Christians showing love at Gay Pride [Archive]

smileyeagle1021

07-03-2010, 07:59 AM

it depends on whether it means they're accepting, or just that they want to get closer so as to have a better shot at "converting" people to heterosexuality.

I wondered the exact same thing. If they are on the level, then I'd say this is huge progress... but I can not get rid of that voice in the back of my head yelling TRAP. (eta- at least one of the comments confirms that I may not be wrong to have that ill ease... there is a guy on there talking about how the love of the church allowed him to overcome his homosexuality)

I ran into a group like that on BART who I think may have been legit. They asked my fiance and I where we were from, we answered Utah. They asked if we had been Mormon, I said yes, and that I had been excommunicated.
Their response, "we won't even try to apologize for Christianity. We know that with all you must have gone through (and they didnt' even know the whole story) that there is no way you can ever forgive the church in this lifetime and I doubt that Christ would expect you to"

fireheart17

07-03-2010, 09:45 AM

I wondered the exact same thing. If they are on the level, then I'd say this is huge progress... but I can not get rid of that voice in the back of my head yelling TRAP. (eta- at least one of the comments confirms that I may not be wrong to have that disease... there is a guy on there talking about how the love of the church allowed him to overcome his homosexuality)

That one comment disgusted me.

Hell, even in the UK they've now condemned all homosexual "conversion therapies" as unethical and ineffective. I'm betting that this guy went through one of those.

Ghel

07-04-2010, 01:48 PM

(eta- at least one of the comments confirms that I may not be wrong to have that ill ease... there is a guy on there talking about how the love of the church allowed him to overcome his homosexuality)

That was in the comments, though. I think the idea is good, overall.

I still have a problem with Christians proselytizing at parades, though, even if they're part of a liberal denomination that accepts homosexuals and homosexuality. It seems like they're saying "Was another church bigoted asshats to you? Still believe anyway? Come join us! We'll be nice!"

I can see the contrast that people make between them and the protesters.

Hobbs

07-04-2010, 04:45 PM

What's your problem with them, Ghel? Aren't they allowed the same free speech being exercised at the parades? Or is it different because they believe in God?

Kaylyn

07-04-2010, 08:47 PM

Agreed. I don't see a problem with that either. That's what evangelical Christians do: proselytize. Some may be more subtle than going door to door, but they are charged with spreading the word of God. What's wrong with them offering an option for those that still choose to believe in the Christian variation of God but feel they can't because of the way most denominations look upon homosexuality. To me it's no different than a church group setting up on any random street corner singing Christmas carols and offering invitations to their church to the general public.

The only thing I would have a problem with in this particular scenario is if, in fact, the group is actually saying, "Come to us and we'll cure you of that icky gayness." If all they're saying is, "We'll accept you where others have not; we want to show you that being Christian and gay are not mutually exclusive," then I am absolutely all for that.

HYHYBT

07-04-2010, 11:28 PM

It seems like they're saying "Was another church bigoted asshats to you? Still believe anyway? Come join us! We'll be nice!"
That would be a great thing to say (assuming they mean it) and very helpful for those of us who fit that description.

I'll tell you, though, what I'd *really* like to see. You know those stickers businesses put on their doors with credit card logos on them? "We accept VISA, etc." You actually don't see them as often now that virtually everyone takes plastic. I'd like to see churches use something similar; some kind of simple, widely-used mark on signs, websites, etc that means "we don't believe this is sin."

There probably are several such things, but they're not widely used, or at least not noticeable, even when they would be correct.

Wingates_Hellsing

07-04-2010, 11:41 PM

For some reason I find myself thinking of 'buddy christ'....

That said, 'tis a step in the right direction. Cupcakes for all:D!

Racket_Man

07-05-2010, 07:06 AM

Sure does seem wonderful, and I hate being negative about such things... Partly, though, it depends on whether it means they're accepting, or just that they want to get closer so as to have a better shot at "CURING" people OF homosexuality.

fixed your statement since a lot of times they still think it is a disease or some sort physical or psychological aliment

smileyeagle1021

07-05-2010, 08:33 AM

What's your problem with them, Ghel? Aren't they allowed the same free speech being exercised at the parades? Or is it different because they believe in God?

I can't speak for Ghel, but personally, as much as I think that they are a step in the right direction, I admit I would be slightly offended if I was there and there was a group of people were there saying "we're sorry that the church has shit on you, can we still be friends"
I pointed it out in the comments on that site that while they have good intention and deserve credit for extending an olive branch, Christianity has pushed so many gay people so far away that we couldn't even begin to come close to being able to grab onto that branch no matter how hard we try... and that those of us pushed that far aren't going to try.
Seeing someone who thinks that all they have to do is wave a sign saying "we aren't like them" and asking me to forgive what has happened to me, yeah, that's not going to happen... and I know that I'm lucky, I was only betrayed by the church (twice)... some people were quite literally TORTURED by the church (electroshock therapy was only one of the tools churches used to destroy the lives of homosexuals, also used were ice baths, anything that caused pain to the groin when viewing an attractive member of the same sex was considered an appropriate method, also basic boot camp style living was used as a way to break a person's will so that they would at the very least pretend to change). There was also an entire generation that were forced into fake marriages to satisfy religious expectations (often times being told that marrying in the eyes of the lord would cure them) and now that generation is admitting that it isn't working families are being torn apart as homosexuals are finally being honest about who they are and in some cases leaving their spouses with apologies that they just can't make it work and sometimes thrown out by their spouses who refuse to come to terms with the fact that they were living a lie.
The churches asking for reconciliation are fighting an already lost battle... if they truly want to become accepting they will have to start with the next generation and not alienating them in the first place... and that frankly may not be possible... I do not blame the young homosexual who hears the stories of what Christianity did to their older counterparts and telling the church to stay out of their lives and not give the churches a chance to do the same thing to them.

Someday there may be true reconciliation between Christianity and Homosexuality... but I seriously doubt that it will be in the lifetime of anyone alive now (well, maybe if they were born just now and they live a long life...)

infinitemonkies

07-05-2010, 11:10 AM

fireheart17

07-05-2010, 01:27 PM

Next time I see someone marching around with a sign that says something like "God hates Fags" I intend to join him in his march. Only, my sign will read "Buddha remains emotionally indifferent to your sexual orientation" :D

Since "fags" can also mean cigarettes, you could follow him and say "God loves homosexuals....really."

Hobbs

07-05-2010, 02:12 PM

I can't speak for Ghel, but personally, as much as I think that they are a step in the right direction, I admit I would be slightly offended if I was there and there was a group of people were there saying "we're sorry that the church has shit on you, can we still be friends"
I pointed it out in the comments on that site that while they have good intention and deserve credit for extending an olive branch, Christianity has pushed so many gay people so far away that we couldn't even begin to come close to being able to grab onto that branch no matter how hard we try... and that those of us pushed that far aren't going to try.

Go on and hold onto your hate then. It'll serve you well.

Kaylyn

07-05-2010, 08:18 PM

Just a bunch of random thoughts that sprung to mind upon reading some of the replies here. I just woke up, so bear with me!

This is actually a perfect example of one of the many reasons I'm no longer Christian. It seems I always had to have some motive for doing anything nice; I couldn't be completely altruistic in the eyes of non-Christians. Apparently anything I did was an excuse to convert people to my faith, when the truth was I was never comfortable with the extreme evangelism my church practiced. I was told all my life that Christianity was the only way to get to heaven, and it never sat well with me; I felt it wasn't any of my business how people related to God, yet the church always made me feel guilty for not witnessing enough. So I'd attempt to witness, and feel guilty for how I was treating the people I was talking to.

If I'd made an attempt to apologize to those people in my past that I'd alienated with my evangelism, I wonder if I'd be viewed the same way some are viewing this group, even though I know in my heart I was being 100% honest.

Now let's assume the motives are pure in this case, that the group is sincerely seeking to make amends. In order for hatred between two groups to end, someone has to make the first move. One has to apologize for the wrongs they have committed against the other, and if the group is large enough they may only be represented by a small portion of it. I think I'm beginning to understand now that with such a deep rift between the extremes of both sides (extreme anti-gay Christians, and extreme anti-Christian gays) that no matter how sincere the apology, there's always going to be certain parts of the group that simply cannot reconcile. Smiley appears to be part of that, and I've accepted that there's very very little, if anything, that's going to change his views. Lord knows I'm used to it, living in the deep South where there's a branch of my family and people I work with that are extremely racist and bigoted. I know if I were seen in public with that part of my family and they behaved in their typical way (and it's horrific to hear what they spew from their mouths), I'd be wanting to apologize for their behavior to any nearby. And I suppose there'd be a mix of people willing to accept that apology and others that automatically associate me with them and refuse to listen to me.

Sorry if this is all rambly, it's my thought process on the replies here and me putting myself into the shoes of both parties.

Hobbs

07-05-2010, 10:16 PM

I'm confused. Are you athiest now or Agnostic or something, Kaylyn? I was under the impression you were Christian (though if you mean "not practicing" or something, I get that). Sorry, just asking for clarification.

Kaylyn

07-06-2010, 03:51 AM

No problem! I was raised hardcore Southern Baptist, and it was such a big part of my life that I remember vividly what it's like on the evangelical side. At one point I was very fervent in my faith and would talk about it at any given opportunity. No one could say they didn't know I was Christian, because I wouldn't shut the hell up about it. At the time I was hardcore pro-life, anti-abortion, extreme right-wing on any issue you can think of. I was told homosexuality was wrong, though having had no contact with anyone openly gay (found out only very recently that my then-boyfriend's brother was gay) I really didn't have a personal opinion about it.

I chose a Christian college because I wanted to make sure to remain close to God throughout my college experience. I got a little bit of a slap in the face when I made a friend that I felt needed to hear the Word of God, and she tore me a new one saying it was none of my business what her relationship with God was. I realized she was right, and it got me thinking a lot more open-mindedly.

I actually started learning about Wicca and Paganism and practiced along those lines for a few years. Now I kinda consider myself a weird mix of Deist, Agnostic, and Universalist. I feel that God exists, I believe that everyone should honor him/her/it as they choose, IF they choose. But I dislike organized religion in general, because it all has flaws, and I got too lazy and distracted to continue my solitary practice.

I've changed my views on a lot of things since being a Christian. I realized that a lot of what I said I believed was only reciting what had been drilled into me my whole life. I have no problem with the faith itself or with individual Christians. I spent that transition between Christian/non-Christian really using my own brain to reason out what I believed for myself, not based on what the church told me was right or wrong. I realized when I thought about God in the absence of religion, the teachings of Christianity didn't fit with my own beliefs.

This was probably way too detailed of an answer for your question though! :D

smileyeagle1021

07-06-2010, 06:18 AM

Go on and hold onto your hate then. It'll serve you well.

The last time I accepted the Olive Branch it was used to hit me yet again.
How's that old saying go?
Something about bite me once, shame on you, bite me twice...

A lot of people, myself included, have been hurt too many times by the church, many being lured in with a false olive branch.
This is why I say that while reconciliation may be possible, the church's best hope (if they are truly interested in reconciliation) is to start by not pushing people away in the first place. Hell, doing that may even help gain the confidence of those who have been offended... I may have a little bit more faith that this group was on the level if I didn't see so many other groups who are still doing everything in their power to prove how inhuman and inferior I am.

Hobbs

07-06-2010, 03:40 PM

Well, you certainly ain't superior by spittin' in people's faces that got nothin but good intentions on their mind.

Ghel

07-06-2010, 10:00 PM

What's your problem with them, Ghel? Aren't they allowed the same free speech being exercised at the parades? Or is it different because they believe in God?
I wasn't saying that I want to limit anyone's exercise of free speech. I was just saying that I think people proselytising at parades and on street corners is tacky. Annoying. But I wouldn't do anything to stop them. In fact, I had a nice conversation with a street preacher a couple weeks ago. Very enlightening.

