|
Grex > Agora56 > #84: Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 432 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 227 of 432:
| 
Feb 14 19:24 UTC 2006 |
HEY KOOL AID
|
happyboy
|
|
response 228 of 432:
|
Feb 14 19:36 UTC 2006 |
/watches god knock down all of the pins as he busts thru
the back of the bowlin' alley
|
rcurl
|
|
response 229 of 432:
|
Feb 14 20:58 UTC 2006 |
Religionists always create specious arguments to prevent rational inquiry
about gods. They even did that about cosmology and other testable hypotheses
way back. Now they stick to untestable hypotheses.
There is no "hypothesis of the *non*existence of" gods. No-one, out of the
blue, asked "do gods exist?" *until* someone said they did. Why even raise
the question when there is no evidence - except false positives related to
coincidences and complexity?
|
edina
|
|
response 230 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:03 UTC 2006 |
It's kind of funny how to me it's simply a matter of faith. Does this make
me stupid?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 231 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:17 UTC 2006 |
Re #229: I can make the same sort of broad claims too: Anti-religionists always
dismiss arguments that look even faintly religious out of hand, nearly always
claiming the opposite. And anti-religionists make the same sorts of specious
arguments, except that they claim that their hypotheses are testable and have
been tested.
"Why even raise
the question when there is no evidence - except false positives related to
coincidences and complexity?"
If the evidence is only related to coincidences and complexity, and it's all
false positives, then investigation will show this. But you can't know that all
the evidence is false positives until either the question has been raised and
investigated or you assume that all positives will be false. You can't say that
"all the evidence is invalid" until you admit that there is some evidence to
begin with, at which point an investigation is warranted.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 232 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:17 UTC 2006 |
No, just misled. Why have you adopted this "faith" in something unknowable
and untestable?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 233 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:20 UTC 2006 |
What is your "no, just misled" responding to?
Like I've said before, God is only unknowable if you define knowledge to
exclude him. I believe God exists for the same reason I believe my parents
exist.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 234 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:22 UTC 2006 |
Re #231:
Jon slipped in - #232 is in response to Brooke.
Well, Jon, humans have been looking everywhere, from quarks to distant
galaxies, and not an iota of evidence of gods, or any supernatural event
or process, has ever been observed. One has to make up fanciful notions
for the supernatural as it just isn't *there*.
|
edina
|
|
response 235 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:23 UTC 2006 |
Re 232 Because it is not unknown or "untested" to me. Why do I believe in
God? Because I feel his/her/its presence has been made known to me and I have
found it gratifying.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 236 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:25 UTC 2006 |
Re #234:
Like I said before, you're looking for the supernatural using natural methods.
If I handed you a box of marbles and said "there's exactly one red marble, but
it isn't in the box", and you looked through the box and didn't find it, would
that be conclusive proof that no such marble existed?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 237 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:26 UTC 2006 |
Re #235: Exactly!
|
tod
|
|
response 238 of 432:
|
Feb 14 21:55 UTC 2006 |
re #236
I'd agree that you've lost your marbles, d00d ;)
|
marcvh
|
|
response 239 of 432:
|
Feb 14 22:07 UTC 2006 |
A red marble is a pretty mundane thing, and so the level of evidence
required to support it can be pretty mundane as well. If, instead of
a red marble, you claimed that there was one magic marble which was the
king of all the marbles that are and ever were and ever will be, and
this magic marble was both inside the box and not inside the box, and
that this magic marble loves all the other marbles and has a plan for
their marble-lives, and that this magic marble teaches that eating ice
cream is wicked and all people must stop doing it, you would be closer.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 240 of 432:
|
Feb 14 22:11 UTC 2006 |
You'll notice that he didn't say anything about "God" in the response I was
responding to -- just "any supernatural event or process".
|
tod
|
|
response 241 of 432:
|
Feb 14 22:31 UTC 2006 |
same
|
happyboy
|
|
response 242 of 432:
|
Feb 14 22:55 UTC 2006 |
hey rane...some of us just enjoy the paradox.
it's fun!
you know...like spelunking in our heads.
|
gull
|
|
response 243 of 432:
|
Feb 14 23:05 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:224: Again, we apparently have a God that, if He exists, would
rather see people go to Hell than reveal himself in an obvious way.
