|
Grex > Agora56 > #84: Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 432 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 203 of 432:
| 
Feb 14 13:19 UTC 2006 |
I only know one person who seems to have no religious doubts or moments
of doubt at all, who is old enough to have them.
|
fudge
|
|
response 204 of 432:
|
Feb 14 13:32 UTC 2006 |
you can only doubt what you believe - I'm not in the business of believing.
at any rate my comment was not about believing or doubting but on the
shallowness of chosing to believe "because someone must have created all
this", without pausing to consider that something would have to have created
the creator, and if one can accept the fact that the phantomatic creator is
omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal then how hard would it have been to accept
a rational explanation in the first place and save ourselves millennia of
conflict, subjugation and manipulation??
|
jadecat
|
|
response 205 of 432:
|
Feb 14 14:15 UTC 2006 |
I have no idea how to answer that- I'm not one of those that questioned
and found their answers in their original religious belief. I just know
that your statement about people not questioning wasn't entirely correct.
Religious folk question quite a bit- the answers they come up with are
just not the same ones you have.
|
fudge
|
|
response 206 of 432:
|
Feb 14 14:24 UTC 2006 |
sorry but in most religions the foremost rule is not to question (dogma). I
find it unlikely that after being questioned, these could be confirmed, as
by definition they have no proof.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 207 of 432:
|
Feb 14 14:27 UTC 2006 |
Re #192 (and others): I believe in God for the same reason you believe in me --
I've met him.
|
fudge
|
|
response 208 of 432:
|
Feb 14 14:34 UTC 2006 |
only difference is that I could get hold of you, whack you 'round the head
and drag you over for someone else to see you... also "meeting" god under the
influence of drugs, alcohol, sex or apple pie does not count as proof,
although it takes less points out of your rationality evaluation.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 209 of 432:
|
Feb 14 14:35 UTC 2006 |
Re #193,196: For me it would be *easier* to say that "God doesn't exist, this
all came from nothing" -- but that would be exactly the same thing as saying
"my parents don't exist." It would be lazy to deny God, or to come up with some
polytheistic or pantheistic system.
Re #206: Where'd you get that? In Christianity, at least, one must *believe*,
but questions are expected. (It's part of the "dogma" that not all questions
will have answers, and one is expected to keep on believing despite those, but
still.)
|
kingjon
|
|
response 210 of 432:
|
Feb 14 14:38 UTC 2006 |
Re #208: That, according to the written records we have, actually happened to
at least one person, named Saul of Tarsus. It is also at least possible that
God chooses to avoid some people.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 211 of 432:
|
Feb 14 14:56 UTC 2006 |
resp:206 Ah yes, the Dogma generally attempts to require a
non-questioning follower. However, what the rules are and what humans
actually do don't always correlate. Just because a person is told not to
question doesn't mean they won't. Some of the most devout believers are
also the ones that have the severest periods of doubt.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 212 of 432:
|
Feb 14 17:20 UTC 2006 |
Re #209: I don't understand at all. Which of the following is the
easiest thing to do, and something which a lazy person would choose?
1) Building a house to live in from raw materials by yourself
2) Going shopping for a house, finding one that is right for you, buying
it and moving in
3) Continuing to live in your parents' house where you always have lived
|
fudge
|
|
response 213 of 432:
|
Feb 14 17:25 UTC 2006 |
re #210: Saul (or "St. Paul") was the main player in the formation of the
Church. The gospel talks of enlightenment and revelation, I'm more inclined
to wheeler-dealer who saw a major opportunity and played it. [I apologise if
I'm confusing my Sauls]. And anyway what proof are you bringing by quoting
the 'gospels'?
re #211 dogmas such as the fact that JC was resurrected are central to
christianity, for exaple, and without believeing it them one is not a
christian. if one refutes them after due consideration is in effect refuting
the whole religion. if on the other hand one confirms his belief in it after
rational analisys, it can only mean a flawed reasoning, since by definition
the dogma has no substantiating evidence.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 214 of 432:
|
Feb 14 17:44 UTC 2006 |
Re #212: Bad analogy. Which job would a lazy person be more likely to accept:
one that paid him to sit around, watch TV, eat junk food, and sleep, or one
that expected him to work very hard at something?
Re #213: You don't have your Sauls mixed up, but you have your books of the
Bible mixed up. St. Paul didn't appear until the "Acts of the Apostles", which
is *not* a gospel, and which *he did not write.* If you think he was a
"wheeler-dealer who saw an opportunity" -- that doesn't match any of our
records. That's as logical as saying that the Pope who ordered the Crusades was
a devout Muslim. I'm not "proving" anything -- but you mentioned being *forced*
to meet someone, which is what the surviving records of that time say happened
to this anti-Christian activist named Saul of Tarsus.