If all they're saying is, "We'll accept you where others have not; we want to show you that being Christian and gay are not mutually exclusive," then I am absolutely all for that.
That seems hypocritical to me. They accept some passages out of their Bible and abandon others. If they can use their own judgment to determine if one tenet is right or wrong, why don't they abandon the book and use their own judgment for every situation?

'tis a step in the right direction.
It might be a step in the right direction for that particular church, but I don't think it's a step in the right direction for the gays who've been persecuted by the church to go back to them, like a battered spouse returning to the same situation over and over again. What I think would be a step in the right direction would be for the gays who have seen how the Bible condemns them to read more of the Bible, investigate the Christians' claims of God, and see them for the absurdity they are.

Only, my sign will read "Buddha remains emotionally indifferent to your sexual orientation" :D
Except, of couse, Buddha is not considered a god.

This was probably way too detailed of an answer for your question though! :D
I think that was a great response. It's a much more honest answer about what you believe and why than we can get out of most people on this site. :)

Wingates_Hellsing

07-06-2010, 10:40 PM

The idea of using the bible as a guiding example instead of absolute law does not - hypocrisy IMO. No person or document that seeks to teach can do so with 100% accuracy, efficiency and unity. That does not mean one should never listen to what other people have to say, it just means that we should be vigilant in all instances and seek to cross-examine, analyze and decide on what we're told.

In this instance the people in question have decided that whatever case the bible may contain against gays is in conflict with the core beliefs and is therefore invalidated, in addition to stupid.

Hobbs

07-06-2010, 10:58 PM

That seems hypocritical to me. They accept some passages out of their Bible and abandon others. If they can use their own judgment to determine if one tenet is right or wrong, why don't they abandon the book and use their own judgment for every situation?

Because they still believe in the Christian God. In a way, think of it like the Abolishionists of the 1800s. They didn't believe in slavery, yet they supported their government (which allowed slavery). Just because there was one bad thing about the government wasn't reason enough for them to throw out the whole thing. They were stronger than that.

It might be a step in the right direction for that particular church, but I don't think it's a step in the right direction for the gays who've been persecuted by the church to go back to them, like a battered spouse returning to the same situation over and over again. What I think would be a step in the right direction would be for the gays who have seen how the Bible condemns them to read more of the Bible, investigate the Christians' claims of God, and see them for the absurdity they are.

That has to be one of the most egregious analogies I've seen on here. You're comparing this to spousal abuse? If that's so, then you're interpreting it wrong. This would be like a woman who had been married to...Bob, was abused and left him. The marriage made her distrust all men. Then James comes along and tells her not all guys are bad, that he might be biologically the same as Bob, but he won't hurt her-that he'll treat her with respect.

Absurdities to you, but that's something else entirely.

Except, of couse, Buddha is not considered a god.

Certain sects of Buddhism-correction; actually, the major split between the two largest denominations of Buddhism is the belief that Buddha is a god.

I think that was a great response. It's a much more honest answer about what you believe and why than we can get out of most people on this site. :)

I answer you quite well.

smileyeagle1021

07-07-2010, 04:02 AM

Well, you certainly ain't superior by spittin' in people's faces that got nothin but good intentions on their mind.

Two things, first where did I say I was going to spit in anyone's face? There is a mountain of difference between not trusting someone and refusing an olive branch that you feel may be a trap and questioning their motives and spitting in their face. Second, I don't care who's superior as long as I'm not going to be hit again after taking a false peace offering... even if it means turning away a legit one, the risk just aint worth it.

Hobbs

07-07-2010, 04:51 PM

Two things, first where did I say I was going to spit in anyone's face? There is a mountain of difference between not trusting someone and refusing an olive branch that you feel may be a trap and questioning their motives and spitting in their face. Second, I don't care who's superior as long as I'm not going to be hit again after taking a false peace offering... even if it means turning away a legit one, the risk just aint worth it.
Two things. One, I was using a metaphor. I don't think you'd literally spit into someone's face. If indeed you would, that's up to you in deciding to break the law. Two, I think your lack of trust is your downfall. There are many quotes I can give you, or philosophical arguments I can wage, but I won't, because I know they will fall on deaf ears.

Nyoibo

07-08-2010, 03:52 AM

KnitShoni

07-08-2010, 04:19 AM

Do minorities who don't trust white people have justification for theirs?

smileyeagle1021

07-08-2010, 04:25 AM

yet when smiley refuses to he's close minded and has no justification for his trepidation?
oh but you see, obviously Christ's love is different than a husband's love :rolleyes:

Also, 60% of people in Hawaii who contacted the governor about the civil unions bill opposed the bill, most used religious justifications, Christian groups CHEERED in the room and out in the street and celebrated the veto. So, here's an idea, when Christians stop saying they don't hate gay people and start acting like they don't hate gay people, then I may believe that the church truly does want me back.

Oh, and when was the last time in the last 25 years that white people voted away a black person's rights? How many white people do you think would be cheering a decision now to remove a black person's rights?
With the exception of the Arizona immigration laws, which are being widely criticized by all people who aren't the ultra conservative majority of Arizona, there are no laws limiting the rights of minorities (and it's debatable on whether or not that law really affects citizens). Over half the states have voted in laws keeping homosexuals second class citizens and Christian groups nationwide have celebrated, and with only a small minority, that aren't even vocal, complaining.

Hobbs

07-08-2010, 05:43 AM

I view smileys experience in this way, woman is beaten by her husband, she leaves, she goes back to him, he beats her again, she leaves again. Now at this point, were she to go back to him again most people would be saying she's an idiot, yet when smiley refuses to he's close minded and has no justification for his trepidation?
In post #25, I replied o Ghel who had posed the same analogy and pointed out its fallacy. I'd appreciate it if you read prior posts before repeating something. I won't repeat my argument as it is there for you to read...again. He is close-minded. That is not in dispute.

Again, you're lumping in people who've done nothing wrong with people that have done things wrong. It is this flawed logic that I do not support Smiley.

Nyoibo

07-08-2010, 06:36 AM

oh but you see, obviously Christ's love is different than a husband's love :rolleyes:

It is, Christs love was unconditional, Christians love however......

Kaylyn

07-08-2010, 11:47 AM

And I think that's the key sticking point. From what I've gathered by lurking when Smiley posts, he doesn't have a problem with Jesus Christ. I feel like he still wants to practice his faith, that Mormonism is very close to his heart. It's the other practitioners of that faith that have mistreated him that have left a bitter taste in his mouth. I'm not saying it's fair that he lumps all Christians in with the same Christians he's had personal experience with, but I can understand why he does. If you get bitten by 90% of the dogs you try to play with, then you're not going to be trying to play with any more dogs, even if they sit there and wag their tails at you, even if every other dog out there besides the ones you've tried to play with are perfectly nice.

Though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about you, Smiley! I'm just going on what I think I remember reading and what my gut instinct tells me here.

Wingates_Hellsing

07-08-2010, 01:09 PM

Ghel

07-08-2010, 02:19 PM

Hobbs

07-08-2010, 02:52 PM

Ghel, again you're misappropriating blame for an individual's actions upon the entirety of the whole. Of course people will think independently in a population of a church, or a government, or an ethnic group. That's just nature. That said, you're putting it as if the church is, by its own doing, responsible for an individuals actions. Short of a priest killing a bigot, there is no way for a church (any church) to stop the way a person thinks.

You have this idea, from what I've gathered, that no matter what, a church can only be wrong. Even if a church is good, you will find some way to make it wrong, and to make yourself right. Such thinking brings about a self-fulfilling aura of righteousness; turning away all counter arguments, for good or ill.

Kaylyn

07-08-2010, 08:32 PM

Well, smiley's experience is more like getting bitten by 90% of the rottweilers he tried to play with in the 'Utah nasty rottweiler reserve'. Now this might be a perfectly valid reason to dislike those nasty rottweilers but not the perfectly amenable Corgie in the window of the pet shop.

First of all, I'll save the debate on "all rottweilers are nasty" for another day, as I feel very strongly about the topic, being very close to dog breeders. For now, let's simply continue with that analogy, since I know what you intended by it.

If his only experience is with the "vicious rottweilers" of the Mormon Church, then that's the only type of dog he knows, and how is he to know that that corgi, representing for example the Unitarian church (simply an example since I know they're open-minded about homosexuality), which is just another dog to him, isn't going to treat him the same way? At this point he's too terrified of dogs to even attempt to pet another one. In his mind all he sees on that corgi is its teeth bared in attack. He may even want to pet it, because it looks so sweet and adorable, but he just knows that he's going to regret it, so he doesn't bother.

Not saying it's fair, as I know many individual Christians who are perfectly fine with homosexuality and would accept him like anyone else. I know if I were to find my way back to Christianity, I wouldn't suddenly stop talking to my gay best friend, because my feelings on the matter won't change. Just saying I understand where he's coming from.

HYHYBT

07-08-2010, 11:46 PM

I've seen plenty of women who have been married three or four times, where the first guy's abusive, so she leaves him and hooks up with a different abusive guy. I don't want to see gays doing the same thing with churches. All Christian churches, by definition, base at least a portion of their beliefs on the Bible. And even if it's a liberal church that accepts homosexuality (and isn't just lying to get the person in the door), there's likely to be some members of the church who adhere more strictly to the teachings of the Bible and will discriminate against the homosexual members of the church. In this way, it's very much like a battered spouse leaving one abusive relationship and ending up in another abusive relationship.The trouble is, that reflects a complete misunderstanding of what church *is* (or at least, what it's supposed to be, and a large part of what it actually is.) Which is quite understandable, coming from an atheist.... but what you're saying is too close to "you should quit believing in Christ because some of the other people who also believe in him aren't nice" when the one has nothing, really, to do with the other.

tropicsgoddess

07-09-2010, 01:20 AM

Wonderful.

A good example of what being "Christian" should really be.

My sentiments exactly. Love, compassion and charity are what Christianity are about. Sadly it's those hateful and bigoted assholes like WBC and all the crazy fundies that give Christians a bad name.

Wingates_Hellsing

07-09-2010, 01:49 AM

First of all, I'll save the debate on "all rottweilers are nasty" for another day, as I feel very strongly about the topic, being very close to dog breeders. For now, let's simply continue with that analogy, since I know what you intended by it.

If his only experience is with the "vicious rottweilers" of the Mormon Church, then that's the only type of dog he knows, and how is he to know that that corgi, representing for example the Unitarian church (simply an example since I know they're open-minded about homosexuality), which is just another dog to him, isn't going to treat him the same way? At this point he's too terrified of dogs to even attempt to pet another one. In his mind all he sees on that corgi is its teeth bared in attack. He may even want to pet it, because it looks so sweet and adorable, but he just knows that he's going to regret it, so he doesn't bother.

Not saying it's fair, as I know many individual Christians who are perfectly fine with homosexuality and would accept him like anyone else. I know if I were to find my way back to Christianity, I wouldn't suddenly stop talking to my gay best friend, because my feelings on the matter won't change. Just saying I understand where he's coming from.

Well I'd like to point out that the nasty rottweilers in my analogy were specifically defines as such presumably because they were gathered in that specific place because they were nasty rottweilers keyword: nasty. The point being that it's an area with a high concentration of a very specific type of 'thing' which, for whatever reason, has a high concentration of bad eggs (in my analogy it's more of a involuntary confinement and in smiley's RL it's more of a birds of a fether type deal)

Now, it would take a moron to not realize that while a Corgi is also a dog, it's about as different a kind of dog as it's possible to get as well as the fact that the common thread between the rottweilers wasn't just 'dog' it was also 'rottweiler'. By that standard it seems perfectly acceptable to me at least that one would naturally be open to the idea of this quite different 'thing' being, different.

Also, I know that Smiley knows that not all Christians are alike and that he should give those that extend an olive branch a chance. Because he's an intelligent human fucking being living with more access to information than at any point in human history. I can understand what might motivate his emotions, to a point. But even if Rottweiler and Corgi still don't deliniate enough emotionally to out-impact 'dog' he should at least recognize his intellectual knowledge and fucking act on it or shut up. JMHO.

smileyeagle1021

07-09-2010, 05:12 AM

Also, I know that Smiley knows that not all Christians are alike and that he should give those that extend an olive branch a chance. .

Have I not said just as much that not all Christians are alike?
However, the last time I accepted an extended olive branch it ended horribly. To use your phrasing, an intelligent fucking human being doesn't knowingly put himself into situations that he knows have gone horribly wrong in the past. In fact, we have a word for trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome... Insanity.

Wingates_Hellsing

07-09-2010, 06:00 AM

Have I not said just as much that not all Christians are alike?
However, the last time I accepted an extended olive branch it ended horribly. To use your phrasing, an intelligent fucking human being doesn't knowingly put himself into situations that he knows have gone horribly wrong in the past. In fact, we have a word for trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome... Insanity.

Which would be true if you accepted it from the same people as before, my guess is that this is not the case. And you saying it is kinda what clued me into that knowledge, what surprises me is not your reluctance to act on it instead of your emotions, it's your insistence.

Looking into the offering of open arms is not, the same thing as a similar offer from a different group. The fact that the group is different makes any acceptanse similar, not the same.

Kaylyn

07-09-2010, 12:01 PM

Now, it would take a moron to not realize that while a Corgi is also a dog, it's about as different a kind of dog as it's possible to get as well as the fact that the common thread between the rottweilers wasn't just 'dog' it was also 'rottweiler'. By that standard it seems perfectly acceptable to me at least that one would naturally be open to the idea of this quite different 'thing' being, different.

Heh, sorry for the way my comment came across...I realize now it reads a LOT more snippy than I meant it! :)

FWIW, I was attacked by a large dog when I was a child. Hell, it could have been a rottweiler, for all I know. Big dog. For the longest time, I was absolutely terrified of all dogs, even the cute fluffy ones, because of that one experience, simply because they were dogs. I'm not terribly fond of dogs now, but I'm not paralyzed with fear when in close proximity to one anymore, and I've even been known to play wrestle with my friend's German Shepherd from time to time.

Just one attack as a young child, and it took me until about high school to get over it. I try to imagine repeated attacks, and I could see myself developing a severe dog-phobia for the rest of my life. So I totally get where he's coming from.

Ghel

07-09-2010, 12:22 PM

The trouble is, that reflects a complete misunderstanding of what church *is* (or at least, what it's supposed to be, and a large part of what it actually is.) Which is quite understandable, coming from an atheist.... but what you're saying is too close to "you should quit believing in Christ because some of the other people who also believe in him aren't nice" when the one has nothing, really, to do with the other.

Just for a little bit of background, I was raised Catholic, and I was horribly disappointed when I realized I had been unwittingly lied to all of my childhood.

My statements on this thread have addressed two separate, but related, points. The first, which you're referencing, is that Christian churches tend to be hypocritical and bigoted, depending on which Bible verses they accept and which they ignore. The second is that there's no good reason to believe that any Christians are correct in their beliefs that a God exists.

It is this second point that I hope all people eventually realize. If the churches' attitude toward homosexuality gets Christian gays to investigate the churches' claims and come to the realization that they don't make sense and/or aren't supported by what we know of reality, and that leads them to abandon their belief in a god, then I consider that a good thing.

Hobbs

07-09-2010, 03:43 PM

Just for a little bit of background, I was raised Catholic, and I was horribly disappointed when I realized I had been unwittingly lied to all of my childhood.

I was raised, and am, Catholic. I don't think I've been lied to. This is completely a construct of your own making.

RootedPhoenix

07-11-2010, 11:46 AM

Also, I know that Smiley knows that not all Christians are alike and that he should give those that extend an olive branch a chance. Because he's an intelligent human fucking being living with more access to information than at any point in human history. I can understand what might motivate his emotions, to a point. But even if Rottweiler and Corgi still don't deliniate enough emotionally to out-impact 'dog' he should at least recognize his intellectual knowledge and fucking act on it or shut up. JMHO.

He may well recognize that, but emotions are powerful things. Haven't you ever had your emotions override your intellectual understanding?

It hurts to be lured in by false niceness and then get beaten on, even if it's just with words. It hurts to be betrayed like that. It hurts a great deal. It takes people a long time to deal with those feelings. You don't want to be hurt again. The ideas "should" or "should not" are steamrolled by the fact that you remember the betrayal. You can't tell if you're going to be hurt again, because it looks like the same thing.

They could be the nicest people, with only the purest of thoughts and intentions. But how can he know, looking at the outside layer, what's really inside them?

Wingates_Hellsing

07-12-2010, 07:31 AM

He may well recognize that, but emotions are powerful things. Haven't you ever had your emotions override your intellectual understanding?

It hurts to be lured in by false niceness and then get beaten on, even if it's just with words. It hurts to be betrayed like that. It hurts a great deal. It takes people a long time to deal with those feelings. You don't want to be hurt again. The ideas "should" or "should not" are steamrolled by the fact that you remember the betrayal. You can't tell if you're going to be hurt again, because it looks like the same thing.

They could be the nicest people, with only the purest of thoughts and intentions. But how can he know, looking at the outside layer, what's really inside them?

Yes, I've experienced instances in which my emotions got the best of my intelligence, which is precisely why I continue to constantly re-think my attitudes and make sure that my actions are based on knowledge and not my emotions. IMO we shouldn't let anything over-ride our rationality.

I could go back into the whole 'logically a different situation' spiel but I've already done that and re-posting seems like it would be a waste of time. Suffice it to say that I understand Smiley's reasons, I just wish he'd overcome them.

smileyeagle1021

07-12-2010, 10:55 AM

Suffice it to say that I understand Smiley's reasons, I just wish he'd overcome them.

And I wish my circumstances weren't such that I had to see my reasons affirmed on a regular basis.

Hyena Dandy

07-14-2010, 04:21 AM

I still have a problem with Christians proselytizing at parades, though, even if they're part of a liberal denomination that accepts homosexuals and homosexuality. It seems like they're saying "Was another church bigoted asshats to you? Still believe anyway? Come join us! We'll be nice!"

I don't really see the problem with saying that. I mean, Christianity IS a missionary religion. You're supposed to proselytize. And I would feel very bad if somebody had kicked me out of my church, but I still considered myself a Christian. I'd be happy to find out there were Christians who didn't hate me.

However, the last time I accepted an extended olive branch it ended horribly. To use your phrasing, an intelligent fucking human being doesn't knowingly put himself into situations that he knows have gone horribly wrong in the past. In fact, we have a word for trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome... Insanity.

If I may ask... And this isn't in any way a criticism... But how many times have you tried extending the olive branch? Just out of curiosity. Because I've only heard about once, and if there's more I'd be glad to hear it, because there's a difference between trying once or twice, and trying something over and over again.

The Shadow

07-16-2010, 01:29 AM

I was raised, and am, Catholic. I don't think I've been lied to. This is completely a construct of your own making.

Well since a lie, by definition, is when someone says something they KNOW isn't true, it's understandable why you wouldn't feel this way. After all when the Popes, Bishops, Priests, Nuns say things like "abortion is murder" or "masturbation is a sin", or "women are not fit to be priests", I think they genuinely believe what they're saying (most of them anyway).

But as someone who was also raised in the Catholic faith, might I suggest that if you never questioned any of the things you were taught or never had any doubts about the ethics and values they instilled in you at any point, then maybe you haven't examined them carefully enough? This isn't an insult against you, just something you might want to think about.

The Shadow

07-16-2010, 02:41 AM

(eta- at least one of the comments confirms that I may not be wrong to have that ill ease... there is a guy on there talking about how the love of the church allowed him to overcome his homosexuality)

Yeah...and I also couldn't help wonder about this comment:

I still don’t agree with many socio-political goals of the stated LGBT “community” but why are they individually any less worthy than God’s love and grace than I?

Oh, I think I get it...that whole "hate the sin, not the sinner" malarkey, right?

Also note his/her use of quotation marks around the word 'community', as if to imply they really have no business referring to themselves as such. Also (s)he doesn't agree with the socio-political goals of the LGBT community. What goals would they be, I wonder? The right to marry the people they love and want to make a lifelong commitment too? The right to the same benefits given to married hetero couples? The right to adopt children just like anyone else? Yeah, those are all really reprehensible things. :rolleyes:

KnitShoni

07-16-2010, 03:03 AM

Ghel

07-16-2010, 02:01 PM

I hadn't intended to have to explain or defend the being "lied to" statement that I made; it was just a bit of background to explain where I was coming from with other statements. But since it has spurred discussion, here we go.

There was a reason that I said I'd been "unwittingly lied to". Growing up, nearly everyone around me was Catholic. My family, many of my friends, my priests. They were all convinced, I assume, of the existence of God on the authority of their family, friends, priests, or the Bible. They passed their beliefs on to me as if they were true, without ever verifying the claims for themselves. And since they had no good reason to believe their god-claims were true, then they had no justification for raising me to believe they were true.

I can say with some confidence that none of them have ever verified the claims of the existence of the Christian God because no one has ever produced solid, independently-verifiable evidence for the existence of God. Nothing that could withstand scrutiny. Nothing that was repeatable and falsifiable in the way that science demands.

And because I want my beliefs to mesh with reality, I cannot accept the claims that Christians make about their God.

Hobbs

07-16-2010, 04:11 PM

But as someone who was also raised in the Catholic faith, might I suggest that if you never questioned any of the things you were taught or never had any doubts about the ethics and values they instilled in you at any point, then maybe you haven't examined them carefully enough? This isn't an insult against you, just something you might want to think about.

I was raised Catholic. My mother is devout, though we never went to Church after I was ten or so. My sister has never been baptized and no one shuns her for it. My brother is gay and is more devout than I.

That said, when I was 18 I went to a predominantly Protestant university. There I was subjected and educated on a different form of Christianity than I knew, and even some non-Christian faiths (my high-school also taught me non-Christian faiths as it was designed to teach students to think internationally and of global concerns). So, as I was thinking all this through, I realized that I did believe in God, that my belief did not contradict any of my moral or ethical beliefs, and that my knowledge of science and history did not contradict my faith either. From there, I went to the local Catholic Student Org. and talked to the priest there. I had been baptized, but hadn't gone through Confirmation. He enrolled me in RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) and I was educated in Catholic teachings and confirmed that following April (2004).

Therefore, I do think I have thought my faith through, and in high school I did have my doubts, like any normal person does. Considering my family's continued lack of "faith" (by this I mean not attending, and my father's rejection of Catholicism) I have remained faithful. KnitShoni said it best; I questioned, but the answers I found renewed my faith and didn't destroy it.

Hyena Dandy

07-16-2010, 10:45 PM

And because I want my beliefs to mesh with reality, I cannot accept the claims that Christians make about their God.
There is no experiment which can prove or disprove God. Which means its your choice. I do not feel my faith meshes fine with reality. My family raised me as an Atheist, in fact. When I was deciding what I believed, I found that Catholicism had the answers for me. Believing in God is a choice. So is not believing in God. If you choose not to believe in something not verifiable through experimentation, that is perfectly fine. But the fact that an experiment can't be devised does not mean that it does not exist, only that we cannot know for sure.

smileyeagle1021

07-17-2010, 04:09 AM

But the fact that an experiment can't be devised does not mean that it does not exist, only that we cannot know for sure.

As my grandma used to say (I steal a lot of her saying apparently :p ), science has never proven the existence of God, they've also never been able to scientifically prove that love exists either... unless you are going to discount love because there is no scientific basis for it, don't be so quick to discount a higher power that has no scientific evidence.

Hyena Dandy

07-17-2010, 05:32 AM

As my grandma used to say (I steal a lot of her saying apparently :p ), science has never proven the existence of God, they've also never been able to scientifically prove that love exists either... unless you are going to discount love because there is no scientific basis for it, don't be so quick to discount a higher power that has no scientific evidence.

Very well put Smiley.

Ghel

07-20-2010, 12:23 PM

I didn't mean to derail this thread so badly. Really.

There is no experiment which can prove or disprove God.
If that's true, then that means there's not sufficient evidence to accept the claims of God's existence. Therefore, I remain an atheist.

Which means its your choice.
You're obviously not one of those theists that say that God's Word is written on the heart of every human being, and so we have no excuse for not believing.

If you choose not to believe in something not verifiable through experimentation, that is perfectly fine. But the fact that an experiment can't be devised does not mean that it does not exist, only that we cannot know for sure.
But if God has some influence on the world, then there must be some evidence of his existence. Does the fact that an experiment can't be devised to determine whether leprechauns exist mean that we should accept that they exist? What about pixies? Invisible pink unicorns? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

In all honesty, the beliefs you're stating here don't bother me. But it does bother me when people with similar beliefs expect their beliefs to be above reproach. Or when they try to force everyone else to behave as if they believed the same way by legislating based on their beliefs. Or when they try to revise history to say the the US is a Christian nation. Or when they try to trick people to coming to their church by saying "We're not so bad as that other church that believes almost exactly the same as us except for this one little thing right here."

So I explain why I think this is a problem. I try to stick with the core issues, but just like everybody else, I get sidetracked sometimes.

HYHYBT

07-20-2010, 11:39 PM

But if God has some influence on the world, then there must be some evidence of his existence.That, itself, is an unsupported assumption.

Ghel

07-21-2010, 01:03 AM

That, itself, is an unsupported assumption.

No, that's definitional. Everything that exists leaves behind some evidence of its existence. That evidence might not reach us to allow us knowledge of its existence, but that doesn't mean that the evidence wasn't there at some point.

If, as many Christians claim, a creator god existed (and still exists) and intervenes in the world's processes on a daily basis, then there should be evidence of his existence. And not just minuscule evidence, but mounds of it. It should be apparent for all to see.

There's no more evidence for the Christian God than there is for Allah, Ptah, Viracocha, Unkulunkulu, or Coatlique.

Hobbs

07-21-2010, 01:42 AM

That evidence might not reach us to allow us knowledge of its existence, but that doesn't mean that the evidence wasn't there at some point.

I think you've answered yourself. If the evidence, "might not reach us to allow us knowledge of it's existence..." then how would we know such evidence exist? How can we show you something if, as you claim, the knowledge of the existence is unknown to us?

Ghel

07-21-2010, 02:31 PM

Geez, did you even finish reading my post?
If, as many Christians claim, a creator god existed (and still exists) and intervenes in the world's processes on a daily basis, then there should be evidence of his existence. And not just minuscule evidence, but mounds of it. It should be apparent for all to see.
This isn't a case of something that ceased to exist a long time ago and we're trying to scrape together enough evidence to figure out what it was (like we would with a supernova that happened millions of years ago or a person who died tens of thousands of years ago and all we have left of her is part of a hip bone). This is something that Christians claim still exists and influences the world and its people on a daily basis. Where is the overwhelming evidence that demonstrates its existence?

Hobbs

07-21-2010, 02:48 PM

Why do you need evidence for faith? That's what I don't get. I believe God exists. I also believe love exists. You haven't been able to prove love exists either, have you?

I think Futurama said it best, "When you do things right, people won't be sure you did anything at all (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbinE6bx8xM)."

Wingates_Hellsing

07-21-2010, 05:04 PM

Ghel

07-21-2010, 06:25 PM

The point, as I understand it, is that God's influences are specifically laid out such that we can't recognize them as evidence. They're either too subtle to notice, disguised as free will or mental illness or any number of social or scientific phenomena or take a form we're not yet capable of measuring.
If we can't tell the difference between a universe with a god and a universe with no god, then what reason do we have to conclude that this universe has one?

Those who choose to believe do, those who demand evidence before they believe don't and anyone left over's just waiting it out.
Is this that "fence sitting" that I keep hearing about? I may be repeating myself, but "believe" means to accept something as true. Either you accept a claim or you don't. Anyone who's "just waiting it out" hasn't accepted the claim, and therefore doesn't believe.

And waiting what out, exactly? If there's never going to be evidence available for the existence of God, as you state, then they can wait all they want and they'll never come to a conclusion.

Wingates_Hellsing

07-21-2010, 06:39 PM

There's a subtle but important difference between concluding NO and abstaining to conclude (i.e. MAYBE)

If you conclude NO then you are deciding that whatever it is definitely doesn't exist. If you don't conclude/conclude MAYBE than you're basicaly saying 'I don't know'.

For the longest time we couldn't tell the difference between an irradiated rock and a regular rock. But as technology advanced we discovered the difference. That we don't perceive something is not conclusive evidence of it's non-existence. There has and always will be things that have always been there but go undiscovered.

Personally, I choose not to believe anything without some evidence, which is why I didn't believe in giant squids until someone actually hauled up a carcass.

Ghel

07-21-2010, 08:09 PM

There's a subtle but important difference between concluding NO and abstaining to conclude
"Conclusion" was the wrong word in my last post. I should have stuck with "belief."

For the longest time we couldn't tell the difference between an irradiated rock and a regular rock. But as technology advanced we discovered the difference. That we don't perceive something is not conclusive evidence of it's non-existence. There has and always will be things that have always been there but go undiscovered.
That would be a good analogy if, as scientific knowledge advanced, it was becoming more likely that a god exists. In fact, the opposite is happening. Science is finding explanations for things that used to be filed away as "God did it." There's fewer and fewer places for God to fit.

Personally, I choose not to believe anything without some evidence, which is why I didn't believe in giant squids until someone actually hauled up a carcass.
Then we agree. We shouldn't believe in a god until there's sufficient evidence to support the claims.

Hobbs

07-21-2010, 08:19 PM

That would be a good analogy if, as scientific knowledge advanced, it was becoming more likely that a god exists. In fact, the opposite is happening. Science is finding explanations for things that used to be filed away as "God did it." There's fewer and fewer places for God to fit.

I still don't see science telling us why we're here...or why we have sentience. And don't give that whole, "Find for yourself" crap, because that's just your version of "God did it."

Ghel

07-21-2010, 08:25 PM

Why do you need evidence for faith?
Hold on. Faith and belief are two different things. Believing something means you accept it as true. Having faith in something means that you believe it without (or, in some cases, in spite of) evidence. And I don't need evidence for faith. I know very well that faith exists. What I need evidence for, before I'll believe it, is the existence of God.

I also believe love exists. You haven't been able to prove love exists either, have you?
Love exists. It is an emotion that is readily apparent to anybody who sees it or experiences it. Scientists can study what happens to a person's brain and body when they experience different emotions, including love.

Are you saying that "God" is no more than an emotion? A feeling? A concept? Something that only exists because of the meaning that humans have assigned it?

Hobbs

07-21-2010, 10:24 PM

Are you saying that "God" is no more than an emotion? A feeling? A concept? Something that only exists because of the meaning that humans have assigned it?

No, I'm saying that your definition of love is just as "flimsy" as you claim my faith is. Brain chemistry=/=love, and if that's all it is for you, then I feel sorry for you.

Ghel

07-21-2010, 10:47 PM

I still don't see science telling us why we're here...
I think you need to ask yourself what you expect of science. Science is a process that we use to understand the world around us. "Why we're here" is something we each need to decide for ourselves. As far as I can tell, there's no intrinsic value to our existence.

And don't give that whole, "Find for yourself" crap, because that's just your version of "God did it."
Until you can demonstrate that there's some intrinsic value to humanity's existence, then I am perfectly justified in saying that we each need to bring meaning to our own lives. And until you demonstrate that a god exists, then you are not justified in saying that god brings meaning to our lives.

Hobbs

07-21-2010, 10:54 PM

Until you can convince me there is any intrinsic value of having faith in science, I will continue to believe.

Nyoibo

07-22-2010, 02:21 AM

Why do you need evidence for faith?

You don't, that's why it's called faith.

HYHYBT

07-22-2010, 02:59 AM

I think part of the problem here is not a lack of results from God's existence, but a lack of any basis for comparison. For instance, if God created and maintains the universe, then its (and our) being here *is,* in a sense at least, the mounds and mounds of evidence you say there should be; but it doesn't work as evidence because we do not, and cannot, have a clear example of how things would be otherwise.

Separately, and setting aside big things like creation, I've asked this before but could not get a straight answer. (an answer, yes.) Suppose for a moment that a miracle occurs: someone walks into your kitchen, puts a clean, empty bottle under the tap, fills it with water, then pours it into a glass as wine. What sort of evidence would there be? How would you go about proving it even a few minutes later, other than by testimony of witnesses?

Hobbs

07-22-2010, 03:14 AM

I would like to hear the scientific explanation of the Miracle of the Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_sun), among others.

Ghel

07-22-2010, 12:17 PM

Boozy

07-22-2010, 02:03 PM

I would like to hear the scientific explanation of the Miracle of the Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_sun), among others.

The scientific explanation is provided, fairly in-depth, in the very article to which you linked.

Hobbs

07-22-2010, 02:50 PM

Well, in the case of water to wine, that should be something that could be repeatable under laboratory conditions. That would be evidence enough of that particular miracle.

However, that would not, in any way, be evidence for a god. That would merely be evidence of something that can happen that we didn't know of before.

So, you want Jesus to resurrect himself just to placate your scientific curiosity? I think He has slightly more-pressing matters.

Also, if you read further Boozy, you'd have read this, "Many years after the events in question, Stanley L. Jaki, a professor of physics at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, Benedictine priest and author of a number of books reconciling science and Catholicism, proposed a unique theory about the supposed miracle. Jaki believes that the event was natural and meteorological in nature, but that the fact the event occurred at the exact time predicted was a miracle." (1)

It might be a natural phenomena, but there is no way (unless Ghel provides one) to accurately prophecize such a rare meteorological phenomena, especially in the early years of the 20th Century. Even meteorological predictions now are unreliable.

(1). Jaki, Stanley L. (1999). God and the Sun at Fátima.

Ghel

07-22-2010, 06:27 PM

So, you want Jesus to resurrect himself just to placate your scientific curiosity? I think He has slightly more-pressing matters.

I know we've been concentrating on the Christian God in this thread, but my objections apply to all other creator gods, as well. I am an atheist towards Yahweh, Allah, Ptah, Viracocha, Unkulunkulu, Coatlique, and every other creator god that's ever been described to me.

Jaki believes that the event was natural and meteorological in nature, but that the fact the event occurred at the exact time predicted was a miracle.
Setting aside, for the moment, my objections to this statement, even if it was a miracle, it wouldn't necessarily mean what supporters claim it means. A miracle is not necessarily evidence of a god. And even if a miracle suggested the existence of a god, how do we know which god? If the sun danced in the sky and changed colors, how do we know that it was Yahweh who did it? Why not Unkulunkulu? Why not Lucifer?

Hobbs

07-22-2010, 07:26 PM

Setting aside, for the moment, my objections to this statement, even if it was a miracle, it wouldn't necessarily mean what supporters claim it means. A miracle is not necessarily evidence of a god. And even if a miracle suggested the existence of a god, how do we know which god? If the sun danced in the sky and changed colors, how do we know that it was Yahweh who did it? Why not Unkulunkulu? Why not Lucifer?

Actually, the miracle was predicted by the Virgin Mary. Since She was the one who predicted the miracle, and the miracle happened, what evidence do you have that She wasn't the one who produced the miracle?

Hyena Dandy

07-23-2010, 01:18 AM

See, we can't find any evidence God does exist or doesn't exist. If a Creator deity exists, then there already is evidence of it. Namely, that creation exists. The 'mounds and mounds' of evidence you're looking for is already here. That is, the evidence is that there is a here to look for evidence in. God doesn't NEED to work with magic to be God. If He created the world, He created scientific phenomena, and therefore they're as much a result of His will as a magical incarnation would be.

And why not some other creator than the Christian God? There isn't any proof one way or another, which is why its up to us to decide for ourselves what we believe and don't believe. I don't object to you not believing in the Christian God. Or any other God. I object to you claiming that there is irrefutable proof He doesn't exist, which is just as foolish to me as the people who claim that there is irrefutable proof that He does.

Calling all believers fools or deluded is just as bad as saying the same of all atheists.

Which is why I don't have any problem with you refusing to believe in something you haven't seen scientifically proved. My problem is more than you seem to take an issue with people who disagree.

I have absolutely no proof one way or another, and therefore make the choice that I feel the most rewarding as to what I do or do not believe. If I'm right, I get into heaven, which is spiffy. If I'm wrong, I don't go anywhere. If I don't go anywhere, then leading the life that was most rewarding was the best idea. If I go to heaven, then yay, heaven. Of course, if I go to hell, then at least I had a good time getting there.

And before you point it out, there is a key difference between this and Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager posits that its best to believe in God to be on the safe side, because nothing happens if atheists are right, whereas you go to hell if Christians are right. What I'm saying isn't that in lack of any conclusive evidence, be a Christian. What I'm saying is that with lack of any conclusive evidence, make the belief you find most rewarding.

If you truly find believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be spiritually fulfilly, I wholeheartedly suggest following whatever his noodly teachings may be, and however they manifest to you. If the belief in invisible intangible unicorns makes your life fuller and happier, then believe away.

I don't claim I can prove God, I claim you can't DISPROVE God, and therefore, do whatever makes your life feel the most rewarding.

Nyoibo

07-23-2010, 01:29 AM

I know we've been concentrating on the Christian God in this thread, but my objections apply to all other creator gods, as well. I am an atheist towards Yahweh

They're the same god.

Ghel

07-23-2010, 02:55 AM

See, we can't find any evidence God does exist or doesn't exist. If a Creator deity exists, then there already is evidence of it. Namely, that creation exists. The 'mounds and mounds' of evidence you're looking for is already here. That is, the evidence is that there is a here to look for evidence in.
Then you're saying that we can't tell the difference between a universe with a god and a universe without one. Why add this notion of God to a universe that, as far as we can tell, works perfectly fine without one?

I object to you claiming that there is irrefutable proof He doesn't exist...
Please don't put words into my mouth. (I have to assume this is directed at me, since I'm the only atheist in this discussion.) I have never said anything like this. What I would say is that there is insufficient evidence for the claim that a god exists to convince me that it is true.

Calling all believers fools or deluded is just as bad as saying the same of all atheists.
I may have said this at some point, and I won't apologize for it. It may not be polite, but it is justified to say that theists are deluded into accepting their beliefs.

My problem is more than you seem to take an issue with people who disagree.
As long as people's beliefs don't impinge on the rights of others, I don't take issue with their beliefs. Here on Fratching, however, we should all expect to have our views challenged. And since I think that the notion of a god (for all useful definitions of "god") is absurd, I am free to argue my conscience without fear of recourse. Yes, these are exactly the types of things I would say to people offline if I didn't have to worry about backlash.

I don't claim I can prove God, I claim you can't DISPROVE God...
Oh, no. Don't you go shifting the burden of proof. The ones claiming that God exists (and I'm not saying you're one of them) are the ones who have the burden to prove his existence.

I would never claim that I can disprove God's existence. I don't even know what God is. I've never been given a satisfactory description.

... and therefore, do whatever makes your life feel the most rewarding.
I will. I am. I am using the only life that I know I will have to try to convince people to think rationally, to examine their beliefs, and to escape the chokehold that religion has put on society. (I do other things, too, but they don't really apply to this conversation.)

They're the same god.
You do realize that some of them have mutually exclusive descriptions, right? And that the creation stories vary widely, right?

Ghel

07-23-2010, 03:08 AM

Actually, the miracle was predicted by the Virgin Mary. Since She was the one who predicted the miracle, and the miracle happened, what evidence do you have that She wasn't the one who produced the miracle?
The "miracle" was predicted by three children, who claimed that they saw the Virgin Mary. Nobody else saw her or the other saints they claimed to have seen. Additionally, the prediction was simply that a miracle would occur, not what it would be. So all these people showed up expecting something to happen, but not knowing what. Even if the miracle of the dancing sun happened as described, what evidence do you have that it was caused by the Virgin Mary? Can you really believe the say-so of three attention-hungry children?

Nyoibo

07-23-2010, 03:14 AM

.You do realize that some of them have mutually exclusive descriptions, right? And that the creation stories vary widely, right?

There's a reason they're called the Abrahamic religions, because Christianity, Judaism and Islam are based around the god of Abraham.

Hobbs

07-23-2010, 05:52 AM

Can you really believe the say-so of three attention-hungry children?

That's pretty cold. What makes you think they were attention-hungry to begin with? Their lives didn't turn into flowery-fairy tales, ya know? Why do you believe the attention whore Richard Dawkins?

Ghel

07-23-2010, 11:57 AM

...Abrahamic religions...
Ah, well, looking back through the posts, I see that you only quoted me as far as Yahweh. Yes, I agree, Yahweh is only one god. It could even be said that Allah is the same god as Yahweh. But I also listed "Ptah, Viracocha, Unkulunkulu, Coatlique, and every other creator god that's ever been described to me." Would you still say they're the same god?

Or were you saying that the Christian God and Yahweh were the same? Yes, I know that. Although some Christian denominations call him other things, Yahweh was the name I was taught growing up.

Hobbs

07-23-2010, 04:26 PM

Hmm, I don't think I was taught Yahweh when I was little. It seems your Catholic upbringing was far different from mine.

Ghel

07-23-2010, 05:19 PM

That's pretty cold. What makes you think they were attention-hungry to begin with? Their lives didn't turn into flowery-fairy tales, ya know?
So your only objection to my statement that I won't accept the claims of the "Sun Miracle" on hearsay is my characterization of the children as "attention-hungry"? What about my actual questions, which you haven't addressed at all? How do you know the children weren't lying, or halucinating, or any number of other explanations? What reason do you have to think that the Virgin Mary actually appeared to them and that God made the sun dance?

Why do you believe the attention whore Richard Dawkins?
What, exactly, does Dawkins have to do with this discussion?

Hobbs

07-23-2010, 07:25 PM

So your only objection to my statement that I won't accept the claims of the "Sun Miracle" on hearsay is my characterization of the children as "attention-hungry"? What about my actual questions, which you haven't addressed at all? How do you know the children weren't lying, or halucinating, or any number of other explanations? What reason do you have to think that the Virgin Mary actually appeared to them and that God made the sun dance?

What, exactly, does Dawkins have to do with this discussion?

He's your "prophet" even as young children and blessed people are my prophets.

The children had no reason to lie. Making up a story like this, if found out to be unfounded, would result in an even worse state then they were in. I have no reason not to believe that such a miracle happened. For one, how would they, "attention-hungry" though they were, be able to predict a meteorological event? They weren't educated-they were children-yet you seem to gloss over the fact that, within their vision, they were told an exact time for the event to take place. That seems like a lot of cunning and planning for a trio of poor Portugeuse children.

HYHYBT

07-23-2010, 07:43 PM

Well, in the case of water to wine, that should be something that could be repeatable under laboratory conditions. That would be evidence enough of that particular miracle.If it were repeatable by anyone, it wouldn't be a miracle. And you know that. What I'm asking is that, if it were to occur ONCE, and you yourself knew it had happened, how would you go about proving it?

even if it was a miracle, it wouldn't necessarily mean what supporters claim it means. A miracle is not necessarily evidence of a god. This is true... but it would be evidence of *something* capable of overriding the physical laws. Because that's what "miracle" means. If you can repeat it and see how it works, then it isn't one.

But again, you were saying that if God existed there'd be results. How do you go about deciding that there are none?

Then you're saying that we can't tell the difference between a universe with a god and a universe without one.I believe we *could* very easily tell the difference, if we were somehow to have one of each to compare. You ask "why add the notion of God to a universe that, as far as we can tell, works perfectly fine without one," but then, that's only the bare mechanics... but that's getting far off even from the sidetrack.

Oh, no. Don't you go shifting the burden of proof. The ones claiming that God exists (and I'm not saying you're one of them) are the ones who have the burden to prove his existence. Why? That's only for scientific proofs. I find it downright dishonest (speaking generally) that lately those pushing to advance atheism have switched from trying to argue it on its merits to simply insisting that their opinions MUST be assumed to be right unless absolute proof turns up showing otherwise and that until then to believe anything else is at best silly.

What, exactly, does Dawkins have to do with this discussion?Well, up until today, he's the only place I've heard the "if miracles existed then we could repeat them" nonsense.

Hobbs

07-23-2010, 07:46 PM

"It is so obvious that we live in a world in which a fantastic amount of logic, of rational lawfulness, is at work. We are aware of a large number of laws of physics and chemistry and biology which, by their mutual interdependence, make nature work as if it were following a grandiose plan from its earliest beginnings to the farthest reaches of its future destiny. To me, it would be incomprehensible that there should be such a gigantic master plan without a master planner behind it. This master planner is He whom we call the Creator of the Universe . . . One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be a Divine intent behind it all."

-Wernher von Braun

Ghel

07-24-2010, 04:04 PM

He's your "prophet" ...
This is complete and utter nonsense. Even those who hold Dawkins in high esteem do not consider him a prophet, pope, or anything remotely similar. He is an evolutionary biologist who also happens to be a good writer and speaker.

The children had no reason to lie.
People don't need a reason to lie. We all do it, for good or bad reasons or no reason at all. And lying was only one potential explanation for the visions they claimed.

For one, how would they, "attention-hungry" though they were, be able to predict a meteorological event?
I'm not convinced they did. The Wikipedia article you linked to gave several possible explanations. The one that seems most likely is, since people were expecting something to happen, they stared at the sun long enough to screw with their vision. It happens to people all the time, but we don't call it a miracle.

They weren't educated-they were children-yet you seem to gloss over the fact that, within their vision, they were told an exact time for the event to take place.
Again, the children predicted that SOMETHING would happen, but not WHAT. People were expecting something to happen. Something did, as far as they could tell. That's a really poor prediction.

What I'm asking is that, if it were to occur ONCE, and you yourself knew it had happened, how would you go about proving it?
In that completely hypothetical situation, I would not trust my own senses. I would assume that the person tricked me, since it is outside my understanding of reality for someone to be able to turn water immediately into wine. I would not believe that this is what happened until we had an independent analysis done, including testing of both the water and the wine, elimination of any other explanations, and repetition of the event under controlled conditions. Of course, I would still be curious to understand how he did it.

This is true... but it would be evidence of *something* capable of overriding the physical laws. Because that's what "miracle" means. If you can repeat it and see how it works, then it isn't one.
You're absolutely right. Once we explain how something works, it's no longer a miracle. And that is exactly why I don't believe in miracles. There's no such thing as miracles, only things we haven't explained yet.

But again, you were saying that if God existed there'd be results. How do you go about deciding that there are none?
I don't. What I say is that nobody has ever sufficiently demonstrated that there are results that would convince any skeptical person that God exists.

... that's only the bare mechanics...
What else is there besides mechanics (and by mechanics, I assume you mean the laws of nature)?

[re: burden of proof] Why? That's only for scientific proofs.
You mean you don't use this in every day life? Do you blindly believe everything you're told without investigating?

... those pushing to advance atheism have switched from trying to argue it on its merits to simply insisting that their opinions MUST be assumed to be right unless absolute proof turns up showing otherwise ...
Atheism as a thought-out position would not exist if not for theism. Atheism has no merits on its own. It is only when an atheist responds to theism that it becomes a position on that subject.

"One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be a Divine intent behind it all."

-Wernher von Braun
Actually, one can. Every atheist is proof of that. I don't see any evidence of a "gigantic master plan."

Hobbs

07-24-2010, 04:37 PM

My quote was merely posing that, as you seem to love Einstein to prove athiesm, his contemporaries did not share his same beliefs, or lack thereof.

