Just to be clear, I wasn't agreeing with Acook02 about God not choosing to know something. Such a claim diminishes God, making Him less than God, which is silly. (for the purposes of this argument we are of course assuming that the Abrahamic God described in the three major religions even exists).

 

He's just using sloppy apologetics. How does a Christian that claims his/her god is all-knowing explain god not knowing something? Well, because that god didn't WANT to know, of course! Never mind at all that it says that no where in the bible, that god puts on his all-knowingness and takes it off again like a baseball cap. Believers contort themselves in to all kinds of knots to justify the nonsense that is their religion.

-S-

 

Excellent qualification

God is either everything . . .

or She's not God

 

I know. It bothers me to no end because people like him make all religious folk look like fucking idiots.

And he is a fucking idiot, he a fucking busy body thinking he knows how people should live their lives instead of only being concerned with how he is living his life. He needs a smack on the head.

 

We actually don't contort ourselves . . .

ok . . . so . . . the BEST of us contort ourselves . . . but we don't contort others. The best of us anyway . . .

There IS a difference between "Christian" and "Evangelical" . . .

Let's be clear on that.

 

"concerned with how he is living his life."

Amen.

 

There is only a difference in degrees. You're both basing your conclusions on the same false premises and using the same irrational beliefs to maintain your faith in the same god. You just differ in the degree and manner with which you feel you should express that belief. **edit** Or in how you think your god wants you to express that belief.

-S-

 

I'm not talking of expurgating god from the culture, I'm talking of the government ceasing endorse it. That's all. I'm making no suggestion that people be restrained in how they worship in their homes and churches (within reason and within the law) and I would support no measure that sought to take away the individual's right to worship. I just want the government out of the faith business.

This would only apply if there was a majority of Ra worshippers in Egypt that were seeking to marginalize the Muslim population and take control of the government.

-S-

 

BUT . . . I don't insist you believe the same

And seriously . . . there is love. There is forgiveness.

Neither are irrational.

That's not a "difference of degrees" . . .

You deny . . . I accept . . .

Neither of us should be judged for that

 

I would think the best Christians don't need to contort themselves or do mental gymnastics because they know that the proper relationship with the Christian God is a private one that needn't be flaunted in public, like two teenagers making out in the public park where the children play.

Unfortunately, this lesson seems to have been long forgotten. We are back to the days where the ones that are the loudest, wealthiest, most finely dressed, the ones always sitting in the front row saying the longest prayers are presented as the 'good' Christians.

They are hypocrites with the tongues of serpents that will hiss behind your back if you miss attendance. They gossip like the wives of fish mongers amongst themselves, attempting to assuage their own feelings and inadequacies by spreading lies and rumors among those they mockingly call 'brother'. It is sickening.

 

And here's my point . . . ok?

You assume my conclusions are based "on the same false premises" . . .

and I'm assuming . . . you may have a point.

I win.

 

Oh for the love of... Don't do that. Don't say you win. This is the Internet. There is no win. This was a pleasant debate that I found stimulating right up until you had to point out, "Yippy Skippy! A Winrar is I!"

I copied my post #150 from page three, because I want to make sure it get's seen. I know, I know, it's a tacky thing to do.

I would think the best Christians don't need to contort themselves or do mental gymnastics because they know that the proper relationship with the Christian God is a private one that needn't be flaunted in public, like two teenagers making out in the public park where the children play.

Unfortunately, this lesson seems to have been long forgotten. We are back to the days where the ones that are the loudest, wealthiest, most finely dressed, the ones always sitting in the front row saying the longest prayers are presented as the 'good' Christians.

They are hypocrites with the tongues of serpents that will hiss behind your back if you miss attendance. They gossip like the wives of fish mongers amongst themselves, attempting to assuage their own feelings and inadequacies by spreading lies and rumors among those they mockingly call 'brother'. It is sickening.

 

Cute.

Go to K-Mart (yes they still exist)

Find the Blue Light . . .

Buy a sense of humor . . .

It was a joke . . . Sheeeeeeeeesh

 

Sarcasm is very difficult to convey via text, and I have Asperger's, which makes it even more difficult to tell when people are joking.

Also, claiming "I win" is a common tactic during Internet debates. It happens on this very forum, and it's usually at that point that the debate spirals downward into a schoolyard name calling contest.

 

I'm not suggesting you are. Nor am I trying to suggest that you not be allowed to believe what you want. I respect an individual's right to hold an idea but that doesn't mean the idea itself is worthy of respect.

You're absolutely correct, they are not. But claiming they come from a supernatural or divine source is.

You and he both maintain that a god not only exists, but that it is of a decidedly Christian flavor. A decision that is based almost entirely on geography and the timing of your birth. You believe that this god not only exists but has an active role in the universe and in the course of our lives. You believe this god cares for you, cares for others, intervenes when it deems it appropriate, and has a place for us after we slip our mortal coil. (I'm basing this off the tone of your words here and acknowledge that you have not specifically spelled out your beliefs.)

Where you differ is more doctrinally, as near as I can tell. Yours appears to be a kinder, gentler brand of faith than acook's. Which on the surface, is fine. I have no trouble accepting that you practice your faith differently than he does. I would never suggest that all believers behave in the same fashion. There are differences between sects of the same faith and broader differences between different faiths. But–especially between different sects of the same religion–those differences are superficial. Your behaviors, actions and a few of the beliefs are only marginally different then the Christian from the other church down the road.

However, the underlying core of your faith, acook's faith and every other faith is the same. It's based on irrationality because no faith anywhere has anything even close to hard evidence to support it. There is not a faith on this planet that is not based on logical fallacies, false assumptions and personal anecdotes. That is the text book definition of irrational.

In the presence of zero credible evidence to support a claim, denial of the claim is the only rational course one can take. I would not wish to do otherwise. Someone that would have me believe something merely on faith is not someone that should be trusted. If the thing was worth accepting it would have evidence to support it. Or, to put it another way, if there's no good reason to believe something, why would you believe it?

I judge the ideas on their merits and I judge people on their actions.

-S-

 

This is known as the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

-S-

 

1. ANY individual's beliefs are worthy of respect.
2. I don't assert God exists . . . I insist he MIGHT . . . and I choose to believe that. (see #1)
3. Seeking to define "faith" prove fruitless . . . (the belief in things unseen)
4. I question people who throw "faith" in my face . . . I reserve the right to question EVERYTHING!
5. If there's no good reason . . . then why does LOVE exist?
6. If I find you in Heaven . . . I won't argue.
7. If instead I rest forever . . . I will rest well.
8. I appear to be agnostic.

 

No, they're not. The belief that women are cattle, for instance. That is not a belief worthy of respect.

I'm not trying to define it, I'm pointing out that it is worthless as a pathway to truth.

First explain to me why you think love has to come from your creator god.

You are an agnostic theist, I am an agnostic atheist. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

-S-

 

1. Agreed. I was wrong. Your point is perfect and valid.
2. If my way is "worthless" . . . so is yours.
3. Where does it come from then?
4. You're terribly cute.

 

No it isn't, I'm describing how a normal religious person behaves instead of the vocal jackasses you see all the time getting involved in politics or any other thing, how they always mention their religion as though it qualifies them for whatever they are doing or as if believing in God means they should be a leader. God has no place in the government or policy making.