Lets face it...

[agua]

I'm not talking about cheering for the other team, I'm talking about the *players* apart from the games. They may cheer for one team, while date a player from the other team lol.

This is more or less forbidden in Christainity, if you play for that team

 

[TillICollapse]

This is more or less forbidden in Christainity, if you play for that team

I suddenly, on a serious note, want to go down the various rabbit holes that statement implies (no pun intended on the rabbits and the current holiday ) ... but I should refrain

 

[Chesterton]

I suddenly, on a serious note, want to go down the various rabbit holes that statement implies (no pun intended on the rabbits and the current holiday ) ... but I should refrain

Okay, on a serious note...words that could get past the auto-censor...I'm thinking...traitor, mercenary, prostitute...someone who does what benefits them regardless of principles of right and wrong...yes, you have described Davian. Your words, not mine. (Well okay, they are mine, but only with a smidgen of artistic license. )

 

[TillICollapse]

Okay, on a serious note...words that could get past the auto-censor...I'm thinking...traitor, mercenary, prostitute...someone who does what benefits them regardless of principles of right and wrong...yes, you have described Davian. Your words, not mine. (Well okay, they are mine, but only with a smidgen of artistic license. )

I actually couldn't tell if you were referencing homosexuality (shouldn't get past the censor) or a ... female who is known to spread herself around lol ? That should be okay for the censors.

No I wasn't saying anything about Davian specifically. Those are your words, not mine. I was actually having cheerleader flashbacks haha I actually like Davian's posts, and appreciate them. Your own issues with others are your own.

 

[Chesterton]

I actually couldn't tell if you were referencing homosexuality (shouldn't get past the censor) or a ... female who is known to spread herself around lol ? That should be okay for the censors.

No I wasn't saying anything about Davian specifically. Those are your words, not mine. I was actually having cheerleader flashbacks haha I actually like Davian's posts, and appreciate them. Your own issues with others are your own.

I'm just kidding around with Dav.

 

[agua]

I suddenly, on a serious note, want to go down the various rabbit holes that statement implies (no pun intended on the rabbits and the current holiday ) ... but I should refrain

I've investigated the statement ( to my satisfaction ) through personal experience, and I agree with the Biblical idea, fully.

 

[Davian]

In what way are you fair? You admit cheerleading the atheist view,

I am not aware of this "atheist view".

yet are smart enough, or cowardly enough,

Whoa - let's not make this personal.

to hide behind the "seeker" icon

It is the icon I that I self-identify with, if you do not mind.

and not make any actual atheist claims on behalf of yourself.

I am not aware of an "atheist claim". There is nothing to claim.

You obviously believe the atheistic, materialist, rationalist view of reality, but you will not be so bold as to put yourself out on a limb which someone just might be able to saw off.

Sure I have. If someone wants to take on mainstream science, they are welcome to do so. Start sawing.

In terms of debate, it's effective, but not original; I've seen it before. My dear sir (and you might want to sit down for this), I am very, very close to calling you a scoundrel!

lol.

[announcer voice]

"You too can have a robust, easy to defend view of reality, if you choose one based on Science™!"

[/announcer voice]

That atheism does not mean one believes there is no God.

You expect the atheist to define "God"? Seriously?

Answer the other question: what concepts are convincing?

Ones that include testable, falsifiable hypotheses, with well defined terms.

Cheerleaders do have a ball in play. They cheer for one side, not both.

I have yet to have seen them given credit for scoring a point.

I did answer, I said "I don't know". (I apologize for earlier implying that you don't read enough; it's apparent now you can't read at all. )
But seriously, the question was brought up in this thread or another one here, whether some people who ask strange questions about Christianity were being dishonestly difficult, or honestly ignorant. In this case, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are honest, the reason being that there are modern Christians who are also confused as to matters such as these. One longstanding member here who frequents the Science forum seems to think the Bible is a science book, and that science can take a hike. I could write a lot on the subject, but if you're sincerely interested I'll point you to the Origins forum where there are (or at least used to be, I haven't browsed it in a while) some scientists who are Christian. Science stuff is discussed there. You can read there, but I'm not sure you can post because it's Christian only:

http://www.christianforums.com/f143/

and also to a BBC production about science and Christianity (about an hour long) which IMO is pretty decent overall.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=did+darwin+kill+god+bbc

I don't have time for that right now, but I would ask, why can you all not agree with Francis Collins?

My apologies, I could've sworn you said that. What do you believe in?

