Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Science / Re: Trappist-1
« Last post by jetson on February 23, 2017, 08:13:36 PM »
I think it won't be long until we find other life out there...maybe not intelligent, but still. Or, perhaps more intelligent! Yikes.
92
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by Jag on February 23, 2017, 08:05:56 PM »
BS, you've been a member here since, let's see.... January 19, 2010. For all that you've written in the 7 years you've been a member, you've had ample time to address every aspect of your beliefs in minute, even excruciating detail. It could perhaps even be argued that doing so would have been a better use of your time, given the context of the complaints you are currently making. Seven years BS - you've had seven years to explain what you believe and why. Methinks your complaints are a bit misguided.

Yes, Jag, I’ve been around quite a while now, haven't I? In fact, long enough to know that you apparently seem to find great amusement in yourself when you go all Trigglypuff on us theists. I’m over your antics, your sarcasm, and your adolescent comments.
And yet, you're still talking to me.

Quote
How do you know that I have not detailed more precisely my beliefs if you were to take into account the collective nature of all of my posts? Is that what you are expecting when someone such as myself is asked the questions I have been asked in this thread? You want me to assemble every applicable post into a single response?
Just responding to direct questions with direct answers would be enough to start. We can build up from there. I have actually read a great deal of what you have posted over those years, so I'm pretty up to speed on your  - commissions and omissions?

Quote
Methinks your complaints are illegitimate.
Methinks you misunderstand. I wasn't complaining.

We're looking for substance.

BTW, what does Trigglypuff mean?
93
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by BibleStudent on February 23, 2017, 08:04:17 PM »
So I've come to the conclusion that everything religion-wise is based entirely on faith and no evidence whatsoever.

That would be incorrect. I do not believe I have ever indicated this to be the case.

Quote
If I've gotten your point correctly, our morality is subjective and God is not subject to it, so whatever we might deem wrong does not necessarily mean it's wrong when God does it. So, in essence, our human morality pretty much acts as a barrier that limits our understanding of good, bad and right, wrong as it only applies to us, therefore God's actions are well beyond that barrier, and following that logic, we cannot know whether his actions are wrong, nor right.

If I am understanding this correctly, I would say you are about right. The only thing I would change is that human morality is objective, not subjective.

We have no way of knowing how something God does is right or wrong because the only moral code we know is the objective human one. Even though we might perceive that certain of God’s actions are wrong based on the morals we are familiar with, we are incapable of seeing how they are ultimately and completely good and perfectly in harmony with God’s good moral character.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Now, I strongly disagree that our morality is objective. I've already made a post about this, you can check it out if you want to. But that's not relevant to the topic we're discussing. You're saying that we might perceive some of God's actions to be wrong based on the morals we are familiar with, yet you're perceiving his actions to be ultimately and completely good based on... the same morals we are familiar with? See, this goes both ways. If God is not subject to our morality, then you can't proclaim him to be good just like we can't proclaim him to be wrong. Now, if you're saying that you believe he is good, that's another thing, and it proves my initial point that it would be entirely faith-based.

In post #189 I indicated that "I believe that God is 'good, loving and innocent of all wrongdoing'  because that is what He proclaims to be." So labeling this as a faith based belief is accurate. However, my response was to your statement that you have "come to the conclusion that everything religion-wise is based entirely on faith and no evidence whatsoever."  My faith in God's goodness is not representative of everything religion-wise. Therefore, even if we believe God's goodness on faith, we are not declaring that there is no evidence for "everything religion-wise." Also, I kind of think it should have been evident that a belief in God's goodness is a faith based belief because if I believed that it was something other than than, I would have provided the moral authority God is subject to in order to demonstrate that He is indeed good.
94
Introductions / Re: Hi guys
« Last post by foke on February 23, 2017, 07:45:36 PM »
Quote
I'm currently studying psychology for my bachelor's degree. My relatives are orthodox. Now, I'm aware that some people may have a different understanding of the term "agnostic" so I'm willing to define it. I think that when you give a God certain parameters (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc) and it doesn't live up to them, it WILL get debunked. Now, if somebody asked me if there was a God (whereas God=creator of the universe)

Does 'creator of the universe' not qualify as a parameter that could or could not be lived up to?

Yes, definitely. But can you say with certainty that an entity could not live up to that parameter? What humanity knows to this day is not enough to decisively claim that our universe does not have a creator. Now, I'm young and I hope that within my lifetime our knowledge will increase to the point where we can safely determine whether our reality is manipulated or came into existence by accident. I would be comfortable with either of those outcomes.

Quote
and there was no Bible, no Quran, nor any conditions of operation attributed to it, my natural response would be - who knows? It's a possibility. I'm myself torn on this. And I'm open-minded. If atheism rejects belief in gods, in my definition agnosticism doesn't and rather takes the most neutral position on the issue - "I don't know".

Did you ever practice a religion or some manner of spirituality at any point in your life?

Well, I was baptized when I was young. Also, I celebrate most of the Christian holidays such as Easter, Christmas etc. and I sometimes like to go to an orthodox church. I'm emphasizing on orthodox because they're completely different from churches that belong to other Christian denominations.

Hi foke, and welcome!

Thanks, Jag  :laugh:
95
Chatter / Re: The Immigration Debate
« Last post by jetson on February 23, 2017, 07:28:37 PM »
The real question I think is, should countries have borders or should we all just be citizens of the world with the same rights from place to place and national sovereignty be damned so that I can go to Australia and be treated like a citizen of Australia the moment I step off the plane or boat.

