Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 19:33:02 GMT
Yeah, that's what many religions seem like to me. I've never been religious, and even when I was a kid the Bible stories stories like Noah Ark struck me as very silly. However, in my experience, most believers reduce the absurdity somewhat by adopting nonliteral interpretations of the texts. Many of the Christians that I've met, when pushed, don't seem to believe much more than that there's some sort of god-like being and that this being was connected in some way to Jesus. I live in a relatively secular area though; I know there are many places where the religious belief is stronger and more literalist. To me, that really does demonstrate the whole "they don't really believe and just want it to be true" principle. They're just picking out the things they like and disregarding the rest. That's not believing in the story, that's adapting the story to support what you already think is true.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS⺠on Mar 16, 2017 19:36:52 GMT
The important thing was why there was a flood and that there was a flood substantial enough to be recorded as historic in the first place.
In no way does that mean such floods were caused by a god, or that there was a purpose to them of any sort.
So the biblical account is just a tall tale unless there is some sort of evidence that a god was involved, or that there was a divine purpose to them.
The movie Cliffhanger for instance, is based on a real plane crash in 1977 in Yosemite park which was carrying a lot of drugs. But as you know being based on something doesn't mean the rest of it is real.
Did you read what I said?
I don't care about your beliefs on the matter and I wasn't discussing the factual basis of it.
I was merely discussing what Scripture says and the intent of the writer. If you were saying the Bible didn't say God did it or the reason why then I would suggest you read it sometime.
Then if you want to discuss this with me I'm all ears.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS⺠on Mar 16, 2017 19:50:09 GMT
My point is that:
1. It doesn't matter if many Christians suck at explaining their views. Most people are not scholars of anything in relation to their opinion on something. For example, many atheists I come across have no idea how to explain evolution, but all it takes is a handful of them to make the points valid.
I would go to Eva Yojimbo before I would go to ArArArchStanton to learn about evolutionary theory. That doesn't mean ArArArchStanton actually discredits the knowledge Eva Yojimbo has.
It's exactly the same with religious people. Don't make assumptions based on the least knowledgeable, but on the most knowledgeable.
2. The only weight an individual opinion has is on the person holding the opinion. The opinion itself does not make the opinion factual.
I don't understand how either of those things relate to anything I've said. Are you under the impression that I think that, because some Christians are bad at explaining their views, this discredits other Christians who aren't bad at explaining their views? Because I don't think that, and I never said anything that implies that. This relates directly to what you said and my reply. You say some, but I usually assume that means that everyone which is why I said I have no issues explaining something others may be lost on.
I have no reason to think an atheist or non-Christian have anything that would necessarily stump me regarding my own beliefs is all. So I welcome the opportunity to explain Scripture as best I can since so many atheists are flailing at grasping it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 20:29:26 GMT
I'm sure you think we sound like the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon, "Wah wah wah, wah wah wah wah wah." That was pretty hilarious not to going to lie. Except I'm going to use that line with the theists ð
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 17, 2017 1:54:52 GMT
Did you read what I said?
I don't care about your beliefs on the matter and I wasn't discussing the factual basis of it.
I was merely discussing what Scripture says and the intent of the writer. If you were saying the Bible didn't say God did it or the reason why then I would suggest you read it sometime.
Then if you want to discuss this with me I'm all ears.
I did read what you said, and the bible's account of it is irrelevant to any actual facts that we've discovered about it. And the reason is, the bible version is just a tall tale surrounding the actual flood you are referring to. In other words, the biblical account doesn't represent and accurate reflection of events, so why is it important or even something to discuss?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS⺠on Mar 17, 2017 1:57:08 GMT
Did you read what I said?
I don't care about your beliefs on the matter and I wasn't discussing the factual basis of it.
I was merely discussing what Scripture says and the intent of the writer. If you were saying the Bible didn't say God did it or the reason why then I would suggest you read it sometime.
Then if you want to discuss this with me I'm all ears.
I did read what you said, and the bible's account of it is irrelevant to any actual facts that we've discovered about it. And the reason is, the bible version is just a tall tale surrounding the actual flood you are referring to. In other words, the biblical account doesn't represent and accurate reflection of events, so why is it important or even something to discuss?
I was in no way discussing facts discovered. So basically you decided to respond to my post by completely changing the topic.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 17, 2017 2:00:33 GMT
I was in no way discussing facts discovered. So basically you decided to respond to my post by completely changing the topic. Well I'm all ears if you'd like to clarify.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS⺠on Mar 17, 2017 2:02:24 GMT
I was in no way discussing facts discovered. So basically you decided to respond to my post by completely changing the topic. Well I'm all ears if you'd like to clarify. Clarify what? I think you are just doing this for post counts.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 17, 2017 2:10:46 GMT
Well I'm all ears if you'd like to clarify. Clarify what? I think you are just doing this for post counts. As if post counts is an accomplishment.
I sincerely don't know what your point really is, so if you would to expound upon it, I'm all ears.
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Mar 17, 2017 10:35:14 GMT
You should give up trying to seem sincere. I'm quite sincere.
Claiming the bible or quran are true and believing gods sounds just like somebody trying to claim the stories of Arthur and Sinbad were true and the world began in Middle Earth with the creation of the elves and will end at the hands of the machines. It's like that. I I sincerely don't take the ideas seriously. That's what I'm telling you.
But it doesn't matter to theists whether you take the ideas seriously or not. Your approval or disapproval has zero impact on a believer's faith.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS⺠on Mar 17, 2017 10:46:57 GMT
Clarify what? I think you are just doing this for post counts. As if post counts is an accomplishment.
