what's funny is all fundamentalists are guilty of one of the seven deadly sins.


pride.


they're too prideful to ever admit there may have been wrong doing on the part of humanity in the creation of the bible....rather less something bigger such as that their god doesn't exist.


It's funny how someone can say that saying one knows something is "pride", and then in the same sentence, turn around and say that they know "all fundamentalists are guilty..." :lol:


a fundamentalist by definition is one who believes the word of the (insert holy book) is the ultimate infallible truth so i fail to see how there's anything wrong in my statement.



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

31 May 2007, 8:25 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
what's funny is all fundamentalists are guilty of one of the seven deadly sins.


pride.


they're too prideful to ever admit there may have been wrong doing on the part of humanity in the creation of the bible....rather less something bigger such as that their god doesn't exist.


It's funny how someone can say that saying one knows something is "pride", and then in the same sentence, turn around and say that they know "all fundamentalists are guilty..." :lol:


a fundamentalist by definition is one who believes the word of the (insert holy book) is the ultimate infallible truth so i fail to see how there's anything wrong in my statement.


Well, why is the fundamentalist guilty of pride?


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

31 May 2007, 8:31 pm

Ragtime wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
what's funny is all fundamentalists are guilty of one of the seven deadly sins.


pride.


they're too prideful to ever admit there may have been wrong doing on the part of humanity in the creation of the bible....rather less something bigger such as that their god doesn't exist.


It's funny how someone can say that saying one knows something is "pride", and then in the same sentence, turn around and say that they know "all fundamentalists are guilty..." :lol:


a fundamentalist by definition is one who believes the word of the (insert holy book) is the ultimate infallible truth so i fail to see how there's anything wrong in my statement.


Well, why is the fundamentalist guilty of pride?



beacuse it's only pride that leads to one being a fundamentalist.


well, pride and a complete giving up on intelligent thought (also known as being mentally lazy).



AlexandertheSolitary
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: Melbourne

31 May 2007, 8:35 pm

Ragtime wrote:
kt-64 wrote:
So he is above his own laws? What a hypocrtical a**hole! Wow, talk-about a double standard!


Yes, He is above His own laws. Remember, those laws were taylor-made to fit humans. He couldn't be limited by them if He tried -- His infinity would exceed all their bounds. If you had a hamster, and put it in a cage, should I call you a hypocritical a**hole? After all, you're allowed to roam free!

Uh! How can you have a wrong "double-standard" in referrence to GOD, and humans??? Different beings, different rules. Duh! 8O


Is not such apparent potentially arbitrary morality for God in grave danger of destroying all basis for meaningful faith? Quite apart from the difficulty of reconciling divine mercy and divine justice, if those terms, along with faithfulness, truthfulness, etcetera, do not mean, if not the same (one would assume they would mean infinitely more, as all humans fall short of the glory of God and of any absolute moral standard) at least bear some relation (though if any thing their use applied to humans would be relative rather than their use with regard to God) then how can there even be any trust that revealed Scriptures, granted their being 100% divinely inspired work of prophets, apostles, etc. while indeed from God, were not tissues of lies, a position presumably neither of us will wish to hold? Or does your statement apply to physical rather than moral restrictions, speaking of omnipotence (with the caveat in your understanding of limited capacity to self-limit) rather than of the restricted universality of moral laws? Actually, I suppose there are at least some laws that apply specifically to humans, rather than to God, the angels or animals (different sets of laws evidently hinted at here).


_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep."


Last edited by AlexandertheSolitary on 31 May 2007, 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AlexandertheSolitary
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: Melbourne

31 May 2007, 8:45 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
what's funny is all fundamentalists are guilty of one of the seven deadly sins.


pride.


they're too prideful to ever admit there may have been wrong doing on the part of humanity in the creation of the bible....rather less something bigger such as that their god doesn't exist.


It's funny how someone can say that saying one knows something is "pride", and then in the same sentence, turn around and say that they know "all fundamentalists are guilty..." :lol:


a fundamentalist by definition is one who believes the word of the (insert holy book) is the ultimate infallible truth so i fail to see how there's anything wrong in my statement.


Well, why is the fundamentalist guilty of pride?



beacuse it's only pride that leads to one being a fundamentalist.


well, pride and a complete giving up on intelligent thought (also known as being mentally lazy).


You have, I assume, done a detailed research into the various causes for people embracing fundamentalist forms of religion (this is a somewhat problematic adjective, but as an original self-descriptor of certain 19th century American evangelical Christians. who wished to get back to the basics or fundamentals of the faith including verbal inerrancy of scripture, before in some minds it became almost inseparable from the adjective "Islamic," your usage is probably legitimiate, though a working definition would be desirable and appreciated). Actually, the causes of religious fundamentalism however defined would be an interesting object of study, as well as a timely one.