What's more, if one is to believe the Bible, He apparently used to be
more liberal about giving evidence of His existence, but has
mysteriously stopped doing so. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
Re resp:230: I guess I just reached a point where I could no longer
turn off my logical mind and "just believe," in spite of being taught
for years that logical thought about God was dangerous, and doubt was
the tool of Satan. I just couldn't operate that way anymore,
especially when I started to be troubled by the political and social
beliefs of the church I was in.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 244 of 432:
|
Feb 14 23:08 UTC 2006 |
www.shatnerology.com
|
kingjon
|
|
response 245 of 432:
|
Feb 14 23:41 UTC 2006 |
Re #243: I consider it a case of: God would rather let us choose to ignore him
(resulting in eternity in Hell) than force us to love him. He wants us to
freely love him rather than forcing us to love him -- would *you* value the
love someone gave you if they didn't have any choice in the matter? -- and the
very nature of a choice means we have to have the ability to choose otherwise.
Revealing himself "in an obvious way" sufficient to silence everyone no matter
how skeptical wouldn't leave us any choice.
The decline in "evidence" is due in my opinion to two factors: a) an increase
in attribution to other causes ("this was actually caused by X so it couldn't
have been God!") and b) a decline in the number of people willing to cooperate.
God, based on what is recorded in the Bible, prefers to work through people --
and I can only think of two instances where his chosen instruments were
coerced.
The Christian church doesn't teach that logical thought about God is dangerous
(unless you mean dangerous in the same sense that fire, automobiles, and every
other part of human existence is dangerous). Similarly, as I understand it
doubt is no more a tool of Satan than anything else.
|
richard
|
|
response 246 of 432:
|
Feb 15 00:25 UTC 2006 |
getting back to the cartoons of the prophet mohammed, the following
from ap newswire:
"LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) -- Thousands rampaged through two cities Tuesday
in Pakistan's worst violence against Prophet Muhammad caricatures,
burning buildings housing a hotel, banks and a KFC, vandalizing a
Citibank and breaking windows at a Holiday Inn and a Pizza Hut."
This is a worsening situation. Wars have been started over less than
editorial cartoons.
|
gull
|
|
response 247 of 432:
|
Feb 15 00:27 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:245: Demonstrating that He exists would not interfere with free
will. It would not force us to love Him, as you imply. There's lots
of evidence that George W. Bush exists, but I don't feel that this
deprives me of free will or makes me feel obligated to love him.
|
crimson
|
|
response 248 of 432:
|
Feb 15 00:37 UTC 2006 |
Yes. A picture is worth a thousand words, there were at least two cartoons
published, and the Declaration of Independence was only 1300 words ... so the
Revolutionary War was started over less. :)
|
crimson
|
|
response 249 of 432:
|
Feb 15 00:38 UTC 2006 |
Gull slipped (#247).
|
kingjon
|
|
response 250 of 432:
|
Feb 15 00:45 UTC 2006 |
Re #247:
a) But George Bush isn't an invisible supernatural being.
b) "Love" isn't precisely the word I was looking for (I'm not sure such a word
exists), but "awe" is an important part of the emotion I was trying to
describe. "Worship" is a good synonym, but it has too many bad connotations
among too many people here.
c) If he chose to make it impossible for you to disbelieve in him (I can choose
to believe that George Bush is a figment of my imagination if I want, after
all) that would most certainly be overriding your free will, and it would
almost certainly be so awe-inspiring to cause something approaching "love".
d) He doesn't *want* you to "feel obligated to love him" -- he wants your
"love" (see pt. b above) freely and honestly given. (How would you like it if
someone said, "I love you, but only because I have to?")
|
richard
|
|
response 251 of 432:
|
Feb 15 00:46 UTC 2006 |
Here in NYC, the entire editorial staff of the New York Press, a free
weekly newspaper that is a centerist alternative to the Village Voice,
resigned over the cartoons. The Press wanted to run the cartoons in
question, to show solidarity with their colleagues at the newspaper in
Denmark, but the ownership of the paper disallowed it, fearing
retribution from some of the city's many muslims, and as a result the
whole staff resigned. Even one of the local tv stations, when the
reported the story on the news, refused to show the cartoons.
|