I also think you're making the mistake of assuming that belief and doubt --
even that belief and *questions* -- are incompatible. Besides, most "dogmas"
are statements about which there are three possible alternatives: belief (q),
disbelief (belief in ~q), and witholding-judgement (which is in itself a
belief), *none of which has sufficient evidence to "prove" its worth*.
|
fudge
|
|
response 215 of 432:
|
Feb 14 18:01 UTC 2006 |
re 214: yep. I should have said new testament. you're quite right there. then
again none of the gospels are "contemporary" either... and while Saul
obviously did not write them, nor the other various versions of the story that
circulated at the time around the med and were refuted by the early church,
he took it upon himself to bring together the very diverse communities of
proto christians. this because of meeting god, according to his promotional
material, or by his own idea, which I find more credible. nonetheless bringing
this story as an example of someone who met god is just as pointless.
you say belief is compatible with doubt yet all religious texts and prayers
talk about "moment of doubt" as the antithesis to belief, which means knowing
within yourself that something is true, despite the lack of proof or
explanation. witholding judgement is what atheists do (by not jumping to
conclusions and saying "there is a god") and agnosticists do (by admitting
lack of knowledge of the not knowable, although the vague acceptance of a
deity is in a way contradictory to the absence of gnosis). gnostics go to the
other end and claim to know better, but that's just another delusion, unless
that is, you've been given the true knowledge. ;)
amen.
|
tod
|
|
response 216 of 432:
|
Feb 14 18:11 UTC 2006 |
Chuck Norris uses Tabasco Sauce for eye drops.
It's widely believed that Jesus was Chuck Norris' stunt double for crucifixion
due to the fact that it is impossible for nails to pierce Chuck Norris' skin.
In the Bible, Jesus turned water into wine. But then Chuck Norris turned that
wine into beer.
Chuck Norris was the fourth wise man, who gave baby Jesus the gift of beard,
which he carried with him until he died. The other three wise men were enraged
by the preference that Jesus showed to Chuck's gift, and arranged to have him
written out of the bible. All three died soon after of mysterious
roundhouse-kick related injuries.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 217 of 432:
|
Feb 14 18:20 UTC 2006 |
If St. Paul was really an opportunist -- why would he have done what he did,
putting himself in great danger from all sides? I don't find any claim that his
actions (after the event on the road to Damascus) were his own idea credible at
*all*.
I didn't say that one could believe and doubt and have peace about it, just
that one could believe and still have doubts. Someone in that position is
usually praying for the doubts to go away.
Reminder: Atheists don't withold judgment, they give their verdict to the
opposite extreme. Theists believe that there is a God, atheists believe that
there is not, and agnostics refuse to believe one or the other. And there is no
absolutely indubitably convincingly sufficient evidence for proof of *any* of
these three choices.
If God exists, it is eminently possible that he is simply choosing to avoid
those people who persist in saying that he doesn't exist.
|
tod
|
|
response 218 of 432:
|
Feb 14 18:22 UTC 2006 |
agnostics refuse to believe
You sound like Bill O'Reilly. His quip for all things contrary to his
elementary beliefs are "you don't understand"
|
happyboy
|
|
response 219 of 432:
|
Feb 14 18:55 UTC 2006 |
"if god exists it is possible that he is avoiding, etc..."
so god is a man with avoidant personality disorder?
neat!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 220 of 432:
|
Feb 14 18:56 UTC 2006 |
...and, and it's the fault of far left liberals.
Re #217: fiddlesticks. The hypothesis of the existence of gods has no
empirical support, so why consider it further? Everyone does this with
other fantastic hypotheses, like the Tooth Fairy, etc. What's different
about gods?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 221 of 432:
|
Feb 14 18:56 UTC 2006 |
The Reverend slipped in with #219.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 222 of 432:
|
Feb 14 18:59 UTC 2006 |
Re #214: I don't understand this analogy at all, and since you didn't do
me the courtesy of answering my question I'm not going to answer yours
either.
|
tod
|
|
response 223 of 432:
|
Feb 14 19:04 UTC 2006 |
<opens the coffee can of Donny's ashes>
|
kingjon
|
|
response 224 of 432:
|
Feb 14 19:05 UTC 2006 |
And since when does the hypothesis of the *non*existence of God have any
empirical support?
You're talking about God as if he were a mineral or a supernova. The existence
of any one particular person, who can only be met by a human being on *his*
initiative (i.e., sitting around for hours saying "God, if you exist, prove it
to me" won't do a thing if he doesn't want to do so) can't be proven or
disproven by "empirical" (read: peer-reviewed double-blind experiments) means.
|
tod
|
|
response 225 of 432:
|
Feb 14 19:12 UTC 2006 |
There's more proof that sasquatch exists.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 226 of 432:
|
Feb 14 19:16 UTC 2006 |
god is a mineral...or are you saying that god is separate from
what god creates?
|
tod
|
|
response 227 of 432:
|
Feb 14 19:24 UTC 2006 |
HEY KOOL AID
|