|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 28, 2019 7:22:13 GMT
Why?...and who decides which ones and how? Religious freedom for all protects mine. It's the whole Golden Rule thing. There's no reason to restrict religion when they cause no harm to people beyond hurt feelings, or in the case of most theophobiacs, simple annoyance. Say what!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 8:45:03 GMT
Evangelical here 15/15 Funny they never asked me though so I have to wonder about those averages. We cover every bit of this in church. What's an evangelical compared to a regular Christian? A cultural category really. All evangelicals are Christians. Not all Christians are evangelicals. Evangelicals lean more towards the great commission and tell people about Jesus and speak more openly about their walk with Christ. This is my take. I have no idea what the test makers used for criteria. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 28, 2019 13:15:07 GMT
Many atheists are good enough at knowing things that are not controversial. Quandaries and conundrums are not their forte. Quite the opposite. It is out of the quandaries and conundrums, as well as the contradictions and quibbles, that a lot of atheism is born.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 28, 2019 13:21:56 GMT
Why?...and who decides which ones and how? Religious freedom for all protects mine. It's the whole Golden Rule thing. There's no reason to restrict religion when they cause no harm to people beyond hurt feelings, or in the case of most theophobiacs, simple annoyance. Much in the same way that atheism is not to be condemned merely because it leaves the credulous feeling mocked and/or insulted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 28, 2019 13:28:50 GMT
Many atheists are good enough at knowing things that are not controversial. Quandaries and conundrums are not their forte. Quite the opposite. It is out of the quandaries and conundrums, as well as the contradictions and quibbles, that a lot of atheism is born. Getting involved and getting involved with any talent are not necessarily the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 28, 2019 13:38:13 GMT
Quite the opposite. It is out of the quandaries and conundrums, as well as the contradictions and quibbles, that a lot of atheism is born. Getting involved and getting involved with any talent are not necessarily the same thing. It needs little talent to ask obvious questions of the credulous and of the supernatural claims they make.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 28, 2019 13:48:22 GMT
Getting involved and getting involved with any talent are not necessarily the same thing. It needs little talent to ask obvious questions of the credulous and of the supernatural claims they make. It needs little talent to ask obvious questions of the credulous and of the supernatural claims they atheists make. Can we blame you? It is so much easier to defeat gods of your own design isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 28, 2019 13:53:42 GMT
It needs little talent to ask obvious questions of the credulous and of the supernatural claims they make. It needs little talent to ask obvious questions of the credulous and of the supernatural claims they atheists make. Can we blame you? It is so much easier to defeat gods of your own design isn't it? I don't know Arlon. The only god in your room is the supernatural one you say must have created life on a once-molten earth, designed everything we see (since you are still apparently planning an appeal against the Dover verdict on that notion of truth) and is a personal something you have mentioned lately that you might pray to. As patiently explained to you before, a lack of belief presupposes nothing about the supernatural, and although one might have suspicions, is not contingent on a belief in anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 28, 2019 18:12:26 GMT
It needs little talent to ask obvious questions of the credulous and of the supernatural claims they atheists make. Can we blame you? It is so much easier to defeat gods of your own design isn't it? I don't know Arlon. The only god in your room is the supernatural one you say must have created life on a once-molten earth, designed everything we see (since you are still apparently planning an appeal against the Dover verdict on that notion of truth) and is a personal something you have mentioned lately that you might pray to. As patiently explained to you before, a lack of belief presupposes nothing about the supernatural, and although one might have suspicions, is not contingent on a belief in anything. No, that's not what I believe, but thanks anyway for proving that you are trying to tell me what I believe. QED And again you are entitled to "lack" belief all you want. I have never denied you that right. I still think it's stupid of you to lack belief while on one side of a debate though. It doesn't represent your position well.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 28, 2019 20:26:56 GMT