Dawkins is nothing more than a hate-monger. Had he attempted his citizen's arrest, I would also label him a terrorist.

Rebel

07-24-2010, 07:25 PM

Dawkins is nothing more than a hate-monger. Had he attempted his citizen's arrest, I would also label him a terrorist.

You mean the proposal by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to prepare a legal case against Pope Benedict regarding his coverup of child molestation by Catholic priests? The one which all Dawkins had to do with it was get the number of a lawyer he knew that would be willing to help their case?

Agreeing with a proposal is not the same as being the person to execute it.

And to be fair, what Robertson and Stephens proposed was perfectly legal and would have followed all legal requirements in Britain. The Vatican is not a recognized state by the United Nations, meaning the Pope would not have been able to claim diplomatic immunity.

It would not have been popular, but it wouldn't have been terrorism.
And considering how little Dawkin's had to do with the plan, I don't see how he could be held accountable. Unless it's by people who are only going after him because he is a recognizable figure.
In the end, it did let a lot more people around the world know about the controversy surrounding the Pope.

He's your "prophet"

Nope. To be frank, I knew 'of' him, but not really 'about' him until you claimed this.

I'm an Athiest. I made the desicion myself when I was a child after learning about religion in school and at home. It didn't make sense to me personally, but I don't feel the need to argue people over to my way of thinking (unless they're being really obnoxious). Since then I like to read up about alternate theories regarding the world. Now I'm gonna buy "The God Delusion". It looks interesting.

Hobbs

07-24-2010, 07:43 PM

As a cardinal, Benedict XVI actually tried to pursue the rape cases that came under his jurisdiction. In a famous example of one case, he was discouraged from pursuing it further from the Vatican. Also, if you're going to condemn the leader of a nation for everything his subordinates do, then Clinton should be tried for pedophilia for the crime of Sgt. Stebbins (formerly 75th Rangers) who molested his girlfriend's daughter.

The Vatican is a recognized nation within he UN and has a representative in the General Assembly. What they would be doing is tantamount to terrorism.

U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)

(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title

Ghel

07-24-2010, 10:07 PM

What violence has Dawkins committed, exactly?

... you seem to love Einstein to prove athiesm[sic] ...

What? Where?

Rebel

07-24-2010, 10:18 PM

Yep. They're proposing that the Vatican's status is to be reviewed as it doesn't currently follow all the UN requirements to be recognized as a state.

Doing it all legal like.

Only then do they plan to bring up charges on the Pope.

I don't recall any plots of violence towards the Pope by this group of people. What are they?

Also, if you're going to condemn the leader of a nation for everything his subordinates do, then Clinton should be tried for pedophilia for the crime of Sgt. Stebbins (formerly 75th Rangers) who molested his girlfriend's daughter.

In that case, Sgt Stebbins was found guilty of rape and sentenced to 30 years jail. Bill Clinton had no part in the case.
The group looking to charge the Pope cite the apparent fact that the Pope made was aware of the rapes perpetrated by priests under his rule, but chose to cover them up.
Little bit of a difference.

Hobbs

07-24-2010, 11:09 PM

What violence has Dawkins committed, exactly?

What? Where?

It's in your gorram signature.

He's perpetrating hate towards the religious.

Rebel, as I've offered, Benedict XVI sought to investigate a priest and wasn't allowed to. The scandals you're referring to happened during Pope John Paul II's reign. You're probably one of those who blame Clinton for 9/11 too, aren't you? :rolleyes:

Here's a little something concerning the Vatican and it's sovereignity: http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/vaticancountry.htm

HYHYBT

07-24-2010, 11:19 PM

You're absolutely right. Once we explain how something works, it's no longer a miracle. And that is exactly why I don't believe in miracles. There's no such thing as miracles, only things we haven't explained yet.You're talking in circles, then. Let me try again: SUPPOSE THAT A GENUINE MIRACLE OCCURS. Now, how would you go about proving that it happened? What evidence would there be? (for example, it's perfectly ordinary wine, now that it exists)

Ghel

07-25-2010, 02:46 AM

SUPPOSE THAT A GENUINE MIRACLE OCCURS. Now, how would you go about proving that it happened? What evidence would there be? (for example, it's perfectly ordinary wine, now that it exists)
That's exactly the problem. How would I know it was a miracle? As I already explained, if I saw something that appeared to be a miracle, I would doubt my own senses. I would want to get independent, unbiased confirmation of the event. Have it repeated under controlled conditions, if possible. Find out what evidence there is besides my own memory (which is hearsay, and I would expect anybody listening to be skeptical of my retelling of it).

Hobbs

07-25-2010, 03:09 AM

That's still circular logic and doesn't answer the question at all. In fact, you're simply dodging the question.

the_std

07-25-2010, 03:15 PM

You're talking in circles, then. Let me try again: SUPPOSE THAT A GENUINE MIRACLE OCCURS. Now, how would you go about proving that it happened?

Ghel has, in fact, answered the question because what HYHYBT is asking is not a question Ghel can answer. Ghel does not believe a genuine miracle can ever occur, so how else can she answer that question? Anything she saw that would be called miraculous, she would believe there was an alternate answer that she was just unaware of. How is that circular logic when she does not believe in the possibility of such a thing as a true miracle occuring?

The problem with the question is that you are taking the possibility of a genuine miracle for granted and then asking the people who do not believe in those miracles to provide proof. How can someone prove something they believe does not exist?

Rebel

07-25-2010, 05:22 PM

It's in your gorram signature.

He's perpetrating hate towards the religious.

How is he perpetrating hate against religion? All the quote says is that religion is not necessary. It does not say anything about forcing people to give up religion or punishing those who do not.

Rebel, as I've offered, Benedict XVI sought to investigate a priest and wasn't allowed to. The scandals you're referring to happened during Pope John Paul II's reign. You're probably one of those who blame Clinton for 9/11 too, aren't you? :rolleyes:

Wow.

You do know the saying about people who assume right?

All I had stated was the actual proposal put forward by 2 people (who aren't Dawkins (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415?page=4)) to not only call to review the status of the Vatican in the UN, but to bring forth a legal proceeding against the current Pope for his direct involvement in alleged coverups (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/pope-sexual-abuse-lawrence-murphy_n_512483.html) of priest pedophilia. It was a direct counterpoint to your (unfounded) accusation of terrorism by Dawkins.

You also seem to love bringing up random other stories that have nothing to do with the current topic to prove your point. Like Clinton and 9/11.
I'll help you out. I see the main cause of that was political/social/religious tension that came to a boiling point.

But I'm guessing, in the end, that because I'm not agreeing with everything you say that I must be an uneducated crackpot who see conspiracies everywhere, and sleeps with tinfoil on my head :rolleyes:

You're talking in circles, then. Let me try again: SUPPOSE THAT A GENUINE MIRACLE OCCURS. Now, how would you go about proving that it happened? What evidence would there be? (for example, it's perfectly ordinary wine, now that it exists)

Ghel is coming from a starting point of disbelief while you are coming from a starting point of belief.
Ghel doesn't believe in miracles, you do believe in miracles.
Ghel demands answers, but you are content with what you see/hear.
I don't see how Ghel's talking in circles at all. Different starting points lead to different finishing points.

Hobbs

07-25-2010, 05:31 PM

How is he perpetrating violence against religion? All the quote says is that religion is not necessary. It does not say anything about forcing people to give up religion or punishing those who do not.

I was referring to Dawkins. Read next time.

Ghel

07-25-2010, 07:34 PM

Regarding miracles: if you start with the assumption that miracles exist, the rest of your work is going to be flawed. If you start with the assumption that a god exists, the rest of your work will likewise be flawed. Whether miracles or a god exists should be determined by the evidence. It is the end of the investigation, not the beginning.

Regarding my signature: all that it states is that Einstein didn't think that religion was necessary for morality. Beyond that, I cannot say. Nor does that one quote tell us what Einstein's religious affiliation was. And Einstein's religious affiliation would not tell us whether he was right.

Regarding Dawkins: Hate is not violence, Hobbs. Your definition of terrorism specifically stated that violence was a necessary part of terrorism. If Dawkins has ever done anything violent in support of his views, it would be news to me.

Hobbs

07-25-2010, 07:35 PM

His perpetration of hate leads to violent acts by extremist anti-thiests the world over. Such people are enemies to the Church and any peaceful society.

Rebel

07-25-2010, 08:23 PM

His perpetration of hate leads to violent acts by extremist anti-thiests the world over. Such people are enemies to the Church and any peaceful society.

Examples? What violent acts? And where?

If you make a statement that incredible, you have to back it up. It's Debate 101.

How are athiests violent, but church/religion peaceful?
Let me remind you that extremists exist in every country, state, culture, and religion.

Hobbs

07-25-2010, 08:44 PM

"...the danger that if atheism became widespread, as it has in the Soviet Union and in other countries of the world, it would become the functional equivalent of a state religion with the suppression of theistic minorities...atheists, no less than theists, might want to suppress what they did not believe was true or what they thought was dangerous."
Martin, Michael. Atheism : A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.

Some West Side boys did not attack East Side boys. Some did attack East Side boys. There were no beliefs demanding an attack. The attack was caused by intolerance.

Some Christians attack and killed non-Christians. Most do not. Intolerance, not Christianity, caused that violence.

Some Muslims attack and kill non-Muslims. Some do not. Again, intolerance is the cause.

Some atheists attack and kill Christians. Stalin was pro-atheist and vehemently anti-theist, and he wanted to force that atheism on everybody. He killed millions of Christians, to further atheism.

Ghel

07-25-2010, 10:17 PM

"...the danger that if atheism became widespread, as it has in the Soviet Union and in other countries of the world, it would become the functional equivalent of a state religion with the suppression of theistic minorities...atheists, no less than theists, might want to suppress what they did not believe was true or what they thought was dangerous."
Martin, Michael. Atheism : A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.
Do you have the context of this statement? The surrounding passage? The reason I ask is because, after reading the description of this book on several sites, I have a hard time imagining that this is the author's opinion. It seems more likely that he was using this statement, along with whatever portion the ellipses leave out, as an introduction to an argument he was about to refute.

I would like to thank you for quoting this. I added this book to my wishlist and will likely be reading it in the near future.

Some atheists attack and kill Christians.
Even if true (and I find it unlikely), that doesn't tell us anything about whether the claims of theists are true. Your statement is a red herring. The actions of theists or atheists have nothing to do with whether their claims are true.

Hobbs

07-26-2010, 05:12 AM

Even if true (and I find it unlikely), that doesn't tell us anything about whether the claims of theists are true. Your statement is a red herring. The actions of theists or atheists have nothing to do with whether their claims are true.

No, but it makes "your" side no better than "my" side. Athiests have killed thiests, by the thousands; Stalin in Russia, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and others around the world. Athiests can be just as intolerant as a thiest can, which is my argument. Being athiest doesn't make you "better" than me; it means you have different beliefs than me.

HYHYBT

07-26-2010, 05:31 AM

The problem with the question is that you are taking the possibility of a genuine miracle for granted and then asking the people who do not believe in those miracles to provide proof. How can someone prove something they believe does not exist?if you start with the assumption that miracles exist, the rest of your work is going to be flawed. If you start with the assumption that a god exists, the rest of your work will likewise be flawed. Whether miracles or a god exists should be determined by the evidence. It is the end of the investigation, not the beginning.No, not at all. I'm not actually assuming (for this purpose) that miracles are possible. I'm trying to find out, hypothetically speaking, what standard of proof would be acceptable if genuine (meaning not repeatable by scientific means, not picked specially for your liking, etc) miracles are possible. If there is no conceivable way, even if they exist, to prove to your satisfaction that they are possible, then your disbelief is, in a sense, a matter of faith every bit as much as those for whom there can neve be enough evidence to convince them that the universe was not formed over the course of a week about 6,000 years ago.

smileyeagle1021

07-26-2010, 05:50 AM

Some West Side boys did not attack East Side boys. Some did attack East Side boys. There were no beliefs demanding an attack. The attack was caused by intolerance.