_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep."


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

31 May 2007, 8:47 pm

skafather84 wrote:

beacuse it's only pride that leads to one being a fundamentalist.


Circular, okay...

skafather84 wrote:
well, pride and a complete giving up on intelligent thought (also known as being mentally lazy).


But how do you know? You just said that knowing = pride. And if knowing = pride, then that implies that one can't know, since only pride (not knowledge) can make him claim he knows. Therefore, by claiming you know that fundamentalists are prideful because they claim they know, you're asserting a fact you've already negated. Namely, that you can know.

I'll take questions now.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

31 May 2007, 8:54 pm

AlexandertheSolitary wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
kt-64 wrote:
So he is above his own laws? What a hypocrtical a**hole! Wow, talk-about a double standard!


Yes, He is above His own laws. Remember, those laws were taylor-made to fit humans. He couldn't be limited by them if He tried -- His infinity would exceed all their bounds. If you had a hamster, and put it in a cage, should I call you a hypocritical a**hole? After all, you're allowed to roam free!

Uh! How can you have a wrong "double-standard" in referrence to GOD, and humans??? Different beings, different rules. Duh! 8O


Is not such apparent potentially arbitrary morality for God in grave danger of destroying all basis for meaningful faith?


Well, normally it would be, except that He's been consistent. He doesn't lie, and He doesn't change, because he's a God or order. (Which is why laws of nature don't take coffee breaks. They're always on duty, and always the same.)


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

31 May 2007, 8:55 pm

AlexandertheSolitary wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
what's funny is all fundamentalists are guilty of one of the seven deadly sins.


pride.


they're too prideful to ever admit there may have been wrong doing on the part of humanity in the creation of the bible....rather less something bigger such as that their god doesn't exist.


It's funny how someone can say that saying one knows something is "pride", and then in the same sentence, turn around and say that they know "all fundamentalists are guilty..." :lol:


a fundamentalist by definition is one who believes the word of the (insert holy book) is the ultimate infallible truth so i fail to see how there's anything wrong in my statement.


Well, why is the fundamentalist guilty of pride?



beacuse it's only pride that leads to one being a fundamentalist.


well, pride and a complete giving up on intelligent thought (also known as being mentally lazy).


You have, I assume, done a detailed research into the various causes for people embracing fundamentalist forms of religion (this is a somewhat problematic adjective, but as an original self-descriptor of certain 19th century American evangelical Christians. who wished to get back to the basics or fundamentals of the faith including verbal inerrancy of scripture, before in some minds it became almost inseparable from the adjective "Islamic," your usage is probably legitimiate, though a working definition would be desirable and appreciated). Actually, the causes of religious fundamentalism however defined would be an interesting object of study, as well as a timely one.



i'm more leading towards the fundamentalism of islam and southern baptist (two examples but not the only two fundamentalists in existance). fundamentalism comes from normally either one of the three sources: indoctrination, a user (see: alcoholics who converted to religion), or those who are simply too lazy to go farther beyond what's inside their own box and comfort zone.



AlexandertheSolitary
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: Melbourne

31 May 2007, 9:35 pm

Admittely converts, let alone converts who are penitents, may often be inclined to greater zeal. An element of having something to prove perhaps. My apologies in advance if this undoubted (though qualified) generalisation should cause offense to anyone.


_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep."


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

31 May 2007, 10:58 pm

AlexandertheSolitary wrote:
Admittely converts, let alone converts who are penitents, may often be inclined to greater zeal. An element of having something to prove perhaps. My apologies in advance if this undoubted (though qualified) generalisation should cause offense to anyone.



the reason why i specified users is because it's a psychology and mentality. the person abuses alcohol, drugs, whatever and when they turn to religion, they find something they can use and attach to and not be told they're wrong. afterall, who would call a former alcoholic or junkie who converted to religion a tool? well..other than me.



AlexandertheSolitary
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: Melbourne

31 May 2007, 11:55 pm

skafather84 wrote:
AlexandertheSolitary wrote:
Admittely converts, let alone converts who are penitents, may often be inclined to greater zeal. An element of having something to prove perhaps. My apologies in advance if this undoubted (though qualified) generalisation should cause offense to anyone.



the reason why i specified users is because it's a psychology and mentality. the person abuses alcohol, drugs, whatever and when they turn to religion, they find something they can use and attach to and not be told they're wrong. afterall, who would call a former alcoholic or junkie who converted to religion a tool? well..other than me.


