A Spy's Favourite Way To Give Presents...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Are Atheists Evil?
134 Answers
A few years ago God was very much part of the lives of people. Even if one had doubts they were kept to oneself. Today there is almost as much pressure not to believe in God as there was to believe in him.
Is what is happening in the world today a result of man's trying to get along without God?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by idiosyncrasy. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Jim, //A prophecy is any prediction of the future whether or not it's wrong or open to interpretation.//
A prophecy is, indeed, a prediction of the future, but if the prediction fails, then the ‘prophesy’ is void. Sanctioning ‘interpretation’ moves the goalposts, allowing room for unlimited manoeuvre – as in this case, where in an effort to make what has clearly proven to be wrong appear to be right, the boundaries have been extended to ridiculously unrelated lengths. That is disingenuous – but where religion is concerned, there’s nothing new in that. It’s accustomed to reinterpreting to suit – it has always done it. However, ultimately, wanting it to be so doesn’t make it so.
//stop jumping all over me.//
I’m responding to the comments you’re posting to me. If you don’t want me to do that, don’t post to me. Make your mind up! Just a few days ago, you complained that I was ignoring you!
A prophecy is, indeed, a prediction of the future, but if the prediction fails, then the ‘prophesy’ is void. Sanctioning ‘interpretation’ moves the goalposts, allowing room for unlimited manoeuvre – as in this case, where in an effort to make what has clearly proven to be wrong appear to be right, the boundaries have been extended to ridiculously unrelated lengths. That is disingenuous – but where religion is concerned, there’s nothing new in that. It’s accustomed to reinterpreting to suit – it has always done it. However, ultimately, wanting it to be so doesn’t make it so.
//stop jumping all over me.//
I’m responding to the comments you’re posting to me. If you don’t want me to do that, don’t post to me. Make your mind up! Just a few days ago, you complained that I was ignoring you!
Yes, but there's a difference between responding and between attempting to contradict just about every point I put up. Whether or not you are right. In this case, you're technically wrong on grounds of definition (remember quoting the dictionary definition of omni-whatever? Check the prophecy one). Please can you stop preaching to the converted. I offered a balanced assessment of Christian attempts to reconcile tricky verses with their faith, concluded that in my opinion they weren't really viable -- and you still find something to disagree with me about!
It's ridiculous. I'm trying to bring a degree of calm, respectful debate to this subject and there is fundamentally no reason why that is a bad thing. It's far better than just quoting Bible verses, which non-believers have done for centuries without really convincing anyone, and then adding a sort of between-the-lines "HA! Take that!"
Through the ages people far more intelligent than I am have read this material and have come to different conclusions. Whether or not that is just twisting those conclusions to suit their faith, we should look at and examine their reasoning as dispassionately as possible before deciding what to make of it. Otherwise we'd be as guilty as they are of reading what we want to read. If you read the Bible expecting to find evidence of God, you'll find that. If you read the Bible expecting to find evidence that God does not exist, or is simply nasty, you'll find that too. The starting position should be as neutral as possible.
I believe that you used to be a Christian, or were brought up in the faith, before turning away, so you may already have made this journey. I don't expect that it was easy for you do leave behind a big part of your life, I may be wrong though. I'm making that same journey at the moment, and am trying to make sure I'm heading in the right direction. Let me do that as calmly and respectfully as possible to those I am leaving behind.
It's ridiculous. I'm trying to bring a degree of calm, respectful debate to this subject and there is fundamentally no reason why that is a bad thing. It's far better than just quoting Bible verses, which non-believers have done for centuries without really convincing anyone, and then adding a sort of between-the-lines "HA! Take that!"
Through the ages people far more intelligent than I am have read this material and have come to different conclusions. Whether or not that is just twisting those conclusions to suit their faith, we should look at and examine their reasoning as dispassionately as possible before deciding what to make of it. Otherwise we'd be as guilty as they are of reading what we want to read. If you read the Bible expecting to find evidence of God, you'll find that. If you read the Bible expecting to find evidence that God does not exist, or is simply nasty, you'll find that too. The starting position should be as neutral as possible.
I believe that you used to be a Christian, or were brought up in the faith, before turning away, so you may already have made this journey. I don't expect that it was easy for you do leave behind a big part of your life, I may be wrong though. I'm making that same journey at the moment, and am trying to make sure I'm heading in the right direction. Let me do that as calmly and respectfully as possible to those I am leaving behind.
