And what made *your* thoughts the standard?
Cheers!
Posted on 12/29/2011 1:01:09 PM PST by daletoons
Not at all. Your only frame of reference for goodness is God's Will. Unfortnately, none of you can agree on what is God's Will. For instance: in the Old Testament, God committed acts that we would generally consider Not Good. Wiping out whole communities, man, woman, and child, to give Canaan to the Israelites? Mass murder, even of children, in order to take their land, becomes "Good" if it was God's Will. Tsunamis and earthquakes and floods (oh, especially floods.) GOOD if it's God's will.
But then you get the theists arguing. Is cancer God's will? Some say yes. Some say no. Some say the Devil causes it, therefore it is bad. Others say "God takes us home" when he wants to, so it's wrong to even seek medical intervention. And of course, a whole range of thought in between. This is far shakier ground to stand on than anything I use to judge.
Really, if theism were so clear and comforting, you wouldn't have religious wars at all, especially between members of the same religion. I mean, people have been beheaded over transubstantiation. So theists may "know" what is right, but if one theist "knows" one thing and another theist "knows" another, you better hope neither of them has a weapon.
And he was rude -- and condescending -- beginning with his first post.
Did you notice that he signed up *yesterday* and his first post was on this thread?
And when pressed, he admitted to having surfed over from an atheist site, explicitly to help because you were getting your ass kicked.
He included the link you know, and anyone is free to follow through and read the thread over there.
And then he compounded the error by lying through his teeth about "350,000 atheists, free-thinkers, etc." laughing: when I checked the thread around midnight last night, there were *37* comments -- participation rate of one one-hundredth of one percent, *if* his original claim were true.
In other words, he came in as a n00b, swaggered around as though he owned the place, and got the ZOT.
But life has always been tough for the Prometheans, hasn't it?
I'll send more liver.
Cheers!
No, the way I explained it was perfectly sufficient. You just can’t accept it because the only way to argue, for you, is to try first and place both sides on an equal footing. But they are not equal. One side has a whole belief system, complete with characters, stories, rules, laws, proverbs, prophecies, a history, a projected future, a homeland, everything. The other side just says “I don’t believe that.”
Actually, it is a belief system, just one which is too dishonest to own up to its own axioms (as axioms) much of the time: preferring instead to characterize them as "conclusions," thereby rendering atheism as the single largest case of cosmological solipsism ever seen.
cf for example Sagan's "The Cosmos...is all there is, all there was, all there will ever be. Billion billion billion." Dave Barry on Carl Sagan
Incidentally, one of the favorite games atheists play is to say to a Christian, "You and I are alike; I just believe in one fewer gods than you."
Which is exactly like a spinster saying to a married woman, "We're just alike; I'm just married to one less man than you."
FAIL.
Cheers!
That's nice. I don't tend to reference other people. I'd rather just think for myself. I will admit I read Ayn Rand and the transcendentalists, but I don't have anything memorized from them, and they themselves aren't very compatible. I don't consider them mentors or someone to reference in a debate. I just think of them as people who sometimes thought some of the same things I have.
Along those lines...up to the creation of man God was saying “let there be or Let the Earth bring forth”.....yet when it came to man...God’s language changes..”Let us CREATE man in our image and likeness” The Genesis describes the intimate direct action of God in creating man.
Cheers!
You seem to have made a perfectly fine belief system for yourself, explaining it away by the use of prefixes, and you just can't accept that's all you've done.
You really should be able to do better if you're going to appoint yourself as the spokesperson of all logic.
So you have chosen John Wither over Augustus Frost.
BTW, why the importance of laundry, or yourself, if you're just worm chow anyway?
Yes, you have the felt intention to do things, but which should that have any influence on your actions?
(Shades of Sartre's Nausea...)
Cheers!
Okay, describe my belief system for me. Go ahead. Tell me the stories, name the characters, tell me the political stance that goes with it... and mind you, don’t tell me what YOU believe. Tell me what *I* believe. If you’re right, I’ll let you know.
Good luck on keeping up with the literary allusions.
Cheers!
All you have to do is say the obvious, your first sentence about belief and non belief was silly, obviously short sighted and ill thought out.
It's okay, I've done that lots of times too. Most times I own up to it though.
If you want to tell me about your "beliefs", I have no problem with that. Don't hit on me in Freepmail though....
Okay, okay, it was a joke.....
Does God (as God) ever have the right to kill people?
If not, by what rule do YOU pronounce this, since on the atheist paradigm, all morality is subjective; and further, the universe as a whole (via Thermodynamics) is trending toward the ultimate eternal extinction of all life whatsoever...
Cheers!
If the existence of a God(s) can not be proven on disproven then all opinions about His existence or non-existence must be based upon belief.
All sentient beings have a religious worldview: godless or God-centered. Neither of these worldviews is religiously neutral in political and cultural content or consequences.
How could it possibly be otherwise?
It is for this major reason ( among others) that I object to government funding of schooling or scientific research. The only exception that I would make ( that is also constitutionally compatible) would be for research that is **directly* and immediately related to military defense.
And what made *your* thoughts the standard?
Cheers!
Which is why you can't tell me what I believe. I don't blame you for not trying. You can't describe what is not there.
I started with your own sentence, asked you to prove it, and so far you just keep moving the goal posts around without showing us why your "unbeliefs" are really not simply your beliefs.
I'm sticking with my challenge to you, and honestly you should be able to do better than what you're doing if you are the logician you claim to be.
I never claimed any such status, but my first sentence stands as it is: a true statement that you simply refuse to accept because it’s not advantageous.
He ignored a lot of the questions.
And he was rude — and condescending — beginning with his first post.
Did you notice that he signed up *yesterday* and his first post was on this thread?
And when pressed, he admitted to having surfed over from an atheist site, explicitly to help because you were getting your ass kicked.
He included the link you know, and anyone is free to follow through and read the thread over there.
And then he compounded the error by lying through his teeth about “350,000 atheists, free-thinkers, etc.” laughing: when I checked the thread around midnight last night, there were *37* comments — participation rate of one one-hundredth of one percent, *if* his original claim were true.
In other words, he came in as a n00b, swaggered around as though he owned the place, and got the ZOT.
****************************************************************************
You’re right at that. And just how did he know she was getting her ass kicked? Must have been watching or something.
He got the zot...
Such is the life of trolls. Or retreads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.