Atheists and theists are the same.

[Rich]

Why are you getting so bent out-of-shape?

I'm not bent out of shape but what get's my goat is when bible punchers come on here and claim somehow to be superior to those of us would rather give all their love to their own family rather than some mythical being/force, after all that's why my parents created me. As for Jesus the same claims would be made for Ghandi and passed down through folklore if it were not for modern media recording the actual events

 

[laxster]

I'm not bent out of shape but what get's my goat is when bible punchers come on here and claim somehow to be superior to those of us would rather give all their love to their own family rather than some mythical being/force, after all that's why my parents created me. As for Jesus the same claims would be made for Ghandi and passed down through folklore if it were not for modern media recording the actual events

I never claimed superiority in any sense, and certainly don't think my thought process is superior compared to anyone else's. I simply didn't see logic in an athiest's argument that a supreme force isn't necessary. It's still difficult to wrap my mind around... but it is based on valid logical reasoning, nonetheless.

Thanks to Rabbie I can see how an atheist comes to believe what he or she believes. It doesn't necessarily change my viewpoint on there being a deity that I'm unable to directly sense with my 5 senses, but then again, I can't directly sense radio waves, but I also accept their existence. And prior to 1895 no one could intercept or transmit radio waves. Does that mean prior to 1895 they didn't exist?

I just get tired of strawman arguments or accusations of what someone believes as being "mythical", which is a loaded word implying that someone else's belief is false. How can any of us be so presumptious to know what the Truth is? We are only able to scratch at the surface through a combination of Science and Theology. They both have always sought to truly probe the deeper meanings behind life and what our existence is all about.

It's just tragic that some view it necessary to kill over their beliefs. But it's not a belief in God which starts wars, it's people's interpretations that start wars. All modern democracies have been born ofalse ut of conflict, turmoil, and war, but that doesn't mean I'm going to say that I don't believe in democracy because they've always involved people dying for a "greater cause".

As far as loving family vs. loving God, I view it all the same. My own belief is that God exists (if anyone was in doubt about that) and that everything on Earth is a fragment of God. Therefore, there isn't any difference to me between loving my family and loving God.

I get frustrated when people don't stop to change their own paradigm for a moment. When discussing topics such as this, it's absolutely imperative to modify our paradigms to truly understand what the other person means.

I think it was Descartes who when asked by Napoleon why there was no reference to God in his theory of the universe replied that he had no need of that hypothesis.

Couldn't have been Napoleon and Descartes, their lives didn't overlap, and Descartes believed God "set the universe in motion". But point taken. (I am curious who said that now!)

 

[Rabbie]

Couldn't have been Napoleon and Descartes, their lives didn't overlap, and Descartes believed God "set the universe in motion". But point taken. (I am curious who said that now!)

I am on holiday this week without access to the book where I found the quote but I will look it up when I get back home.

 

[Adam Caramon]

What is wrong about listening to someone else, questioning them, and trying to understand what they are about before speaking? Why is it so much easier to talk than it is to listen?

Aside from the most obvious reason that 1 person has to start talking first? If there are 2 people in a conversation, A and B, and both "seek to understand before being understood", then they don't communicate with one another.

This quote implies submitting to some authority figure and understanding what they are telling you before trying to communicate yourself.

Just because I can't prove miracles that occured a long time ago doesn't mean that they didn't happen. I can't prove they happened, but you can't prove they didn't happen.

This is a very old argument that is readily ignored by educated and/or intelligent people. I can claim numerous things happened that you will not be able to disprove, does that mean they should have any credence in society?

As an example, how do you know that I am not your God? I could be sitting in Heaven typing this on my laptop made of fluffy clouds. Or I could have divinely inspired a mortal vessel on earth to carry out My word.

Do you believe me? Under your theory that you cannot disprove this, you must at least consider it.

 

[Rabbie]

It's the only "sticking point" of any value. Fervor is what you say you abhor.

Yet you seemed to have taken the one thing from it that you despise and you emulated it.

I even gave you guys a dictionary definitions and you fervorently (just made up that word) denied it…

Just like the religious, fanatics that you are.

Don't get me wrong, I do not hold it against you. Some of my best friends are atheist.

Thales, you seem to assume that all atheists are the same which is self-evident nonsense. And as you believe that some of your best friends are atheists and are therefore doomed surely it is your duty as a Christian to convince them of the "error" of their ways

 

[Thales750]

Thales, you seem to assume that all atheists are the same which is self-evident nonsense. And as you believe that some of your best friends are atheists and are therefore doomed surely it is your duty as a Christian to convince them of the "error" of their ways

Have you noticed a propensity on my part to convert anyone?
I am extremely devout, but I’m not particularly religious. I leave converting to the fundamentalist religious nuts, whether they’re secular or otherwise.

 

[Thales750]

This is a very old argument that is readily ignored by educated and/or intelligent people.

Fundamentalist language spoke by an atheist.

You’re very words are religious. I really find it truly amazing that you refuse to believe you are a religious fanatic.

In order to see yourself you must look to see how you are perceived.
I’m sure Stalin found justification in his efforts to rid Russia of religious fanatics. 30 million of his own people to rid themselves of religion.
Ya’ll are correct as usual, only religious fanatics start wars or visit genocide on others.

 

[Rabbie]

Have you noticed a propensity on my part to convert anyone?

I haven't. That's my point. As a christian it is your duty to spread the gospel. If you are following the teachings of christianity you must have a duty to try to save people.

I am extremely devout, but I’m not particularly religious. I leave converting to the fundamentalist religious nuts, whether they’re secular or otherwise.

It seems you think only "religious nuts" want to convert people. Was St Paul a nut?

 

[Thales750]

I haven't. That's my point. As a christian it is your duty to spread the gospel. If you are following the teachings of christianity you must have a duty to try to save people.[/font][/color]
It seems you think only "religious nuts" want to convert people. Was St Paul a nut?

I don't know Rabbie, most likely not.

When I say religious nuts I am referring to Einstein’s definition.

“Doing something the same way over and over; and expecting different results.” Paraphrased of Course.

I tend to live my life as much like an example as I can. I’m not always good at it, but sometimes a rare spark will shine through and someone will be changed forever, not unlike most people, I imagine.

Anyone attempting to convert someone to their way of thinking, using a direct charge down the middle, had better be prepared for a struggle.

 

[laxster]

Aside from the most obvious reason that 1 person has to start talking first? If there are 2 people in a conversation, A and B, and both "seek to understand before being understood", then they don't communicate with one another.

This quote implies submitting to some authority figure and understanding what they are telling you before trying to communicate yourself.

Again, you are looking at it from your frame of reference instead of stepping back. I was a communications major from one of the Top 10 public universities in the USA, so I feel it's important to correct what you're saying. Attitude and behavior flow from our paradigms and how we see reality. When we have new information and try to make our only desire to be to understand, we have a paradigm shift in how we see an entire situation. It teaches you how to look at things differently.

You have a mental image of what you think Christianity is, what you think Religion is, or what you think is effective communication skills, but in reality, you're seeing the world as you are. You have assumptions of what reality is, and you think that's the way it really is. In fact, you are describing yourself and projecting your value system and worldview on those things. This hardly paints an accurate picture of the way things actually are.

This is a very old argument that is readily ignored by educated and/or intelligent people. I can claim numerous things happened that you will not be able to disprove, does that mean they should have any credence in society?

So basically, you're argument is "I'm right, you're wrong, but since I can't prove anything, I'm going to tell you what smart people think?"

Hmm, again, I graduated from one of the best public universities in the USA, and educated and intelligent people take all possibilities into account, and only after thinking them through do they pass judgment. If your goal is to seek out Truth, you would therefore only disregard things that are demonstrably False.

Educated and intelligent people develop theories and hypothesis, then test those theories and hypothesis. The scientific method. And the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven by the scientific method.

Unless, by your own example, you're insisting that educated and intelligent people should simply disregard the scientific method if they can't achieve the results they were looking for (in which case, then you aren't a truly educated person).

As an example, how do you know that I am not your God? I could be sitting in Heaven typing this on my laptop made of fluffy clouds. Or I could have divinely inspired a mortal vessel on earth to carry out My word.

Do you believe me? Under your theory that you cannot disprove this, you must at least consider it.

Well, you'd be correct in that I don't believe you. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. And interestingly enough, you provide an example of debate that goes back thousands of years. Many religions also refuse to believe that Jesus was the Son of God because he didn't fulfill certain prophecies (Jews), or because they believe God would never enter the world in human form (Muslims).

 

[Brianwarnock]

Gosh i don't know whether I dare argue with a person so well educated as you but what the heck here goes . You say

If your goal is to seek out Truth, you would therefore only disregard things that are demonstrably False.

But surely you should only accept what is demonstrably true.

Nobody in this world can prove there is a God.

Brian

 

[Adam Caramon]

In order to see yourself you must look to see how you are perceived.

Now that finally explains your rationale. You perceive atheists as religious, and so they are.

Again, you are looking at it from your frame of reference instead of stepping back. I was a communications major from one of the Top 10 public universities in the USA, so I feel it's important to correct what you're saying. Attitude and behavior flow from our paradigms and how we see reality. When we have new information and try to make our only desire to be to understand, we have a paradigm shift in how we see an entire situation. It teaches you how to look at things differently.

You have a mental image of what you think Christianity is, what you think Religion is, or what you think is effective communication skills, but in reality, you're seeing the world as you are. You have assumptions of what reality is, and you think that's the way it really is. In fact, you are describing yourself and projecting your value system and worldview on those things. This hardly paints an accurate picture of the way things actually are.

These two paragraphs are a great example of using a lot of words to say virtually nothing. Of course we all see things different, shouldn't that be self-evident? Of course we view the world and events through our own perception which is created by our experiences in life. Is that not obvious?

But interestingly, you completely dodged the question. So I'll posit it again just in case you happened to miss it:

If two people want to start a conversation, and the best way to communicate is to "seek to understand, then to be understood" who starts the conversation? And whoever it is, aren't they immediately not communicating in the best way?

So basically, you're argument is "I'm right, you're wrong, but since I can't prove anything, I'm going to tell you what smart people think?"

No, my argument is that when trying to prove something you don't start with any possibility that can't be disproved. You start with what is the most likely, and see if you can prove it to be so. If you cannot, you move on to the next most likely thing.

I don't know about you, but "God did it" is hardly the most likely explanation.

Well, you'd be correct in that I don't believe you. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

But why do you doubt it? You cannot disprove it, therefore you cannot rule it out. Just to be on the safe side you may want to avoid angering me, for I am a vengeful God.

 

[Thales750]

Now that finally explains your rationale. You perceive atheists as religious, and so they are.

You’re twisting words around to prove you are a clever debater.

I have many friends that are attorneys, so I’m used to that type of behavior.

I don’t debate for debating’s sake; I seek to see the world from an enlightened position.

Philosophical jibber jabber aside, I was making a reference to your lake of self awareness, not my erroneous perception of the world.

Once again you are telling me, I’m wrong.

Religious Fanaticism, run amuck!

The more you try to make this about me the more you prove you are not aware of your bias, and your burning desire to recreate the world to fit your image of it.

I noticed you ignored the post about Stalin.

 

[Rabbie]

I noticed you ignored the post about Stalin.

Stalin was an atheist in later life. As a youth he was educated at a seminary. Stalin persecuted people who were religious. Therefor all atheist perscute people who are religious. Clearly a false argument.

As Stalin drank vodka you could then say that all vodka drinkers persecute religious people.

Once again you lump all atheists under the same heading. I am sure that atheists have many different view points about religious people just as there are many different viewpoints among religious people. Even Christian sects seem unable to agree on many things to do with their faith

 

[laxster]

These two paragraphs are a great example of using a lot of words to say virtually nothing. Of course we all see things different, shouldn't that be self-evident? Of course we view the world and events through our own perception which is created by our experiences in life. Is that not obvious?

If it says nothing, you don't have a firm grasp on the understanding of the English language. What I'm saying has nothing to do with who initiates a conversation, but how to better have conversation. You already prove my point: you continue to presume that your viewpoint is the "correct" viewpoint based off of your experiences and your paradigm. You may have a completely different view if you were to see things from my paradigm, or at least better understand where we are coming from.

The most effective method of persuasion isn't to belittle someone, but rather to change their paradigm. To bring the person to the same side of the table, as opposed to be on opposite ends staring at each other.

No, my argument is that when trying to prove something you don't start with any possibility that can't be disproved. You start with what is the most likely, and see if you can prove it to be so. If you cannot, you move on to the next most likely thing.

How do you know what is the "most likely" when discussing abstract concepts? You have your theories, I have mine. Yours can't be proven, and neither can mine. That's simply the way it is, and your continued prattle over this shows quite a fervent zealotry.

I don't know about you, but "God did it" is hardly the most likely explanation.

Again, that's according to your paradigm. From my frame of reference, God is inately part of everything that is not separate. I do imagine it would be difficult for you to wrap your mind around something you don't believe in.

But regardless of what someone believes in, the scientific method of finding answers to questions is meant to keep these sorts of bias out. Truth should be proclaimed wherever Truth is found, even if it goes against what you previously thought to be true.

But why do you doubt it? You cannot disprove it, therefore you cannot rule it out. Just to be on the safe side you may want to avoid angering me, for I am a vengeful God.

I doubt that the platypus was created by a God who is solely vengeful. I think we have a very mirthy God!