And possibly Griff, who made the religion/substance abuse parallel earlier. Is the current incumbent of the presidency of the dominant partner in an alliance of mixed blessing to my own nation a case in point? Curious the conservativism of the southern Baptists given the radicalism of some of their antecedents... This is not an assault on Baptists as a whole - they have been treated most unfairly by Calvinists, Lutherans, Anglicans (my lot) and Roman Catholics. That this was nearly five centuries ago and that SOME of them at Münster may have arguably have called for extreme measures is besides the point. What do you know about the Quakers - or rather the Religious Society of Friends, though as with Puritans and Anabaptists the original slur became a badge of pride. I am not sure that the Jesuits (rather than the Society of Jesus) are not a similar case in point. They were even treated unfairly by their fellow Roman Catholics for some time, and the Russian Orthodox (though originally Roman Catholic as a German princess) Tsarina Catherine the Great granted them sanctuary. Sorry if this all seems rather off-topic.


_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep."


NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

01 Jun 2007, 4:28 pm

eipsa wrote:
I think liking logic is an AS trait

I see very little evidence of that in this thread; 90% of the posts have been along the lines of, is not, is so, with few facts or logic to back up the claims, and when someone like Chakepew posts something with some interesting data to consider, he is ignored.

This is a very passionate topic, I have seen five simular threads on this board and there are probably many that I have not seen; and passion is not good for logic. Even if one was to agree with Ragtime that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth (which he offers no evidence to support) there have been wars fought over the meaning of that book. I have to agree with Skafather84, if he thinks he "knows" what that means, he is gulty of pride.


_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Jun 2007, 5:36 pm

AlexandertheSolitary wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
AlexandertheSolitary wrote:
Admittely converts, let alone converts who are penitents, may often be inclined to greater zeal. An element of having something to prove perhaps. My apologies in advance if this undoubted (though qualified) generalisation should cause offense to anyone.



the reason why i specified users is because it's a psychology and mentality. the person abuses alcohol, drugs, whatever and when they turn to religion, they find something they can use and attach to and not be told they're wrong. afterall, who would call a former alcoholic or junkie who converted to religion a tool? well..other than me.


And possibly Griff, who made the religion/substance abuse parallel earlier. Is the current incumbent of the presidency of the dominant partner in an alliance of mixed blessing to my own nation a case in point?



i don't know about bush, really. i know that he converted over and he has a history of drug and alcohol abuse and some of his rhetoric sounds the same but more it's because i've known various musicians who were users and converted to god and used that instead. same mentality, same problems...they aren't getting help, they're simply diverting their problems into something more socially acceptable.

bush is too much of a public figure for it to show through too much...but it somewhat has shown through that he's a user. he needs help...not religion.



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

01 Jun 2007, 5:36 pm

NobelCynic wrote:
eipsa wrote:
I think liking logic is an AS trait

I see very little evidence of that in this thread; 90% of the posts have been along the lines of, is not, is so, with few facts or logic to back up the claims, and when someone like Chakepew posts something with some interesting data to consider, he is ignored.

This is a very passionate topic, I have seen five simular threads on this board and there are probably many that I have not seen; and passion is not good for logic. Even if one was to agree with Ragtime that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth (which he offers no evidence to support) there have been wars fought over the meaning of that book. I have to agree with Skafather84, if he thinks he "knows" what that means, he is gulty of pride.


So, tell us, do you "know" that I'm guilty of pride???"

I think we all know that truth isn't determined by a vote, and I think most people are glad for that.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Jun 2007, 5:41 pm

Ragtime wrote:
I think we all know that truth isn't determined by a vote, and I think most people are glad for that.



damned straight i'm glad that truth isn't determined by a vote...that'd mean christianity was truth.




pride /praɪd/ verb, prid·ed, prid·ing.
–noun
1. a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc.



i'm willing to admit when i'm wrong. you just ignore when you're wrong and refuse to ever admit being wrong and instead you spin discussions away from the points where you're wrong. you have such a high opinion of the bible that you believe its merits are above the corruption of man and man's bigotry and hatred. that's pride. that's ignorance too. unfortunately, the bible doesn't make ignorance a sin (i wonder why!! !)



NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

01 Jun 2007, 6:04 pm

Ragtime wrote:
So, tell us, do you "know" that I'm guilty of pride???

I wouldn't know. Let me rephrase my statement in a more logical format. If Ragtime thinks he understands everything written in the Bible and realizes that other people have read the same book and have come to quite different conclusions and has the attitude "I am right, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong" then he is guilty of pride.

So you tell me; or is there a flaw in that logic?


_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth