Evidence vs. Believe (A Tale of Two Bunnies)

[Reine]

What you're interjecting into is a de-rail to begin with; Mr Frenchy insists on being insulting. It cannot be misconstrued as a lack of info on his part, and it certainly can't be mistaken as goodwill. If a bunch of atheists want to get together and have a bash-fest re: what Faith might or might not be, I might suggest CF is not the place for that.

If there is any sincere questioning of what Faith is within Christianity, that might prove to be an interesting discussion, for it's own thread.

I agree, this thread seems to be directed at personal attacks on people's religious orientation. They can do that all they want,... I really don't care.. It's a duck.

 

[razeontherock]

This thread has digressed to this:

Dexter the atheist - YouTube

Oh goody, can I play?

Imagine a World Without...ATHEISM - YouTube

Note the effective use of background music "psycho-killer"

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

George Michael - Faith (US Version) - YouTube

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I agree, this thread seems to be directed at personal attacks on people's religious orientation. They can do that all they want,... I really don't care.. It's a duck.

Oh, it's nothing personal. I'm only pointing out the absurdity of placing "faith" (whatever that term may mean to you personally), in a supernatural agent, one which you can't detect with any know metrics, and it's only proof is anecdotal offerings of it's sycophants, often with all the bluster and hyperbole of a used car salesman. This is not how I prefer to live my life or base my beliefs on. Good on ya' if it's working for you. However, I find it reasonable to base my beliefs on that which can be demonstrated, not that in which it can't, and the only evidence I have is your 'testimony.' Sorry, not good enough for me, and shouldn't be good enough for anyone else. As they say, 'claims require evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' It saddens me however, what some consider evidence. So until some time in the future, when you can demonstrate the existence of a god/s, you'll understand if I reserve my mind to be free of it's chains. To be able to see the world as it is, and accept it, is, well, to borrow a cliche, "priceless."

 

[razeontherock]

which you can't detect with any know metrics,
and it's only proof is anecdotal offerings
the only evidence I have is your 'testimony.'

Again, this is not the instruction of Christianity, so what you rail against is a strawman. Likely not a strawman of your own making, I can concede this is what you were presented with and understandably rejected. Even so, you are furthering these incorrect notions.

 

[Delphiki]

Again, this is not the instruction of Christianity, so what you rail against is a strawman. Likely not a strawman of your own making, I can concede this is what you were presented with and understandably rejected. Even so, you are furthering these incorrect notions.

Yeah? What would you do if I used that first clip in the video you posted as a reference to show you the parts in the bible that condones all the acts that the image accuses atheists of.

Meh. You'd probably just say I'm taking it out of context.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Again, this is not the instruction of Christianity, so what you rail against is a strawman. Likely not a strawman of your own making, I can concede this is what you were presented with and understandably rejected. Even so, you are furthering these incorrect notions.

Quite frankly, your view of Christianity is no better or worse than mine. This is precisely the problem of faith/religion/Christianity/Islam/ad nauseum, no two people ever agree. I say it's one thing, you say it's another, rinse, recycle, repeat. If we're not able to agree on some objective way of determining reality, then what's the point of discussing? This is the problem of religious faith. It makes a claim, then looks for evidence to support it. If people are ok with this, fine. I propose a better way, look at the evidence, then make the claim, and be willing to set aside your pride (I know this is a biggie for you guys ) if it conflicts with your worldview.

 

[razeontherock]

Yeah? What would you do if I used that first clip in the video you posted as a reference to show you the parts in the bible that condones all the acts that the image accuses atheists of.

Meh. You'd probably just say I'm taking it out of context.

Lessee

Rape: if by that you mean consentual seduction, more like eloping, then you'd have a point. Except that's not rape.

Robbery: do tell!!

Murder: how many of you guys even know where to find how the law was applied, much less have read the Talmud? You're WAY out of your league here

Torture: again, do tell! (God Himself here, not Rome)

Pedophilia: what you refer to is "betrothal," the first step in an arranged marriage. ANE customs are different from today no doubt, but consistent w/o regard to religion, so FAIL.

Tax evasion: really?

Racketeering, theft, arson, embezzlement, drug distribution, kidnapping, lying, cheating, etc: yeah you strike out -- FAIL

Sorry if I require you to actually know something, rather than just laugh and point.

 

[Reine]

Quite frankly, your view of Christianity is no better or worse than mine. This is precisely the problem of faith/religion/Christianity/Islam/ad nauseum, no two people ever agree. I say it's one thing, you say it's another, rinse, recycle, repeat. If we're not able to agree on some objective way of determining reality, then what's the point of discussing? This is the problem of religious faith. It makes a claim, then looks for evidence to support it. If people are ok with this, fine. I propose a better way, look at the evidence, then make the claim, and be willing to set aside your pride (I know this is a biggie for you guys ) if it conflicts with your worldview.