Some Christians attack and killed non-Christians. Most do not. Intolerance, not Christianity, caused that violence.

Some Muslims attack and kill non-Muslims. Some do not. Again, intolerance is the cause.

Some atheists attack and kill Christians. Stalin was pro-atheist and vehemently anti-theist, and he wanted to force that atheism on everybody. He killed millions of Christians, to further atheism.

So, you've proven that intolerence leads to violence... yet there is no proof where intolerence originates. From your point of view intolerence is a trait of atheists or other non-religious people, from people like me and Ghel intolerence is a trait of religious people. And to be honest, both sides can lead to intolerence.
I don't think I really have to go into details in how the Bible has fueled intolerence, after all, it doesn't matter what your ethical and moral misgivings may be if your God commands you to do something. A supreme entity can instill a great level of intolerence towards those who don't do what you believe that supreme entity wants them to do.... after all, they're going against the supreme entity.
Atheism equally can create intolerence. I see it all the time, "I got where I am on my own, therefor I'm better than those who depend on their make believe God to make it through their lives"
That still doesn't mean that either side inherintly is intolerent (though my life experience has been that more religious people do tend to be intolerent more often than atheists, but then again, I don't know many atheists, yes many who don't believe in religion, like myself, but not that disbelieve in God).

Ghel

07-26-2010, 01:18 PM

Athiests can be just as intolerant as a thiest can...
Atheism equally can create intolerence. I see it all the time, "I got where I am on my own, therefor I'm better than those who depend on their make believe God to make it through their lives"
Two points: 1. Intolerance means attempting to stop a thing from happening. Speaking out against a thing is not intolerance. Resorting to legislation and/or violence to stop a thing is intolerance.

2. Atheism, by itself, does not lead to ANYTHING. Atheism is a view on a single point, the belief in the existence of a god. Any other views the atheist has are in addition to his or her atheism, and by necessity must come from a different source. Therefore, bringing communism or dictatorships into the discussion is another red herring.

Being athiest doesn't make you "better" than me; it means you have different beliefs than me.
I never said it did. What I have said over and over again is that I prefer that I have as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible. If I find out that something I thought was true isn't, I will change that view.

...what standard of proof would be acceptable...
What standard of evidence I would find acceptable is the same standard that we use for other scientific experiments. The same standard that is used in experiments that try to determine whether prayer works. Whether psychic healing works. Whether precognition works. And yes, it would have to be repeatable. The same way we expect psychics to be able to repeat their results before we accept their claims.

Again, even if miracles existed, they wouldn't necessarily be evidence for the Christian God.

Hobbs

07-26-2010, 03:55 PM

That still doesn't mean that either side inherintly is intolerent

That is exactly the point I was making. There was an article I read for either a sociology class or an anthropology class that discussed the possibility of certain people being predispositioned to be intolerant, and that when they join a certain social group, they latch onto the "hardliner" motif in order to satisfy their intolerant needs. Again, I read it a long time ago, so it might take some time to find it, if someone wants to read it.

the_std

07-26-2010, 06:51 PM

That is exactly the point I was making. There was an article I read for either a sociology class or an anthropology class that discussed the possibility of certain people being predispositioned to be intolerant, and that when they join a certain social group, they latch onto the "hardliner" motif in order to satisfy their intolerant needs.

So you just proved the point that Dawkins isn't necessarily a terrorist, because him "spreading" atheism doesn't necessarily spread hatred and intolerance. The intolerant will be intolerant because of their personality type, not their moral affiliation.

Hobbs

07-26-2010, 07:44 PM

So you just proved the point that Dawkins isn't necessarily a terrorist, because him "spreading" atheism doesn't necessarily spread hatred and intolerance. The intolerant will be intolerant because of their personality type, not their moral affiliation.

No, that's not it at all. Someone being predispositioned to be intolerant doesn't negate the fact that they are spreading hateful rhetoric. There's debate on whether or not Hitler had syphilis which attributed to a growing psychosis, but I think we can pretty much say that his hate-speech is evil and led to the killing of millions.

Ghel

07-26-2010, 09:39 PM

Hobbs, even if what you're saying is true (which it's not), this says nothing about the existence of a god. Let's bring this back to the core of the discussion.

To all the Christians who are following this thread: What reason do you have to believe the Christian God exists? My eternal soul (which I also don't believe in) is riding on this. Convince me.

Hobbs

07-26-2010, 09:51 PM

Hobbs, even if what you're saying is true (which it's not), this says nothing about the existence of a god. Let's bring this back to the core of the discussion.

Oh, so just because I believe something that's not athiesm, I'm wrong?

To all the Christians who are following this thread: What reason do you have to believe the Christian God exists? My eternal soul (which I also don't believe in) is riding on this. Convince me.

Look, don't mock us. I'm not even going to entertain you with an answer other than that.

Personally, I don't care whether someone's saved or not. So your soul being forfeit makes no-nevermind to me.

Rebel

07-26-2010, 10:54 PM

I was referring to Dawkins. Read next time.

I had already countered your claim against Dawkins. Perhaps following your own advice is warranted?

Everyone can be intolerant. But I don't see how this helps your case against Dawkins.

Dawkins is doing no more nor less than anybody spreading the word for Christ does. He is putting forward his main argument, backing it up with his own proof, then encouraging the listener to come to their own conclusion. Isn't that what any non-fundamentalist church does with the bible? Church groups even do this on street corners as well as tv stations and news segments. What makes Dawkins worse than them?

And isn't your argument about the 'fact' that athiests are intolerant and like to spread hateful rhetoric already counter-claimed by the original article in this thread. You know, the one that points out how big a reaction a small group of Christians saying sorry at a pride parade caused. Because gay people are critisized and demonized by passages in the bible and by certain churches. Kinda intolerant there, and that is what made the event all that more noteworthy.

Yes, athiests can be intolerant, as proved by Stalin.
Yes, thiests can be intolerant, as proved by Hitler.

But in the end, it boils down to the evil of man. If they want to hurt or destroy, they will find a way and they will find a reason.

Still, no matter how much you say it, Dawkins is not a terrorist (even by your own definition no less) and athiesm is no more intolerant than thiesm at it's core.

Hobbs

07-26-2010, 10:57 PM

Rebel, you're still not reading. I never said one was more intolerant than the other.

Ghel

07-26-2010, 11:07 PM

Oh, so just because I believe something that's not athiesm, I'm wrong?
What? I was referring to the discussion of whether a lack of belief in a god can lead to violent actions. I wasn't referring to your beliefs at all.

Personally, I don't care whether someone's saved or not. So your soul being forfeit makes no-nevermind to me.
Then why are you even participating in this discussion?

Hobbs

07-26-2010, 11:10 PM

What? I was referring to the discussion of whether a lack of belief in a god can lead to violent actions. I wasn't referring to your beliefs at all.

sure

Then why are you even participating in this discussion?

Because this wasn't the topic of discussion, as you tried to retrack to avoid discussion. Point of fact, why are you participating in this conversation?

HYHYBT

07-26-2010, 11:19 PM

And yes, it would have to be repeatable. All right. You're saying that, to prove a miracle exists, it would have to be repeatable. You also acknowledged earlier that if it were repeatable then it wouldn't be a miracle. How is that NOT circular reasoning?

As for intolerance, that has nothing to do with religion or lack of it. The excuses people use to support their intolerance often are.

smileyeagle1021

07-27-2010, 07:58 AM

2. Atheism, by itself, does not lead to ANYTHING. Atheism is a view on a single point, the belief in the existence of a god .
Okay, perhaps I should rephrase that to be that the process by which someone shifts their view to Atheism could also bring about intolerant views (which would also be accurate for converting to any religion).

Hobbs, even if what you're saying is true (which it's not), this says nothing about the existence of a god. Let's bring this back to the core of the discussion.

Technically the core of the thread was originally about Christians preaching love and acceptance at Pride Festivals :p

Wingates_Hellsing

07-27-2010, 08:00 AM

Yeah, to get back to the core would be a shift of four or five topics, I don't think that's gonna happen :P

smileyeagle1021

07-27-2010, 08:13 AM

No, but when have I passed up the oppurtunity to be a sarcastic ass ;)

Kaylyn

07-27-2010, 11:51 AM

Boy, I know how to make a topic, don't I? :P

Ghel

07-27-2010, 01:22 PM

Hobbs

07-27-2010, 03:35 PM

I think what started all the side-topics was that I said I felt the church in the article was using deception to try to bring gays into their church. It has to be deception, because they haven't given sufficient evidence to convince any rational person that their god exists. No church has.

That's just your own biased opinion. The church members aren't decieving
anyone by saying they accept homosexuals and don't feel that their beliefs conflict with that statement. You're being deceptive in thinking that thiests always have to have a hidden agenda.

All the other side topics split off from there, but they're really moot. What a theist or an atheist does says nothing about whether their claims are true. Miracles, if they existed, wouldn't necessarily be evidence of the Christian God.

Actually, if I may go back to my topic of intolerance. Just as it's been shown by your own attacks that athiests are intolerant, I think it's showing a lot for this one church to express their tolerance. Even if some members still believe that can "cure" homosexuality, that doesn't negate the message that, as Christians, they are accepting of something that a small minority sees as a "sin."

I'm still waiting for evidence. Or a reasoned argument. Nothing I've seen, particularly on this thread, has convinced me that a god exists.

I told you, I'm not going to evangelize you. Go somewhere else if you want that. I don't give a flying fuck if you believe in God or not. Just leave me alone and let me believe what I want-without bringing my intelligence or morality into question-if you can help it.

Boozy

07-27-2010, 03:49 PM

Just leave me alone and let me believe what I want-without bringing my intelligence or morality into question-if you can help it.

Hobbs, this is a forum for debate.

If you want to voice your religious views without anyone questioning you, you're in the wrong place.

Hobbs

07-27-2010, 04:07 PM

So true. Well, I may not be a smart person (according to some) because of my beliefs, so I'll draw on someone I think is smarter than me to debate this topic:

An Athiest Defends Religion: Why Humanity is Better off with Religion than Without It (http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Defends-Religion-Humanity-Without/dp/1592578543)

KnitShoni

07-27-2010, 04:58 PM

Hobbs, this is a forum for debate.

If you want to voice your religious views without anyone questioning you, you're in the wrong place.

Is it not possible to debate religious views without calling believers irrational and unintelligent? I think that's more what he was getting at. Although, calling atheists terrorists doesn't help his case.

Arcade Man D

07-27-2010, 08:13 PM

HYHYBT

07-28-2010, 12:50 AM

It has to be deception, because they haven't given sufficient evidence to convince any rational person that their god exists. While I agree, both from initial suspicion and from what I've since read elsewhere, that the original story was about a deception, neither holding nor expressing an honestly held view is deceptive, regardless of whether you can prove yourself right or not.

Hobbs: that book is an interesting idea, but I don't think it's logically possible to hold a belief because doing so is good for you or whatever rather than because you, well, BELIEVE it. It's the same reason Pascal's Wager, while true enough on a certain level, doesn't work.

Is it not possible to debate religious views without calling believers irrational and unintelligent?Hear, hear!!!

Ghel

07-28-2010, 03:02 AM

You're being deceptive in thinking that thiests always have to have a hidden agenda.
That's not what I was talking about. Anyone who claims something is true without being able to back up their claim is lying. Intentionally or not, they're lying. And the more outrageous the claim, the stronger the evidence or reason they need to back it up.

Just leave me alone and let me believe what I want-without bringing my intelligence or morality into question-if you can help it.
I was tempted to say that I'll ignore your posts to this thread from here forward, as you requested, but no. This is what I was talking about earlier where many theists feel their beliefs are above reproach, that they can't be questioned, and that's simply wrong. Everything should be questioned. We should always be asking, "how do we know that?"

Is it not possible to debate religious views without calling believers irrational and unintelligent?
I try to direct my statements toward ideas and not people, but if I have accidentally insulted anyone, I apologize.