That requires 'faith' as the word is bandied about here? Nothing that I am aware of.

C'mon, where have I preached at you, and what are you stopped short of doing? AFAIK, you can you express whatever you want so far as it's done in a civil tone.

That is not my understanding of the rules, even if I were inclined. And if I were inclined, I would invite you to a neutral site, not here. And, really, what chance do you give to me being right (ex: gods are simply characters in books) and you being wrong?

That's not something that need be a hypothesis. I think we all learn that at an early age.

Just a description of how I think. And, a chance to slip in an observation that rather than countering with something of significance, you are simply being argumentative.

 

[Davian]

Okay, on a serious note...words that could get past the auto-censor...I'm thinking...traitor, mercenary, prostitute...someone who does what benefits them regardless of principles of right and wrong...yes, you have described Davian. Your words, not mine. (Well okay, they are mine, but only with a smidgen of artistic license. )

Excuse me? Is it not the religionist that is the selfish one, that does what benefits them (for their reward/heaven/after-eternal life)? Everything else is secondary.

As there is no such things in my reality, all I have as a legacy is my work, my family and children, and those around me that will outlive me. I contribute to society, pay my taxes, help my neighbours, and (try to) raise my children to be functional, contributing members of society. In my books, that is all there is.

What did you want to call me again?

 

[TillICollapse]

I've investigated the statement ( to my satisfaction ) through personal experience, and I agree with the Biblical idea, fully.

I'm thinking of like five different things. Not sure if you're thinking of the same five lol.

 

[agua]

I'm thinking of like five different things. Not sure if you're thinking of the same five lol.

I'm sure I know what my statement was, unless you think the context of my statement is subject to your understanding

 

[TillICollapse]

I'm sure I know what my statement was, unless you think the context of my statement is subject to your understanding

I think it takes two to tango lol But I refrained from going down the rabbit holes anyways, so ...

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[True Scotsman]

The atheists are right.

All good humor has an element of truth to it but in this case it is completely true which sort of makes the joke rather lame. It's like saying let's face it.....2+2=4.

 

[Chesterton]

Excuse me? Is it not the religionist that is the selfish one, that does what benefits them (for their reward/heaven/after-eternal life)? Everything else is secondary.

As there is no such things in my reality, all I have as a legacy is my work, my family and children, and those around me that will outlive me. I contribute to society, pay my taxes, help my neighbours, and (try to) raise my children to be functional, contributing members of society. In my books, that is all there is.

What did you want to call me again?

I think we're just sort of arguing about arguing now which is probably my fault. I'm going to let this go, unless you want to proceed. If there's anything you'd like to say about anything which you think might be against site rules, you're more than welcome to PM me. Take care.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In what way are you fair? You admit cheerleading the atheist view, yet are smart enough, or cowardly enough, to hide behind the "seeker" icon and not make any actual atheist claims on behalf of yourself. You obviously believe the atheistic, materialist, rationalist view of reality, but you will not be so bold as to put yourself out on a limb which someone just might be able to saw off. In terms of debate, it's effective, but not original; I've seen it before. My dear sir (and you might want to sit down for this), I am very, very close to calling you a scoundrel!

Are we also required to disprove the existence of a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars?

 

[Chesterton]

Are we also required to disprove the existence of a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars?

Did I ask anyone to prove or disprove anything?

 

[Davian]

Did I ask anyone to prove or disprove anything?

You said "You admit cheerleading the atheist view, yet are smart enough, or cowardly enough, to hide behind the "seeker" icon and not make any actual atheist claims on behalf of yourself."

What then, are these "atheist claims" that you intended to have me defend?

 

[Chesterton]

You said "You admit cheerleading the atheist view, yet are smart enough, or cowardly enough, to hide behind the "seeker" icon and not make any actual atheist claims on behalf of yourself."

What then, are these "atheist claims" that you intended to have me defend?

Again, the claim that there is no God.

 

[bhsmte]

Again, the claim that there is no God.

Saying you don't believe a God exists and saying; there is no God, are two different things.

I don't believe a personal God exists, because I can not reconcile that concept with reality. I will readily admit though, I could be wrong.

I am sure, there are things you don't believe in (for various reasons), but don't claim absolutely, that those things can not exist.

 

[TillICollapse]

I'm just kidding around with Dav.

Ah.

Question: Concerning all of your beliefs, do you believe they are all correct ? IOW, every single thing you believe is correct, 100%, no chance you could be wrong, etc. Do you believe this about your beliefs ?