mur'phon Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 with people choosing not to believe something due to insufficient information. But saying, I don't have sufficient info to demonstrate the existence of X (gods, ghosts, bigfoot, ufos, etc), therefore I have no reason to believe in them is not the same as saying they don't exist. And? As far as I know both me and Achilles belong in the former category, y'know those you don't have a problem with:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted July 10, 2008 Author Share Posted July 10, 2008 For myself, I'm not open minded in the fact I need physical proof of existence. If I didn't need physical proof I would have to accept all religions as being true and the probability of all of them being accurate is 0. So, until there is physical proof of the existence of any god (even the ones the built the pyramids ) I'm going to be skeptical, so much for being open minded I guess...Wow, you're much more demanding than I am. I'm perfectly willing to accept a logical argument for the existence of a deity or deities. Physical proof certainly would cut right to the chase, but I, personally, don't consider it a requirement for belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 And? As far as I know both me and Achilles belong in the former category' date=' y'know those you don't have a problem with:D[/quote'] I'd agree that you certainly seem to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinchyB Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 I'm perfectly willing to accept a logical argument for the existence of a deity or deities. Well what would constitute a valid logical argument though? In all honesty, when it comes to religion, I'm not sure a logical argument exists. IMO, the only reason people have faith is because they don't have facts. If you had facts you wouldn't need faith as the answer would be right in front of you. And truly the only thing religion is there for is so that people can cling to the idea that there is some meaning and purpose to our existence. For example, the idea of there being nothing once you die (just emptiness) scares people and forces them to believe that maybe, just maybe, there is "life" after death. But in order to believe this you have to put all critical thinking to the side and just "believe" or have "faith". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted July 10, 2008 Author Share Posted July 10, 2008 Well what would constitute a valid logical argument though? I guess I'll know it when I see it. In all honesty, when it comes to religion, I'm not sure a logical argument exists. I would tend to agree. Can't rule it out though. IMO, the only reason people have faith is because they don't have facts. If you had facts you wouldn't need faith as the answer would be right in front of you.Err... I think I would disagree that this is the true for a lot of cases. Faith is maintaining belief even when the facts contradict that belief (i.e. "faith" is placing a greater value on belief than facts or reason). I think many people (especially educated people) know what the facts are, they just choose not to accept them. And truly the only thing religion is there for is so that people can cling to the idea that there is some meaning and purpose to our existence. If you mean "inherent meaning and purpose" then I would probably agree with part of this. Life has as much (or as little) "meaning and purpose" as we choose to give it. We don't need religion to have them. And on the other side of the coin, don't forget that religion can also be used to establish power and control. For example, the idea of there being nothing once you die (just emptiness) scares people and forces them to believe that maybe, just maybe, there is "life" after death. But in order to believe this you have to put all critical thinking to the side and just "believe" or have "faith".Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinchyB Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 I would tend to agree. Can't rule it out though. You do have a point here. It would tend to go against my thinking that anything is possible as well now that I think about it, so I definitely concede this point. If you mean "inherent meaning and purpose" then I would probably agree with part of this. Life has as much (or as little) "meaning and purpose" as we choose to give it. We don't need religion to have them. Yup, I did. And on the other side of the coin, don't forget that religion can also be used to establish power and control. So true...look at Tom Cruise... :¬: ---- Grammar edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted July 10, 2008 Author Share Posted July 10, 2008 So true...look at Tom Cruise... I was thinking pointier hats, but okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 I guess I'll know it when I see it. One wonders that if a person can't come up with a logical argument (or example, definition..) on their own, how much stock can be put in their ability to recognize one if/when they see it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Frankly, I think I've spent the better part of a year trying to get you to answer that one for me. You've spent the better part of the year responding to my thoughts on religion with sarcasm. I don't want to deal with the sarcasm, and the easiest way to do that is to just walk away from the conversation when it gets heated, whether it's religion, WTC, or any other thread. Sarcasm is rude, and I'm tired of being on the receiving end all the time. It's pretty clear that you posting without sarcasm on any religious topic is never going to happen, so it's pretty clear you and I shouldn't discuss that topic. I'll be happy to discuss religion with anyone else who's willing to share their viewpoints with civility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 You've spent the better part of the year responding to my thoughts on religion with sarcasm. I don't want to deal with the sarcasm, and the easiest way to do that is to just walk away from the conversation when it gets heated, whether it's religion, WTC, or any other thread. Sarcasm is rude, and I'm tired of being on the receiving end all the time. It's pretty clear that you posting without sarcasm on any religious topic is never going to happen, so it's pretty clear you and I shouldn't discuss that topic. I'll be happy to discuss religion with anyone else who's willing to share their viewpoints with civility. Why do I get the feeling that my pointing out your hypocrisy here is probably going to result in a flag while your lack of civility is going