However, I have no problem calling an idea irrational or unintelligent. When somebody states something that is obviously irrational or unintelligent, it is my right, and perhaps even my duty, to tell them so. Yes, it's tactless and even rude, but it's the truth. And if any of us is afraid of having our ideas insulted, go over to disney.com. It's safe there.

You're coming to this from the point of view "I see no reason to believe in the supernatural unless you can provide me with proof", whereas Hobbs and I are of the point of view "I see no reason not to believe unless you can provide me with proof against".

No, NO, NO. You're shifting the burden of proof again. You and Hobbs are both claiming that something supernatural (the Christian God, in Hobbs' case) exists. If you expect anyone else to agree with you, you need to give them some reason or evidence.

I am making no such claims. I am looking at your claims and explaining why I don't agree with them. Thus, all I have to do is sit here and wait for you to come up with evidence or an argument to back up your claims. Until you do, I reject your claims.

Nyoibo

07-28-2010, 04:33 AM

That's not what I was talking about. Anyone who claims something is true without being able to back up their claim is lying. Intentionally or not, they're lying.

You do realise that that same arguement can be used against you, that "Anyone who claims something is untrue without being able to back up their claim is lying." or either just being contrary for the sake of it or out of a sense of superiority.

No, NO, NO. You're shifting the burden of proof again. You and Hobbs are both claiming that something supernatural (the Christian God, in Hobbs' case) exists. If you expect anyone else to agree with you, you need to give them some reason or evidence.

I am making no such claims. I am looking at your claims and explaining why I don't agree with them. Thus, all I have to do is sit here and wait for you to come up with evidence or an argument to back up your claims. Until you do, I reject your claims.

The burden of proof is as much on you, you claim that what they believe in does not exist, if you make that claim then you need to be able to back it up as well, the burden of proof is not on one person or side of an arguement alone.

Boozy

07-28-2010, 11:29 AM

Is it not possible to debate religious views without calling believers irrational and unintelligent?

It is indeed possible. Name-calling is against the rules of this forum.

However, the moderators have received zero reports about this thread. If anyone sees what they believe is a personal attack, please report the post. I haven't had the time to read this one through word-by-word.

Thanks. :)

HYHYBT

07-29-2010, 01:40 AM

Anyone who claims something is true without being able to back up their claim is lying.No, that's simply not true. "Lying" means telling something that is KNOWN TO BE FALSE. It does not mean telling something that is not proven to be true.

And no, it is nobody's duty to be rude. Unless, of course, in addition to making up your own personal definition of "lie," you've done the same for either "rude" or "duty."

No, NO, NO. You're shifting the burden of proof again. You and Hobbs are both claiming that something supernatural (the Christian God, in Hobbs' case) exists. If you expect anyone else to agree with you, you need to give them some reason or evidence. How is it that *you* get to decide where the burden of proof must lie, not only for your own beliefs but for everyone else's as well?

I am making no such claims. I am looking at your claims and explaining why I don't agree with them. Thus, all I have to do is sit here and wait for you to come up with evidence or an argument to back up your claims. Until you do, I reject your claims.Actually, you're going further than rejecting claims. You are asserting (though you will almost certainly deny it, that's what it amounts to) that God does not exist. And, best I can tell, you are also asserting that it is foolish to believe otherwise, or even to remain neutral on the subject.

Ghel

07-29-2010, 04:02 PM

Burden of Proof on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof) In their chart, replace "fairies" with "god" and you'll see where each of us stand. My stance is second from the bottom, "fairies (and god) probably do not exist." Those of you claiming that a god exists are at the top of the chart, with the greatest burden of proof.

As for the nature of lies, Lincoln said it far better than I ever could:

It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.
-- Abraham Lincoln, chiding the editor of a Springfield, Illinois, newspaper, quoted from Antony Flew, How to Think Straight, p. 17

Let's look at this a different way. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, as most Christians claim, then he knows what it would take to convince me that he exists (even if I don't know) and he has the power to do it. So the very fact that I don't believe he exists tells us that either he doesn't exist or he doesn't care whether I believe.

The latter option goes contrary to what evangelical Christians claim. Additionally, if there exists a God who would punish me (or not reward me) for not believing in him despite the lack of evidence, then he's a tyrant and not worthy of my worship.

Hobbs

07-29-2010, 04:57 PM

Let's look at this a different way. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, as most Christians claim, then he knows what it would take to convince me that he exists (even if I don't know) and he has the power to do it. So the very fact that I don't believe he exists tells us that either he doesn't exist or he doesn't care whether I believe.

As I've said before, Heaven is a place where God resides. So if you don't believe in Him, why would you expect Him to invite you into His domain? That would be like you calling me all sorts of names/accusing me of crimes, and then getting pissed off when I don't invite you to my house party. Just as I wouldn't go out of my way to be nice to someone who hates me, why should God do the same to you?

Your argument makes a lot of assumptions. It also gives, with your own words, the argument that He doesn't care if you believe. In my opinion, He doesn't. Thus, even though you don't believe, that doesn't prove God doesn't exist. It merely proves you don't believe.

Also, from your own link:

In any such dispute, both parties will hold a burden of proof.

So where's your proof?

BigGiant

07-29-2010, 08:16 PM

Hobbs:

As I've said before, Heaven is a place where God resides. So if you don't believe in Him, why would you expect Him to invite you into His domain? That would be like you calling me all sorts of names/accusing me of crimes, and then getting pissed off when I don't invite you to my house party. Just as I wouldn't go out of my way to be nice to someone who hates me, why should God do the same to you?

Not believing =/= calling names/accusing of crimes.

Your argument makes a lot of assumptions. It also gives, with your own words, the argument that He doesn't care if you believe. In my opinion, He doesn't. Thus, even though you don't believe, that doesn't prove God doesn't exist. It merely proves you don't believe.

If he doesn't care that I don't believe, why would I not get into heaven. In reading the bible, I've pretty much found that if there's one thing that god cares about, its that we believe in him...and only him.

I also wanted to add this.

My sentiments exactly. Love, compassion and charity are what Christianity are about. Sadly it's those hateful and bigoted assholes like WBC and all the crazy fundies that give Christians a bad name.

I think the last line is a myth. Sure there are great Christians out there that don't have a problem with homosexuals, but it is not JUST the "crazy fundies" that give Christianity a bad name.

I live in the Mid-West (USA), and unless 70-80% of the Christians I know are "crazy fundies", I'd say that mainstream Christianity believes homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights that everyone else does.

On a side note: I've just read through this whole thread. What a great read! Sure it got heated a bit, but this has been a fine discussion. Thanks to all involved.

Hobbs

07-29-2010, 08:56 PM

Hobbs:

Not believing =/= calling names/accusing of crimes.

I was talking directly to Ghel, thank you. She has accused God-by way of his followers, of pretty much everything wrong with society.

If he doesn't care that I don't believe, why would I not get into heaven. In reading the bible, I've pretty much found that if there's one thing that god cares about, its that we believe in him...and only him.

Because He knows you don't like Him, so He won't put you somewhere you don't want to be. If that's all you've learned, you need to keep reading.

Ghel

07-29-2010, 10:01 PM

So if you don't believe in Him, why would you expect Him to invite you into His domain? That would be like you calling me all sorts of names/accusing me of crimes, and then getting pissed off when I don't invite you to my house party.
So, Hank's throwing the party of the millennium. But he's not handing out the invitations personally. Instead, he's giving them all to Karl, who's handing them out to his friends, such as John and Mary, who are giving them to other people. I've never met Hank. John hands me an invitation. Why should I want to go to this party? John says it's going to be the greatest thing ever, but he won't tell me where the party's being held. And who is Hank? He's a great humanitarian in this city. So why haven't I heard of him before? Everyone knows Hank. I don't. And then he tells me that the main activity at the party will be kissing Hank's ass. Wait, won't there be rock music, sex, and alcohol at the party of the millennium? Well, no. Then I don't want to go. It sounds boring.

(Hobbs, you've said that you don't believe in a literal Hell, so I've left out the part where Mary says that Hank's going to kick the shit out of me if I don't kiss his ass.)

Just as I wouldn't go out of my way to be nice to someone who hates me, why should God do the same to you?
As far as I can tell, God is just a character in a book. There's nothing wrong with hating a character who only exists in a book.

"In any such dispute, both parties will hold a burden of proof. "
So where's your proof?
Talk about quote mining. It also says "This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary", that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts." Also, "Conventional knowledge is not always universal, and can carry different weight with different parties of various ideologies and cultures." "Conventional knowledge" is a bit sticky. While 70-80% of Americans are Christian, other countries and cultures follow different gods, so you would be defending your god against theirs, and yet other cultures believe in no gods. Thus, as displayed in the chart on the page I linked, the person who claims that a thing exists has the highest burden of proof, independent of all other aspects.

I still don't understand why you (plural) are trying to turn the burden of proof around on me, the non-believer, instead of simply demonstrating the truth of your claims.

On a side note: I've just read through this whole thread. What a great read! Sure it got heated a bit, but this has been a fine discussion. Thanks to all involved.
Thanks! I'm glad somebody's getting some entertainment out of it. :)

Hobbs

07-30-2010, 04:47 AM

<snip>

Because nothing in your attacks against me or in what I hold dear have at any point convinced me that there is no God. You claim there isn't, but offer no valid arguments.

And your twisting of my analogy is just plain uncouth and insulting to anyone with a shred of intelligence.

Ghel

07-30-2010, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Ghel
<snip>
Because nothing in your attacks against me or in what I hold dear have at any point convinced me that there is no God.
I love this. Absolutely love it. You're acting like you're trying to silence me like so many other Christians have done to non-believers before. But you can't. You can't delete my posts. Or edit them. Or prevent me from posting again. So your attempts at "silencing" me are hilarious.

And don't say you're ignoring me now. That would mean that you won't be posting to this thread ever again.

... your twisting of my analogy ...
I modified your analogy to show my point of view. If you're interested, I was inspired by Jhuger's Kissing Hank's Ass.
(http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php)

Hobbs

07-30-2010, 03:01 PM

I love this. Absolutely love it. You're acting like you're trying to silence me like so many other Christians have done to non-believers before. But you can't. You can't delete my posts. Or edit them. Or prevent me from posting again. So your attempts at "silencing" me are hilarious.

And don't say you're ignoring me now. That would mean that you won't be posting to this thread ever again.

I'm not trying to silence you. I really don't get your motivation for this response. I was stating a fact; nothing you've said has convinced me that there is no God. I didn't say I was ignoring you. Although, that probably would be prudent, considering you have no valid argument.

I modified your analogy to show my point of view. If you're interested, I was inspired by Jhuger's Kissing Hank's Ass.
(http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php)

I'm not interested.

the_std

07-30-2010, 04:35 PM

Because nothing in your attacks against me or in what I hold dear have at any point convinced me that there is no God. You claim there isn't, but offer no valid arguments.

Also, I think "attacks" is definitely the wrong word to be using here. Or, rather, who is being attacked. No one is attacking you, or else they'd have been booted from this thread. They are attacking your claims, the pieces of information you've made public on this forum, as one is supposed to on a debate site.

I have a question for you, too. Why should anyone believe in something that cannot be proven? What are the atheists doing wrong in not believing?

Hobbs

07-30-2010, 04:38 PM

Also, I think "attacks" is definitely the wrong word to be using here. Or, rather, who is being attacked. No one is attacking you, or else they'd have been booted from this thread. They are attacking your claims, the pieces of information you've made public on this forum, as one is supposed to on a debate site.

Well, I did report the post where she implied that those of us with religious belief are stupid.

I have a question for you, too. Why should anyone believe in something that cannot be proven? What are the atheists doing wrong in not believing?

They're not doing anything wrong. In fact, Ghel is doing the exact same thing the Christians are doing in the OP: trying to evangelize "non-believers." Like the Christians, those who don't beleive her beliefs are "wrong" and only she knows what is "right."