I sincerely don't know what your point really is, so if you would to expound upon it, I'm all ears.
I simplify it specifically to avoid expounding. I explained to you the purpose of the post, the post itself explained itself, and yet you still don't get it so expounding on it is literally just going to change the subject to what you want to talk about and I have no interest in that or else I would have discussed that.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 17, 2017 15:20:55 GMT
But it doesn't matter to theists whether you take the ideas seriously or not. Your approval or disapproval has zero impact on a believer's faith. Well I can't speak my specific impact, but the widespread act of publically revealing theism for the myth that it is, does have an impact.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 17, 2017 15:22:48 GMT
I simplify it specifically to avoid expounding. I explained to you the purpose of the post, the post itself explained itself, and yet you still don't get it so expounding on it is literally just going to change the subject to what you want to talk about and I have no interest in that or else I would have discussed that. This is the 3rd or 4th post in a row now where you've managed to say nothing about your point or the topic.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS⺠on Mar 17, 2017 15:54:39 GMT
I simplify it specifically to avoid expounding. I explained to you the purpose of the post, the post itself explained itself, and yet you still don't get it so expounding on it is literally just going to change the subject to what you want to talk about and I have no interest in that or else I would have discussed that. This is the 3rd or 4th post in a row now where you've managed to say nothing about your point or the topic. I'm only talking about you on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS⺠on Mar 17, 2017 15:56:05 GMT
But it doesn't matter to theists whether you take the ideas seriously or not. Your approval or disapproval has zero impact on a believer's faith. Well I can't speak my specific impact, but the widespread act of publically revealing theism for the myth that it is, does have an impact. No it doesn't.
Your view means next to nothing because you suck at explaining it.
Your view does not have the capability of being persuasive.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 17, 2017 19:20:49 GMT
No it doesn't.
Your view means next to nothing because you suck at explaining it.
Your view does not have the capability of being persuasive.
Sure it does. That's why you see atheist groups everywhere and a general rise in their population.
What is it I haven't explained about my view? Let me know and I'll be happy to clarify.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS⺠on Mar 17, 2017 19:38:46 GMT
No it doesn't.
Your view means next to nothing because you suck at explaining it.
Your view does not have the capability of being persuasive.
Sure it does. That's why you see atheist groups everywhere and a general rise in their population.
What is it I haven't explained about my view? Let me know and I'll be happy to clarify.
This is your problem.
Being persuasive has nothing to do with me being interested in what you have to say.
It's about you getting me interested in what you have to say and, again you suck at it.
David Dawkins is an idiot. I think we can all agree on that. However, he is popular specifically because he knows how to manipulate his bone headed arguments into a way that appeals and persuades the people who didn't think about things the way he does...Just like any other popular religious zealot and regardless of how wrong it is.
You don't have that and probably never will.
It is a disservice to let you go on thinking that your message is similar to the message of the more "powerful" theophobiacs/groups out there because you simply have nothing to say that is capable of anyone saying "That's a good point" except those already drinking the Kool-Aid.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 17, 2017 20:34:57 GMT
Sure it does. That's why you see atheist groups everywhere and a general rise in their population.
What is it I haven't explained about my view? Let me know and I'll be happy to clarify.
This is your problem.
Being persuasive has nothing to do with me being interested in what you have to say.
It's about you getting me interested in what you have to say and, again you suck at it.
David Dawkins is an idiot. I think we can all agree on that. However, he is popular specifically because he knows how to manipulate his bone headed arguments into a way that appeals and persuades the people who didn't think about things the way he does...Just like any other popular religious zealot and regardless of how wrong it is.
You don't have that and probably never will.
It is a disservice to let you go on thinking that your message is similar to the message of the more "powerful" theophobiacs/groups out there because you simply have nothing to say that is capable of anyone saying "That's a good point" except those already drinking the Kool-Aid.
So I'm not interesting, and yet here you are. I appreciate your ranking system though.
What kool-aid do you think I'm drinking? Everything I promote is based purely on evidence.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 17, 2017 20:47:40 GMT
Not all theists believe in a holy book. I am a theist but also a naturalist and I view the existence of a personal god as childlike and naive.
My god is the impersonal, uncaring, naturalistic universe. I am a naturalistic pantheist.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS⺠on Mar 17, 2017 21:33:23 GMT
This is your problem.
Being persuasive has nothing to do with me being interested in what you have to say.
It's about you getting me interested in what you have to say and, again you suck at it.
David Dawkins is an idiot. I think we can all agree on that. However, he is popular specifically because he knows how to manipulate his bone headed arguments into a way that appeals and persuades the people who didn't think about things the way he does...Just like any other popular religious zealot and regardless of how wrong it is.
You don't have that and probably never will.
It is a disservice to let you go on thinking that your message is similar to the message of the more "powerful" theophobiacs/groups out there because you simply have nothing to say that is capable of anyone saying "That's a good point" except those already drinking the Kool-Aid.
So I'm not interesting, and yet here you are. I appreciate your ranking system though.
What kool-aid do you think I'm drinking? Everything I promote is based purely on evidence.
I'm not here for you except to make fun of you on occasion and drop some much needed knowledge that you have no intention of listening to.
If you would like to post some times that we had any significant conversations, then be my guest.
Right now you are completely ignoring something I said in order to discuss what I said in a way that you want to discuss which must be some kind of atheist calculus problem only they can grasp.
Whatever it is, it is not power of persuasion
Your threads, on the basis of their simplistic nature, just attract others to it and I have conversations with them. You just try to interject every so often and, as is your custom, you don't have any foundation to discuss.
|
|