to be ignored? Did you really need to bump the thread after it had been dormant for two weeks just to say something that probably should have been a PM? If you're looking for the last word, just say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Why do I get the feeling that my pointing out your hypocrisy here is probably going to result in a flag while your lack of civility is going to be ignored? Did you really need to bump the thread after it had been dormant for two weeks just to say something that probably should have been a PM? If you're looking for the last word, just say so. The irony here is rich. You suggest Jae should have said something like that via PM and then proceed to try to get the last word "publicly" in a fit of your own hypocrisy. Almost epic in its presumption. Seems this also highlights part of the reason that our mothers (figuratively speaking) warn us about discussing politics and religion (among other things) w/others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyuuKage Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Note: frankly, I think the headline is a bit of a herring, considering that the article itself points out that this is merely just another piece of evidence for an existing argument. Anyway... Link to full article Not just Jewish tradition, but almost every pagan religion as well. Skipping ahead: Like the book of Isaiah? I also thought that the last couple of paragraph were particularly interesting: um...lol? this is hardly new. Judaism has all sorts of prophecies concerning the messaiah, they knew all this stuff already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 You've spent the better part of the year responding to my thoughts on religion with sarcasm. I don't want to deal with the sarcasm, and the easiest way to do that is to just walk away from the conversation when it gets heated, whether it's religion, WTC, or any other thread. Sarcasm is rude, and I'm tired of being on the receiving end all the time. It's pretty clear that you posting without sarcasm on any religious topic is never going to happen, so it's pretty clear you and I shouldn't discuss that topic. I'll be happy to discuss religion with anyone else who's willing to share their viewpoints with civility. Why do I get the feeling that my pointing out your hypocrisy here is probably going to result in a flag while your lack of civility is going to be ignored? Did you really need to bump the thread after it had been dormant for two weeks just to say something that probably should have been a PM? If you're looking for the last word, just say so. <cue ominous timpani drumroll> The irony here is rich. You suggest Jae should have said something like that via PM and then proceed to try to get the last word "publicly" in a fit of your own hypocrisy. Almost epic in its presumption.Now it's my turn: QFT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 Judaism has all sorts of prophecies concerning the messaiah, they knew all this stuff already.Specifically that he would suffer as a martyr? All the books I've read that make reference to jewish messianic prophecy indicate that they were expecting a grand, temporal king ala Solomon, not someone of low birth that would be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Why do I get the feeling that my pointing out your hypocrisy here is probably going to result in a flag while your lack of civility is going to be ignored? Did you really need to bump the thread after it had been dormant for two weeks just to say something that probably should have been a PM? If you're looking for the last word, just say so. You get mad at me if I don't answer you, and then you get mad at me when I do, even if it's late. What do you want? Do you honestly blame me for not wanting to have a PM exchange with you after the PMs I received in January? Yes, I can forgive that and said so long ago. However, it would be wise if we didn't put ourselves in the position where that kind of thing could be repeated. @RyuuKage--Yep, Isaiah went into some detail on this, and said several hundred years before those tablets that Christ would be crucified. The Jews of Christ's day were expecting a political Messiah to redeem them, when the Old Testament's theme was always about a Messiah who would redeem the Jews to God rather than a political entity. So no, it doesn't surprise me either to see a reiteration of themes found in Isaiah written on some tablets. I feel like that's their equivalent of today's Bible commentaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted July 26, 2008 Author Share Posted July 26, 2008 You get mad at me if I don't answer you, and then you get mad at me when I do, even if it's late. What do you want? I think that it would be significantly easier for me to accept this had you actually posted to respond to some part of my point. You ignored several relevant questions and arguments and instead decided to respond to one single sentence from a post that I submitted 17 days ago with personal commentary that is in no way relevant to the discussion. Since you chose not to respond with anything constructive, I'm not going to be able to accept that you posted in the spirit of a dialog in good faith. Do you honestly blame me for not wanting to have a PM exchange with you after the PMs I received in January? Yes, I can forgive that and said so long ago. However, it would be wise if we didn't put ourselves in the position where that kind of thing could be repeated.I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Either your post was appropriate for this thread or it should have been a PM. If it's appropriate for this thread, then by all means, let's continue this discussion. Otherwise, I'm not sure how your concerns have anything to do with the inappropriateness of your post. If your intention was to respond to my post in good faith, then you should have responded to the whole thing. If your intention was to vent your personal frustrations with how you perceive my tone, then it should have been a PM. So with that said, I hope you'll understand if I find there to be very little consistency in your message. Thanks for reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 The discussion bifurcated to this particular topic. I addressed the points I wanted to address from your post. The rest I either didn't think needed further discussion, were addressed adequately by others, or were straying into the sarcasm realm where I don't want to go. There's nothing to be discussed in PMs that can't be discussed here or in other threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.