| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/11/2005 08:51:32 AM · #401 |
OK, Pat Robertson just blew right past Jessica Simpson as perhaps the dumbest public figure on the planet. According to this clown, the people of Dover, PA have turned their backs on God and may face natural disaster because they voted out 8 Christians who want to introduce religion into science class in favor of 8 Christians who'd rather keep it in the church or social studies. One wonders what terrible wrath was incurred when the separation of church and state was first put into practice. It's frightening to think that this guy has a million followers.
Message edited by author 2005-11-11 08:52:10. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 09:01:50 AM · #402 |
Originally posted by VinceDoss:
I support gay marriage...Everyone should be allowed to be as miserable as I am.
Howard Stern |
if i wasn't already out in this thread, i'd be outing myself by saying this to Vince: "Dolly Parton said that first."
Originally posted by scalvert:
OK, Pat Robertson just blew right past Jessica Simpson as perhaps the dumbest public figure on the planet. |
i could be wrong. wasn't that the same guy who said that Katrina looked like a fetus and that new orleans got what it deserved because they were supposed to hold a gay pride event?
which, by the way, the southern decadence party didn't get cancelled by the hurricane. it just got postponed. can't keep a good bitch down, you know. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 09:12:27 AM · #403 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
...wasn't that the same guy who said ...that new orleans got what it deserved because they were supposed to hold a gay pride event? |
I think that was Rita and Miami, but there were similar claims that Katrina smacked New Orleans because of their wicked ways. Interesting claim given that NO is one of the most deeply religious communities around, with some of the oldest and grandest churches, and their major sports franchise called the Saints. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 09:34:48 AM · #404 |
I love Pat Robertson, somebody always has to define the far right to make sure we all know just how stupid you can get.
Plus, I like Jerry Falwell (he is friends with my family) and Pat Robertson deflects a lot of hate from Jerry, who looks like Ted Kennedy next to Pat!
Message edited by author 2005-11-11 09:35:51. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 09:45:21 AM · #405 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
A member of my family and I have had many (friendly) discussions such as this rant thread, about a wide variety of liberal vs. conservative issues, and there is one thing I have learned: I will never convince her that I am right, and she will NEVER convince me that she is right. About the best you can do is say "this is what I believe", tell why you believe it; listen to the other side, shake your head and move on. This thread could go on for the next 10 years and I bet nobody would change their beliefs becasue of it. |
You are right. So right. I'm through with this thread. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 10:01:33 AM · #406 |
And now...back to voting on the challenges? I need some 10's and I don't care who gives them to me! lol
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 10:09:37 AM · #407 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
And now...back to voting on the challenges? I need some 10's and I don't care who gives them to me! lol |
What challenge are you entered in? I'll go vote on that one before I go on vacation tomorrow:-) |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 10:48:57 AM · #408 |
Originally posted by persimon:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
And now...back to voting on the challenges? I need some 10's and I don't care who gives them to me! lol |
What challenge are you entered in? I'll go vote on that one before I go on vacation tomorrow:-) |
I guess I have a "garbage" picture in the garbage challenge. Started at 5.2 (not bad) and is down to 4.9. I really like my shot, but it seems I am in the minority! I also have a dead end entry doing even worse--4.5, but it is not as good a shot as my garbage IMO. Oh well, there's always next week! |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 11:45:12 AM · #409 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
...I accept that the unknown is there as regards what is "beyond" the universe in time or space (though that may be irrelevant) and that one answer might be something akin to what we currently consider to be a deity. But I think it more likely that the answer to the unknowns (and possibly unknowables) will be very different from the common perception of a "god".
|
Your explanation perfectly mirrors my "belief" (as I cannot know for fact).
However, I think that your description defines an agnostic more than an atheist. The fact that you are "willing" to believe in the possible existance of a god versus stating, without a doubt, there is no god. |
You're correct, Hookie. The definition of an Atheist is "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". Its an active rejection of the possibility that God exists. A position that takes every bit as much faith as (and arguable more than) Christianity. After all, you can't prove something doesn't exist. You can only postulate from lack of measurable evidence. There is, on the other hand, an increadible amount of evidence to support God's existence, if you are willing to see it. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 11:55:36 AM · #410 |
Originally posted by rgo:
There is no god, you have no rights. You're just wrong, plain and simple. |
I don't know if you're serious, but I'm assuming you are. This is the most accurate, precise and honest presentation of the atheistic point of view that has been posted yet. And concise as well. Excellent post and observation. You're wrong as well, but accurate. :)
It mirrors some thoughts that have been running through my mind throughout this thread, but I'll save those for possible later posts. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 12:00:45 PM · #411 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Oh, and if their is a "God", he doesn't 'give' rights. Rights are self evident and owned, at birth, by all men and women. It's this whole idea by some people of 'earning' rights and that they are there to be distributed like christmas presents that burns me up. |
Thomas Jefferson, et al, would disagree with you:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 12:20:56 PM · #412 |
I love it when bigots use "god" to justify why they're bigotted. It's like saying: "It's not our fault we're hateful, spiteful people, because there is this other thing that tells us it's OK to be hateful and spiteful."