Why don't we just do what Jesus would do - throw them out because they didn't follow the rules. I mean, according to a lot of people, this is a Christian nation, so I can't think of a better way to treat people than exactly the way their beloved Jesus would...throw them out and make sure they know they are only welcome if they come through the front door.

Remember, when the people wanted to stone the prostitute to death, Jesus cheered them on.

When everyone was hungry, Jesus laughed at them while stuffing his face with more bread than he could possibly eat.

You know, let's be Christian about this situation.

f**k the "illegal" immigrants, right?

With all due respect, I was asking a serious question. Many people fear the One World Order. Me? I haven't made up my mind about it. Philosophically I am already there, at least on an interpersonal level. However, I am a law and order sort of person...to an extent. Plus, with the actual corruption we have seen over the years within governments, I'm not so sure a one world government will be all that much better than what we currently have today because power corrupts and absolute power...well, you know. I would love to live in a world where I could live anywhere I chose and not be treated as a second class citizen or worse. What we currently have isn't equitable but I don't know what the solution is.

If America doesn't have the stomach to enforce it's immigration laws then America should abolish those laws. But If America abolishes its immigration laws, then so should every country in the world.

I think there's room for laws, and room for empathy and understanding on a case by case basis. What this administration is doing is beyond morally bankrupt.
96
Chatter / Re: The Immigration Debate
« Last post by Mr. Blackwell on February 23, 2017, 07:14:00 PM »
I need to point out that the fact that illegal immigrants are not citizens is completely and totally beside the point of this execrable executive order.  The fact is that all people in this country, whether citizens or not, are guaranteed equal protection under the law and due process.  While I am not a constitutional lawyer, I find it extremely doubtful that the President has the authority to simply deport people without letting due process take its course.  Deporting people because of the opinion of an immigration official, or people who have not even been charged with a crime let alone convicted of it, or because of any instance of 'fraud' no matter how minor, constitutes a severe breach of due process in my opinion.

By the way, this doesn't just apply to illegal immigrants, it also applies to legal ones.  For example, someone who came here legally (such as, oh, a refugee) could be deported under these rules.  All it would take is an immigration official deciding that they represent a risk to public or national safety, or else trumping up a criminal charge and then immediately deporting them before they even enter the court system, never mind actually being tried.

This is the second time Trump has signed an executive order which violates Constitutional protections.  Enough is fucking enough!

I'm not finding anything that describes the new executive order the way you are describing it. Do you have a link that explains in detail what you are telling me?

97
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by foke on February 23, 2017, 07:08:41 PM »
So I've come to the conclusion that everything religion-wise is based entirely on faith and no evidence whatsoever.

That would be incorrect. I do not believe I have ever indicated this to be the case.

Quote
If I've gotten your point correctly, our morality is subjective and God is not subject to it, so whatever we might deem wrong does not necessarily mean it's wrong when God does it. So, in essence, our human morality pretty much acts as a barrier that limits our understanding of good, bad and right, wrong as it only applies to us, therefore God's actions are well beyond that barrier, and following that logic, we cannot know whether his actions are wrong, nor right.

If I am understanding this correctly, I would say you are about right. The only thing I would change is that human morality is objective, not subjective.

We have no way of knowing how something God does is right or wrong because the only moral code we know is the objective human one. Even though we might perceive that certain of God’s actions are wrong based on the morals we are familiar with, we are incapable of seeing how they are ultimately and completely good and perfectly in harmony with God’s good moral character.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Now, I strongly disagree that our morality is objective. I've already made a post about this, you can check it out if you want to. But that's not relevant to the topic we're discussing. You're saying that we might perceive some of God's actions to be wrong based on the morals we are familiar with, yet you're perceiving his actions to be ultimately and completely good based on... the same morals we are familiar with? See, this goes both ways. If God is not subject to our morality, then you can't proclaim him to be good just like we can't proclaim him to be wrong. Now, if you're saying that you believe he is good, that's another thing, and it proves my initial point that it would be entirely faith-based.
98
Chatter / Re: "What are you listening to now"... take three...
« Last post by Mr. Blackwell on February 23, 2017, 07:00:34 PM »
I don't know how many times I have told my wife, or other people in general, to sit on my face and tell me that you love me but I had completely forgotten where I got that phrase from.

99
Chatter / Re: "What are you listening to now"... take three...
« Last post by screwtape on February 23, 2017, 06:14:48 PM »

100
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by YouCantHandleTheTruth on February 23, 2017, 05:12:56 PM »
... I too have seen very little content in posts that point to complete answers just a lot of plates spinning and questions posed back in place of answers

I'm not seeing anything either.  I guess he's been posting here for 7 years - how many people from the site have converted to Christianity as a result and thanked Bible Student?  If there are any, I still don't think it would be as many converts as he could get by working in soup kitchens, going on mission trips, etc.  Also if there are any, I'd like to know what their ID was, so we can check the archive to see if they said a thank you to Bible Student, and then stopped posting.  We'd need to see that change of belief documented in messages.  Are there any former users we can find that would fit this example?

Since Bible Student knows what God wants, which is to share the Gospel and get as many converts as possible, it's interesting that he'd stay on this site, when his time might be better spent in helping others to Christianity, in better forums.  Trying to convince people online might not be as good a plan as putting yourself out there on missions, and walking the walk, rather than getting in a war of words with theists over 7 years.  He's had 2,641 posts (about 1 a day). That might not seem like much, but he's obviously been scanning the site quite a bit as well, wasting more precious time.  Could that time have been used more efficiently to save souls?  Shouldn't a Christian be above all this online posting?  Aren't they better than us atheists?

This isn't to say we don't want any theists here.  But 7 years of online posting, trying to convince atheists?  I'm not sure it makes sense.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]