Being no two people ever agree within religion, you really don't know what everyone's world view is to comment on. You would be better off finding out what people think and then criticizing their particular views, rather than trying to lump everyone into your small biased frame of reference. Perhaps you should take your own advice and get the facts of each person's faith, and then stick to a criticism of that.

 

[Reine]

Oh, it's nothing personal. I'm only pointing out the absurdity of placing "faith" (whatever that term may mean to you personally), in a supernatural agent, one which you can't detect with any know metrics, and it's only proof is anecdotal offerings of it's sycophants, often with all the bluster and hyperbole of a used car salesman. This is not how I prefer to live my life or base my beliefs on. Good on ya' if it's working for you. However, I find it reasonable to base my beliefs on that which can be demonstrated, not that in which it can't, and the only evidence I have is your 'testimony.' Sorry, not good enough for me, and shouldn't be good enough for anyone else. As they say, 'claims require evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' It saddens me however, what some consider evidence. So until some time in the future, when you can demonstrate the existence of a god/s, you'll understand if I reserve my mind to be free of it's chains. To be able to see the world as it is, and accept it, is, well, to borrow a cliche, "priceless."

Your view of others personal journey of faith is very subjective. This then is true for you, and not me. My experiences are not the same as yours.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Being no two people ever agree within religion, you really don't know what everyone's world view is to comment on. You would be better off finding out what people think and then criticizing their particular views, rather than trying to lump everyone into your small biased frame of reference. Perhaps you should take your own advice and get the facts of each person's faith, and then stick to a criticism of that.

What makes you think I would need to know everyone's worldview to comment on it? Impossible and ridiculous. Religions/faiths make universal claims (tenets), I have an opinion about those. That you have a problem with that, is, well, funny.

As for bias, we all have it, some more some less. I'm aware of my bias, which is why I try to base my beliefs about the world we live in based on the best possible evidence. To live an authentic, genuine life is my goal.

Fact: creationism = claim made---looks for evidence to support, reject that which doesn't fit, and says goddidit when you don't know.

Fact: Scientific method = looks at evidence, comes up with parsimonious explanation, says we don't know when we don't know.

 

[Davian]

Again, this is not the instruction of Christianity, so what you rail against is a strawman. Likely not a strawman of your own making, I can concede this is what you were presented with and understandably rejected. Even so, you are furthering these incorrect notions.

Speaking of straw men, did you read that first page on that video you posted? Do you concur?

 

[Reine]

What makes you think I would need to know everyone's worldview to comment on it? Impossible and ridiculous. Religions/faiths make universal claims (tenets), I have an opinion about those. That you have a problem with that, is, well, funny.

As for bias, we all have it, some more some less. I'm aware of my bias, which is why I try to base my beliefs about the world we live in based on the best possible evidence. To live an authentic, genuine life is my goal.

Fact: creationism = claim made---looks for evidence to support, reject that which doesn't fit, and says goddidit when you don't know.

Fact: Scientific method = looks at evidence, comes up with parsimonious explanation, says we don't know when we don't know.

What you just stated as facts are only facts in certain instances. what this really shows is your subjective veiws of science and how it is conducted. You don't know every scientist views who ever lived, so you are speculating. My perspective of you is not of someone who is looking for authenticity, because you are lumping people into your groups of standardize religious views without knowing what their views are. That is either dishonest or just ... the opposit of smart. You are entitle to your view of universal claims of religion, but you are not entitle to shove people you know nothing about into those categories. If you continue to do this, you continue to speculate on speculations, and you are doing the very thing you are accusing poor little bunny of :/

 

[razeontherock]

Speaking of straw men, did you read that first page on that video you posted? Do you concur?

No, I really don't. Have atheists done those things? Sure, so have Christians. Blaming stuff like that on religion (or non-religion) is pretty shallow, except in cases where the perps specifically cite their religion as their own cause for doing it.

 

[Delphiki]

Lessee

Rape: if by that you mean consentual seduction, more like eloping, then you'd have a point. Except that's not rape.

Nope, I mean rape

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Robbery: do tell!!

Why, sure!

Matthew 21:1-3 As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.”

Murder: how many of you guys even know where to find how the law was applied, much less have read the Talmud? You're WAY out of your league here

Where the law was applied? That's not what I said. I asked what if I could find where they were condoned in the bible, not where it was the law of the day.