Jim, I can’t say I understand where that came from - I’m just answering your posts – but if you think disagreeing with you is disrespectful I can’t say I agree with that either. However, it is not my intention to impede you in any way and therefore, since my responses appear to upset you so much, I can only suggest you stop addressing your posts to me and talk to someone you feel more comfortable with. I wish you well on your journey.
Don't be too surprised. I'm not sure I've made a point yet that you haven't found some way to challenge. There's a limit to how long that can go on before I just get irritated. In this case it seemed particularly ridiculous because I ended up agreeing with you but just took a measured route to get there.
I don't want you, or anyone else, to stop disagreeing with me if I have to be challenged. I'd just kind of like it if at least some of the time you agreed with me. This seemed like it should have been one of those times, really.
I don't want you, or anyone else, to stop disagreeing with me if I have to be challenged. I'd just kind of like it if at least some of the time you agreed with me. This seemed like it should have been one of those times, really.
And herein lies the problem. That things are rational or not, valid or not, by your own standards and no-one else's. And of course, mine in turn.
There is too much scope for opinion in matters like this for anyone to be so dogmatic about what should count as rational or not. I am rationally irritated, in my opinion, for seemingly never being able to make a point that you find to be satisfactory -- whether or not it is in agreement with your own views. If I criticise your point I am being close-minded; if I try to find some middle ground I am being "not atheist enough" (What does that even mean?) and if I support but only after some thought I'm not being dismissive enough, apparently.
Incidentally, saying "Bye bye" is patronising and now I do have a rational reason to be irritated.
I hope one of these days I might be able to make a point that you don't find fault with. I hope, when I manage that, that it's also a reasonable and fair point.
There is too much scope for opinion in matters like this for anyone to be so dogmatic about what should count as rational or not. I am rationally irritated, in my opinion, for seemingly never being able to make a point that you find to be satisfactory -- whether or not it is in agreement with your own views. If I criticise your point I am being close-minded; if I try to find some middle ground I am being "not atheist enough" (What does that even mean?) and if I support but only after some thought I'm not being dismissive enough, apparently.
Incidentally, saying "Bye bye" is patronising and now I do have a rational reason to be irritated.
I hope one of these days I might be able to make a point that you don't find fault with. I hope, when I manage that, that it's also a reasonable and fair point.
Jim, you’re making it up.
//"not atheist enough" (What does that even mean?)//
I’ve no idea. I’ve never said it.
//I'm not being dismissive enough, apparently.//
I’ve never said that either.
My faults, in your opinion, appear to be great indeed, but now, if you stop posting to me as I’ve requested, at least the blame for the problems you’re experiencing with your on-going irritability cannot in future be levelled in this direction. That’s rational.
//"not atheist enough" (What does that even mean?)//
I’ve no idea. I’ve never said it.
//I'm not being dismissive enough, apparently.//
I’ve never said that either.
My faults, in your opinion, appear to be great indeed, but now, if you stop posting to me as I’ve requested, at least the blame for the problems you’re experiencing with your on-going irritability cannot in future be levelled in this direction. That’s rational.
Jim, tryng to find a compromise between what is written in the bible and the world as most rational people understand it is not only a waste of energy and time but is also doomed to failure. Some of the writing may have a basis in actual historical events but it does not lend veracity to most of it which is either implausible, ridiculous or self contradictory. I think that pushing string or herding cats might be more rewarding. Reality cannot be altered to suit some ones feeling. ( if it could someone else would probably be upset). Reality is uncompromising, you just have to work around it.
Those who choose to believe in the arbitrary (for what ever 'reason') are demonstrating their disregard for the virtue of truth. Reality accepts no compromise between belief and the knowledge which justifies it.
The learning process begins with an assessment and determination of what you know and how you know it and builds on that foundation integrating the new with the old without contradiction at each step along the way with the refusal to deviate from an established certitude. The instant you begin believing for the sake of believing you depart from the path of objectivity only to be devoured in the uncharted forests of unreason waiting to swallow you at either side of the truth.
The learning process begins with an assessment and determination of what you know and how you know it and builds on that foundation integrating the new with the old without contradiction at each step along the way with the refusal to deviate from an established certitude. The instant you begin believing for the sake of believing you depart from the path of objectivity only to be devoured in the uncharted forests of unreason waiting to swallow you at either side of the truth.