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 12:58:09 PM · #413 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
You're correct, Hookie. The definition of an Atheist is "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". Its an active rejection of the possibility that God exists. |
It appears youâre having the same problem as theSaj. As you will see, the two sentences that youâve written are somewhat in conflict with each other. In the first sentence youâve provided contains a duel definition: an Atheist is âone who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.â But if you break the dual definition down into its separation definitions, you get âan atheist is one who disbelieves in the existence of God or godsâ and âan atheist is one who denies the existence of God or gods.â Then you proceed to the second sentence as if the first and second definition were the second definition, thus equating denial with disbelief. Denial and disbelief are two different concepts.
Disbelief in the existence of gods is not an active rejection of the possibility the existence of gods. Gods may exist, but I donât believe they do. Invisible teapots may be floating in orbit around Saturn, but I don't believe they do either.
Originally posted by ScottK:
A position that takes every bit as much faith as (and arguable more than) Christianity. After all, you can't prove something doesn't exist. |
It takes no faith not to believe something. After all, faith is belief despite evidence. (Before you respond to this sentence, please see the following reply.)
Originally posted by ScottK:
You can only postulate from lack of measurable evidence. There is, on the other hand, an increadible amount of evidence to support God's existence, if you are willing to see it. |
I think we can agree that we disagree on what constitutes evidence.
P.S.: theSaj, I havenât forgotten about you. My internet access is down at home and wonât be fixed until tomorrow. I have internet access at work, but, as Iâm sure youâll understand, I try to avoid writing/posting lengthy replies on company time. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 01:08:47 PM · #414 |
Originally posted by rgo:
I love it when bigots use "god" to justify why they're bigotted. It's like saying: "It's not our fault we're hateful, spiteful people, because there is this other thing that tells us it's OK to be hateful and spiteful." |
I love it when bigots hide behind indirect comments to practice their bigottry without having to defend themselves.
Could you please point out where you think I've been hateful or spiteful? If I have come across that way, then I'd certainly like to either have the opportunity to clarify, since I may not have explained myself properly (or you may have misread), or to appologize, since in the heat of the debate, I may have said something inappropriate. (Obviously, I can't speak for postings by others.)
I would, however, contend that those purporting to believe in the religion of "tolerance" have been the most hateful and spiteful in this particular thread. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 01:09:21 PM · #415 |
Originally posted by rgo:
I love it when bigots use "god" to justify why they're bigotted. It's like saying: "It's not our fault we're hateful, spiteful people, because there is this other thing that tells us it's OK to be hateful and spiteful." |
Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Intolerant - Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background. .Unable or unwilling to endure or support.
At first I took offense to this post, but then I thought about it some more and decided to do a little research. I am strongly partial to Christianity and only partially intolerant. Only when it infringes on my rights as a US Citizen . I would agree that I am partially bigotted based on this definition alone. I don't find any shame in being passionate about my beliefs based on facts. I am definitely not hateful and spite at least not any more than the next person, but even when I am it is not because I feel justified to do by the Bible or God. I am only hateful and spiteful when I turn against what I am taught by my God and his Word. I think your confused on the facts, which makes it easier to understand why you think their is logic in your post.
Message edited by author 2005-11-11 13:43:08.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 01:17:57 PM · #416 |
The concept of "faith" is interesting. It can be (and has been) argued that IF we were able to "prove" the existence of God, then religion would cease to exist. Religion is an act of faith, and in a religious context "faith" is defined as "belief without proof", basically.
I always shake my head at attempts to prove (or disprove) the existence of God. If S/He were knowable, S/He wouldn't be God. And, in any event, it is not logically possible to prove a negative. One may say one has observed no evidence that God exists, but that is as far as it is possible to take it, proof-wise.
In any event, denying the existence of God is an issue of belief, not faith, and they are not the same thing. In the sense that we are discussing it here (and I admit it's a limited sense) "faith" is a positive. One does not "have faith" that one will die; one knows, one believes, that death comes to us all. Faith is reserved for the unknowable; absent proof, I must have faith or I must opt out of beleiving in God.
This is the essence of the religious state of mind, actually. To remain steadfast in one's faith.
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 01:22:20 PM · #417 |
"Bigotry" in the sense that we are using it here can be defined as "intolerance that cannot be affected by reasoned argument", basically. Bigotry is intolerance carried to extremes.
I can't offhand recall any post to this thread that I would hold up as an example of bigotry.
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 01:29:38 PM · #418 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
"Bigotry" in the sense that we are using it here can be defined as "intolerance that cannot be affected by reasoned argument", basically. Bigotry is intolerance carried to extremes.
I can't offhand recall any post to this thread that I would hold up as an example of bigotry.
