Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Chatter / Re: So long and thanks for all the fish
« Last post by One Above All on November 22, 2017, 05:55:39 AM »
I will mention this though One. Mr Blackwell wasn’t the first in that thread to start raising things other than the main subject. Others did it before him. Yet as soon as he said that comment “as if that is the one thing we should be judging our leaders on” you pounced right on him for subject changing. Why single him out?

Well, here's the thing: he was, in fact, trying to make it seem like it was no big deal.

And when you asked him if he was trying to detract from the Roy Moore discussion he did say this:

Quote
No. I was thinking about Frankin and myself and all the accusations currently happening and how difficult it is to determine the truth behind all the these recent allegations sweeping across the nation like a wild fire. I also think it's ironic that people were making fun of Pence not too long ago for being a prude in light of all this.

This wasn’t openly acknowledged by you.

Nor was his pointing out he wasn’t the first to raise Franken or Trump.

How come?

See above. It's irrelevant. He was obfuscating. Same thing Bob Katter did when Australians voted 60/40 in favor of gay marriage by saying "Well, but every three months somebody is eaten by a crocodile, so we should focus on that" (paraphrased), or the same thing a member did in a thread about a mass shooting in the USA, saying "Now is not the time to talk about policy changes, let's not politicize this" (again, paraphrased), the latter of which is what Republicans[1] do every single time there's a shooting.

Yes, sexual abuse is bad. And while it's not the only measure of a leader, it should be one of the things that invalidates them from being leaders.
Same thing with attempted genocide. You know, WWII? The guy who made some of the first animal protection laws in Europe also tried to wipe out the majority of people in Europe. So while we can recognize that he did some good, the fact that he attempted genocide should probably surpass literally everything else when it comes to our opinion of him.

To be clear: I'm not comparing genocide to sexual abuse, nor Moore to Hitler. I am, however, pointing out that some things are more important than others when it comes to choosing leaders, and some things are so bad that they can and should be the only thing that matters when considering whether one should be a leader or not. One of those things is sexual assault of teenage girls.

Mentioning equivocation (going by google) goes hand in hand with accusing someone of concealing the truth it or to avoid committing oneself to something. Those can be considered reason types for being ambiguous. Motives are reasons for doing things.

That's an assumption on behalf of Google. The fallacy "equivocation" goes something like this (to borrow an instance used by our very OP):
Donald Trump lied about collusion. Bill Clinton lied about cheating on his wife. Both are equally bad and deserve the same punishment, since both are lies.

This is obviously untrue, because lying about what amounts to treason is not as bad as lying about cheating on your partner. One involves the welfare of your country, the other involves your relationship.
 1. Or "NRA dick holsters".
22
Chatter / Re: Net neutrality
« Last post by One Above All on November 22, 2017, 05:21:49 AM »
I hear he may be reconsidering the elephant thing, though.

As Colbert put it (paraphrased), he reconsidered the bad thing nobody was talking about doing except himself/his administration, and now wants praise for it.
23
General Religious Discussion / Re: For the hell of it
« Last post by Add Homonym on November 22, 2017, 05:15:32 AM »
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

(Our translators have unfortunately missed this glorious truth, taking "the sins that are past" to mean the past sins of believers—committed before faith—and rendering, by the word "remission," what means only a "passing by"; thus making it appear that "remission of sins" is "through the forbearance of God," which it certainly is not).

24
General Religious Discussion / For the hell of it
« Last post by Add Homonym on November 22, 2017, 05:04:26 AM »
I was writing a Wordpress dissertation on why I can't believe. That of course requires a different type of rigour to the churning out of the average forum post. In my analysis of Hell, I was making the point that Christians find it difficult to defend God sending everyone prior to Jesus to hell, plus small babies, and people in other cultures. But I noticed in Romans 3:25 that God seems to give a free pass to anyone earlier than Jesus. It's rather difficult to make out in the King James

[25] Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

I went to the analysis section on biblehub  http://biblehub.com/romans/3-25.htm    way down the bottom

(25, 26) The death of Christ had a twofold object or final cause:--(1) It was to be, like the sacrifices of the old covenant, an offering propitiatory to God, and actualised in the believer through faith. (2) It was to demonstrate the righteousness of God by showing that sin would entail punishment, though it might not be punished in the person of the sinner. The apparent absence of any adequate retribution for the sins of past ages made it necessary that by one conspicuous instance it should be shown that this was in no sense due to an ignoring of the true nature of sin. The retributive justice of God was all the time unimpaired. The death of Christ served for its vindication, at the same time that a way to escape from its consequences was opened out through the justification of the believer.

Precisely in what sense the punishment of our sins fell upon Christ, and in what sense the justice of God was vindicated by its so falling, is another point which we are not able to determine. Nothing, we may be sure, can be involved which is in ultimate conflict with morality. At the same time, we see that under the ordinary government of God, the innocent suffer for the guilty, and there may be some sort of transference of this analogy into the transcendental sphere. Both the natural and the supernatural government of God are schemes "imperfectly comprehended." In any case, Christ was innocent, and Christ suffered. On any theory there is a connection between His death and human sin. What connection, is a question to which, perhaps, only a partial answer can be given. Some weighty remarks on this subject will be found in Butler's Analogy of Religion, Part II., Romans 5 (latter part).



So, Paul seems to make the statement that sins will now be punished. This means that Paul must believe in hell. In an annihilationist model, there is no way to punish anyone.

This would mean that Jesus brought hell with him.

I find this perplexing, because Christians inserted the word "hell" into the Old Testament, 30 odd times. This seems strange, if there was no hell at that point.