Anyhow, I have no desire to engage with you anymore. It's apparent that you're not interested in a civil, open conversation and would prefer to belittle anyone who doesn't see things the way you do. You desire so desperately to be understood, and yet do everything to polarize people. If you can't see the profoundness of seeking to understand and then being understood, I have no further words for you.

A smart and intelligent person seeks to engage with a true open flow of information that goes back-and-forth in an empathic manner.

 

[Adam Caramon]

You’re twisting words around to prove you are a clever debater.

No twisting necessary, you do that all yourself. I might suggest taking more time in composing your posts, maybe you'll be more able to clearly state what you're trying to get across.

I don’t debate for debating’s sake; I seek to see the world from an enlightened position.

Meaning you want other people to tell you their opinions? You want to have an informed view of the world? Therefore; you care what other people think? Am I understanding you correctly?

I noticed you ignored the post about Stalin.

I quoted from that post, so how could I have ignored it? If you mean I didn't reply to your specific sentence about Stalin, I did not see how it connected with anything I was trying to say, and thus felt no need to respond.

 

[Adam Caramon]

If it says nothing, you don't have a firm grasp on the understanding of the English language.

The most effective method of persuasion isn't to belittle someone...

It seems you aren't following your own advise. In addition, you ignored the direct question once again, which I assume means you realize it has no merit.

I doubt that the platypus was created by a vengeful God. I think we have a very mirthy God!

But if you would see things from my paradigm, truly seek to understand before being understood, then you would see where I am coming from.

Anyhow, I have no desire to engage with you anymore.

That's unfortunate. I had high expectations out of you and your education in communications. If a trained professional such as yourself can't create a bridge between two opposing sides, I fear we are all doomed.

 

[Thales750]

Stalin was an atheist in later life. As a youth he was educated at a seminary. Stalin persecuted people who were religious. Therefor all atheist perscute people who are religious. Clearly a false argument.

As Stalin drank vodka you could then say that all vodka drinkers persecute religious people.

Once again you lump all atheists under the same heading. I am sure that atheists have many different view points about religious people just as there are many different viewpoints among religious people. Even Christian sects seem unable to agree on many things to do with their faith

Of course Rabbie.

Haven’t you noticed a pattern here?

I don’t give a damn about how anyone feels, and I am not trying to dissuade anyone or prove I’m right.

I am pointing out that the atheist on this site make comments about the aspects of religion (your definition) that are dark and ugly, then they turn around and act the same way and now in one breath you say religion has caused all the wars and in the next accuse me of “lumping”, when I bring up an example of more people being killed in one atheist crusade, then all of the “Holy” wars combined.

But atheists are not fanatics, and they don’t kill, and you guys aren’t holy rollers.

All I’ve done is accuse you of acting in a manor consistent with religious fanaticism and you respond by telling me how stupid I am to believe in God.

I am lumping now, I agree. But you have to admit there has been more and less of this by the local atheist priesthood, well maybe not priest, but certainly deacons.

 

[Rich]

But you have to admit there has been more and less of this by the local atheist priesthood, well maybe not priest, but certainly deacons.

Well I'm up for being de-frocked

 

[Rabbie]

Of course Rabbie.

Haven’t you noticed a pattern here?

I don’t give a damn about how anyone feels, and I am not trying to dissuade anyone or prove I’m right.

I am pointing out that the atheist on this site make comments about the aspects of religion (your definition) that are dark and ugly, then they turn around and act the same way and now in one breath you say religion has caused all the wars and in the next accuse me of “lumping”, when I bring up an example of more people being killed in one atheist crusade, then all of the “Holy” wars combined.

But atheists are not fanatics, and they don’t kill, and you guys aren’t holy rollers.

All I’ve done is accuse you of acting in a manor consistent with religious fanaticism and you respond by telling me how stupid I am to believe in God.

I am lumping now, I agree. But you have to admit there has been more and less of this by the local atheist priesthood, well maybe not priest, but certainly deacons.

Yes I have noticed a pattern in your posts. You don't seem to want to enter into a rational debate. Yes Stalin was an atheist but a large percentage of his victims were killed not because they had religious beliefs but because he tought they were plotting against him. Atheism/religion was not the main issue.

I never said you were stupid but I must admit to thhinking that perhaps I should revise that opinion. Not because of your beliefs but because of your way of debating.

Are you denying that 9/11 was not motivated by religious fanaticism. It is much easier to persuade people to become suicide bombers if you can promise them rewards in the afterlife. Much more difficult to persuade an atheist that there is an afterlife with or wthout rewards.