Robt. |
Based on your definition I am definitely not a bigot. I keep waiting for the day someone can prove to me that God didn't create the world, that a living cell can create something greater than itself, that we are actually in control of our bodily functions (I can't remember a time someone told their stomach to digest and it did, their heart to stop beating and so on), to show me an error in the Bible. When we can explain our existence outside of God I am willing to listen. No one has been able to do that in the history of the world.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 01:40:00 PM · #419 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
Originally posted by bear_music:
"Bigotry" in the sense that we are using it here can be defined as "intolerance that cannot be affected by reasoned argument", basically. Bigotry is intolerance carried to extremes.
I can't offhand recall any post to this thread that I would hold up as an example of bigotry.
Robt. |
Based on your definition I am definitely not a bigot. I keep waiting for the day someone can prove to me that God didn't create the world, that a living cell can create something greater than itself, that we are actually in control of our bodily functions (I can't remember a time someone told their stomach to digest and it did, their heart to stop beating and so on), to show me an error in the Bible. When we can explain our existence outside of God I am willing to listen. No one has been able to do that in the history of the world. |
Agreed; I have seen nothign you have said that would cause me even to WONDER if you are a bigot. I believe the term is thrown around WAY too loosely, and that's a shame. It's actually a highly offensive term. It should be reserved for highly offensive people.
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 01:45:22 PM · #420 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by ScottK:
You're correct, Hookie. The definition of an Atheist is "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". Its an active rejection of the possibility that God exists. |
It appears youâre having the same problem as theSaj. As you will see, the two sentences that youâve written are somewhat in conflict with each other. In the first sentence youâve provided contains a duel definition: an Atheist is âone who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.â But if you break the dual definition down into its separation definitions, you get âan atheist is one who disbelieves in the existence of God or godsâ and âan atheist is one who denies the existence of God or gods.â Then you proceed to the second sentence as if the first and second definition were the second definition, thus equating denial with disbelief. Denial and disbelief are two different concepts.
Disbelief in the existence of gods is not an active rejection of the possibility the existence of gods. Gods may exist, but I donât believe they do. Invisible teapots may be floating in orbit around Saturn, but I don't believe they do either. |
Well, now, I'm going to have to bring back that pesky little dictionary:
Disbelieve - To refuse to believe in; reject.
Therefore, disbelief is, in fact, an active rejection, which I did consider in interpreting the definition for "atheist".
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by ScottK:
A position that takes every bit as much faith as (and arguable more than) Christianity. After all, you can't prove something doesn't exist. |
It takes no faith not to believe something. After all, faith is belief despite evidence. (Before you respond to this sentence, please see the following reply.) |
I think the sixth definition for "faith" at dictionary.com - a set of principles or beliefs - best fits what I'm stating here. The athiest's belief set includes the belief that there is no god (or gods if you like). By principle, they refuse to believe in, and reject the concept of, any god.
As far as proving a negative, this is a fairly common concept, described here.
Though I think we're veering yet farther off the original point. The contention was that you, based on your comments, are not an atheist, but an agnostic - a) one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God, or b) one who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
Oh, but you did profess to be an atheist. Just not "true atheism". Hmmm. You're beliefs seem to be at odds with the atheist faith you profess. Maybe its time to rethink your faith. :)
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by ScottK:
You can only postulate from lack of measurable evidence. There is, on the other hand, an increadible amount of evidence to support God's existence, if you are willing to see it. |
I think we can agree that we disagree on what constitutes evidence. |
Agreed. :)
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 02:01:10 PM · #421 |
| Robert: Though we disagree on some things, you are a reasoned and thoughtful man and I respect and admire that. Though I can't respond at the moment (and maybe won't at all), I just wanted you to know I appreciate your last couple of posts in particular. Thanks. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 02:11:28 PM · #422 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
The definition of an Atheist is "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods". Its an active rejection of the possibility that God exists. |
I don't believe in gnomes, fire-breathing dragons or Zeus, but that doesn't necessarily mean I actively reject the possibility or profess proof of their non-existence. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 02:11:46 PM · #423 |
| ScottK, I think we might also be able agree that we define things differently and that an "argument via definition" would not only be time consuming, it would likely prove fruitless. Till another future item causes us to cross paths, have a good day. :) |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 02:51:30 PM · #424 |
ScottK and milo655321, how about Nikon vs. Canon? That's a sure fire way to continue this discussion!
Or, how about ZX Spectrum Vs. Commodore 64? How nasty these discussions used to be... I long for those days.
back to work... and then commenting & voting.
Cheers y'all. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 02:58:19 PM · #425 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
ScottK and milo655321, how about Nikon vs. Canon? That's a sure fire way to continue this discussion!
Or, how about ZX Spectrum Vs. Commodore 64? How nasty these discussions used to be... I long for those days.
back to work... and then commenting & voting.
Cheers y'all. |
LOL
Admit it. You used to pull the wings off of flies, didn't you? :P |
|