Judges 21:10 So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children.

Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

Torture: again, do tell! (God Himself here, not Rome)

That's an easy one: The book of Job, where the almighty himself is carrying out the torture of not only an innocent man, but a man devoted to the one torturing him. It's pretty sick. You should pick up a bible sometime.

Pedophilia: what you refer to is "betrothal," the first step in an arranged marriage. ANE customs are different from today no doubt, but consistent w/o regard to religion, so FAIL.

Additionally, the rule is, if you kill their father/family in battle, you get to have sex with their daughters.

Numbers 31:17,18 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Tax evasion: really?

This one I'll give you. The bible actually condones paying taxes. However, I bet you can't find any causal link between atheism and tax evasion, or even prominent atheists evading taxes... Whereas, you should probably look up why Kent Hovind is in jail.

Mark 12:17 Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.

Racketeering, theft, arson, embezzlement, drug distribution, kidnapping, lying, cheating, etc: yeah you strike out -- FAIL

Apparently not. However, I'd like you to show me where I'm guilty of any of these. We don't have a doctrine or book you can reference like you do the bible, too, so good luck finding any of these as any sort of rule atheists must follow.

You know that claiming these are things that atheists exclusively do is an outright lie, and I could tell you what the bible says happens to liars, but I'm already getting bored of finding all the stuff in the book that you should already know.

Sorry if I require you to actually know something, rather than just laugh and point.

I'm sorry you're not even familiar with your own holy book, and that I have to show you these things. Most Christians tend to question God when they actually read the whole thing on their own.

And yes, I think it's very silly how Christians try to paint atheists as evil somehow, when the fact is, a belief in god has no bearing on ones moral character, but a believe in god can give people a scapegoat for violence.

So, for this post, you're welcome. Now, come back after you've actually read your bible, kthx.

 

[razeontherock]

Nope, I mean rape

No, you mean flirtation, romantic love, and eloping. You just have no idea of the practices that go along with the text, yet you feel qualified to form opinions and worse, express them. I have no justification for any similar behavior from myself, but suit yourself.

Matthew 21:1-3 As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.”

It's laughable that you consider this theft. What do you suppose happened to the donkey after the fact? It poofed it's way up to heaven, and Jesus parades around on it still?

Where the law was applied? That's not what I said. I asked what if I could find where they were condoned in the bible, not where it was the law of the day.

It really shouldn't surprise me that you don't even know that "the Law" = the Bible's first 5 books = the law of the day well past Joshua. Again, what makes you think you can discuss any of this on even footing? And then you feign to comprehend Job? (Hint: you don't)

Additionally, the rule is, if you kill their father/family in battle, you get to have sex with their daughters.

Of course you have no clue what you're talking about here, but why would you care? Truth or even decent info is ... beneath you.

Apparently not. However, I'd like you to show me where I'm guilty of any of these. We don't have a doctrine or book you can reference like you do the bible, too, so good luck finding any of these as any sort of rule atheists must follow.

You know that claiming these are things that atheists exclusively do

Wow, they had a warehouse sale on straw? Cheaper by the dozen, eh?

I'm sorry you're not even familiar with your own holy book, and that I have to show you these things. Most Christians tend to question God when they actually read the whole thing on their own.

The only thing you show, is ignorance.

 

[Reine]

So this thread really is not about science, but an ill concealed attempt to bash Christians?

 

[razeontherock]

You didn't notice that from the OP?

 

[Reine]

You didn't notice that from the OP?

Lol, I guess not... perhaps I was too focused on the duck. Quack!

 

[Delphiki]

No, you mean flirtation, romantic love, and eloping. You just have no idea of the practices that go along with the text, yet you feel qualified to form opinions and worse, express them. I have no justification for any similar behavior from myself, but suit yourself.

If violating women against their will is your idea of romantic love, then I can only hope that you're being closely watched by the authorities.

It's laughable that you consider this theft. What do you suppose happened to the donkey after the fact? It poofed it's way up to heaven, and Jesus parades around on it still?

Ah, yes, the classic "I didn't steal it, I was merely borrowing it" excuse.

It really shouldn't surprise me that you don't even know that "the Law" = the Bible's first 5 books = the law of the day well past Joshua. Again, what makes you think you can discuss any of this on even footing? And then you feign to comprehend Job? (Hint: you don't)

I see. So it's the law when you want it to support your childish arguments, but I'm taking the "law" out of context when it says the direct opposite of your childish arguments. Good to know.

Wow, they had a warehouse sale on straw? Cheaper by the dozen, eh?

Oh, NOW you're beginning to understand how it feels. Finally.