It also seems bloody strange that God and Jesus gave us hell, when previously there was none.... but all the sects prior to Jesus believed in hell. So, where did they get this information from? Surely it was a big surprise?

25
Chatter / Re: So long and thanks for all the fish
« Last post by Emma286 on November 22, 2017, 03:35:50 AM »
You may think I’m being needlessly apologetic, but I am aware that when I wrote that last response I let heated emotion rule my head too much. It didn’t help that memories of negative experiences I had back on Atheist Think Tank were triggered after our most recent pm talks (which of course has nothing to do with you). I see that it was unfair for me to take that out on you, so will say sorry for this.

I will mention this though One. Mr Blackwell wasn’t the first in that thread to start raising things other than the main subject. Others did it before him. Yet as soon as he said that comment “as if that is the one thing we should be judging our leaders on” you pounced right on him for subject changing. Why single him out?

And when you asked him if he was trying to detract from the Roy Moore discussion he did say this:

Quote
No. I was thinking about Frankin and myself and all the accusations currently happening and how difficult it is to determine the truth behind all the these recent allegations sweeping across the nation like a wild fire. I also think it's ironic that people were making fun of Pence not too long ago for being a prude in light of all this.

This wasn’t openly acknowledged by you.

Nor was his pointing out he wasn’t the first to raise Franken or Trump.

How come?

Mentioning equivocation (going by google) goes hand in hand with accusing someone of concealing the truth it or to avoid committing oneself to something. Those can be considered reason types for being ambiguous. Motives are reasons for doing things.
26
Even some mainstream scientists say that the universe appears designed and even propose the theory that we're living in a simulation.
Pretending for a moment that we have undeniable evidence that the sum total of the observable universe is a simulation...
...a simulation of what?  Presumably, we would be a simulation that exists in a reality of some manner.  I mean, that's what you're thinking of with the analogous 'simulation' - absolutely every single simulation we have exists in this reality.  Simulations exists within a framework of some kind.

The god you propose is responsible for the creation of reality, e.g. the reality that contains at least this simulation.  If reality only contained this simulation, then this simulation and reality would share metaphysical identity.  They would be exactly the same thing but with two labels ascribed to it by beings that speak and write English.

Establishing the universe as a designed simulation should in no way increase your confidence in the belief of existence of the god that you describe.  It is unrelated.  Or you need to ditch the 'everything' part in the set of stuff god created.

Quote
And I think the reason why those who support or theorize the simulation theory might discount God is largely due to God's depiction in religion—a maximally great being who's perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving (even though there are a few instances in the Bible I can think of where these traits do not seem to be the case).
Perhaps.  But it could also be due to god being depicted as the alpha - the First Beginning - The Creator of All that might cause them to discount god.  That depiction appears to be one that you are putting forward, but maybe not.
27
You have a point there. I more meant "coming across as sincere", but the reason I stated "being sincere" was an attempt to convey that I was trying to convince myself to have more faith, but it was wavering.
Have you a good idea of what 'faith' means in this context?  Sometimes it means 'acceptance of the truth-value of a claim irrespective of evidence[1]', but it has other meanings as well.  'Trust' comes to mind.

Basically, if you did get 'more faith', in what ways would you be able to tell?  Would it be sufficient to have a feeling of increased sincerity?  Is 'strength of faith' directly correlated with 'strength of conviction'?  Is that related to 'strength of sincerity'?

Quote
I suppose a better way to word it would have been "trying to convince myself more than it would work and have that same feeling of 'God answers all prayers in some form' that I had before I started doubting".
What's wrong with this:
Just have faith that god answers all prayers..

Would that not immediately solve the problem?  At that point you would believe that god does, in fact, answer all prayers, yes?  Whatever feeling you're referring to, it appears to ultimately stem from doubting...something.  In this particular case it seems like doubt that god answers all prayer in some form is that something.  Wouldn't having faith remove that doubt?  And with that doubt out of the way, wouldn't the previous feeling you're referring to be restored?

Of course, that's very, very dependent on what 'faith' means.  How confident are you that you have a good handle on what 'faith' means, and that more faith is what you actually want?

Quote
And I do think that God, on the premise that he is a nice guy, more cares about the sincerity itself even if it isn't communicated as effortlessly as the person communicating intends it to be.
When contemplating on 'faith', you'll want to think about how you understand the relationship between 'sincerity' and 'faith'.  Would being more sincere correlate to having more faith?
 1. Evidence, or lack of evidence, plays precisely no role in determining whether or not you believe the proposition to be true.
28
I don't know whether this has been asked already but what do you know about god without the bible?

What do I know? Admittedly pretty much nothing. I could go farther and say technically I don't know anything except that I'm conscious, but that's not the issue here. The Kings I grew up "knowing" about God was more based on what others told me rather than my own personal experience and observation. And much of said stuff was either not acknowledging what the Bible says or just plain not knowing and going on hearsay and what was passed down instead (mostly the latter).

What I believe about God is a different story. I believe that God created the universe—well, not necessarily God as portrayed in the Bible, but along the lines of some intelligent and capable being creating everything. Even some mainstream scientists say that the universe appears designed and even propose the theory that we're living in a simulation. And I think the reason why those who support or theorize the simulation theory might discount God is largely due to God's depiction in religion—a maximally great being who's perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving (even though there are a few instances in the Bible I can think of where these traits do not seem to be the case).
29
I don't know whether this has been asked already but what do you know about god without the bible? 
30
Science / Re: 20 year time-lapse of our living earth from NASA
« Last post by LoriPinkAngel on November 22, 2017, 12:25:36 AM »
Recycling does not require that much extra effort once it is part of a routine.  Too bad those who can not be bothered can not be convinced of this.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10