Religious freedom for all protects mine. It's the whole Golden Rule thing. There's no reason to restrict religion when they cause no harm to people beyond hurt feelings, or in the case of most theophobiacs, simple annoyance. Much in the same way that atheism is not to be condemned merely because it leaves the credulous feeling mocked and/or insulted. If atheism could do that, you would have done it already. That said, I agree that atheism should be protected as much as any religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 28, 2019 22:46:25 GMT
I don't know Arlon. The only god in your room is the supernatural one you say must have created life on a once-molten earth, designed everything we see (since you are still apparently planning an appeal against the Dover verdict on that notion of truth) and is a personal something you have mentioned lately that you might pray to. As patiently explained to you before, a lack of belief presupposes nothing about the supernatural, and although one might have suspicions, is not contingent on a belief in anything. No, that's not what I believe, but thanks anyway for proving that you are trying to tell me what I believe. QED So you don't think that the supernatural necessarily created life on a previously molten earth, being dead set as you are against the alternative of abiogenesis, or that the Dover trial verdict (which was all about Creationism, er intelligent design, not being taught as 'science') is not, after all, to be appealed by your good self? And you didn't mention possibly praying on these boards very lately? I see. Its good to know. My position, well explained to you oft times before, is of soft atheism. As for yours well, it is apparently still to prove coherent if the implication of your denials above are really to be believed.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 28, 2019 23:09:11 GMT
Much in the same way that atheism is not to be condemned merely because it leaves the credulous feeling mocked and/or insulted. If atheism could do that, you would have done it already. Going by what many of the devoutly-challenged on this and the older board have said, this was exactly the things non-believers, including myself, are criticised for. When asked why the consideration of religion should be exempt from the regular freedoms of speech, answer is, oddly enough, always hard to find. I hope that by this you are not raising the hoary old idea of atheism, or the absence of belief being a religion. It does not appear so in the standard OED definition. www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/161944 Although, yes, it is possible to adhere to an idea or action with strict fidelity or faithfulness, 'religiously' catching the same bus to work every day (to give an example) is not the same as structured order of supernatural beliefs. It is always a rule of thumb to take what people say they do, or don't believe in, at face value and theophiles make a mistake in working atheism into one forced definition of a 'religion' when no atheist agrees with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 29, 2019 7:34:56 GMT
What's an evangelical compared to a regular Christian? A cultural category really. All evangelicals are Christians. Not all Christians are evangelicals. Evangelicals lean more towards the great commission and tell people about Jesus and speak more openly about their walk with Christ. This is my take. I have no idea what the test makers used for criteria. Pardon my ignorance. What is 'the great commission'?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 29, 2019 7:46:46 GMT
It needs little talent to ask obvious questions of the credulous and of the supernatural claims they make. It needs little talent to ask obvious questions of the credulous and of the supernatural claims they atheists make. Can we blame you? It is so much easier to defeat gods of your own design isn't it? Atheists leave that to theists. Atheists just lack belief in ANY of them and nothing more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2019 16:27:43 GMT
A cultural category really. All evangelicals are Christians. Not all Christians are evangelicals. Evangelicals lean more towards the great commission and tell people about Jesus and speak more openly about their walk with Christ. This is my take. I have no idea what the test makers used for criteria. Pardon my ignorance. What is 'the great commission'? love that you asked The Great Commission 16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 29, 2019 21:19:20 GMT
Pardon my ignorance. What is 'the great commission'? love that you asked The Great Commission 16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Ahah! Got it! God bothering, prosthelytizing and annoying the shit out of everyone else who doesn't share your pitiful personal proclivities!
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2019 11:37:33 GMT
No, that's not what I believe, but thanks anyway for proving that you are trying to tell me what I believe. QED So you don't think that the supernatural necessarily created life on a previously molten earth, being dead set as you are against the alternative of abiogenesis, or that the Dover trial verdict (which was all about Creationism, er intelligent design, not being taught as 'science') is not, after all, to be appealed by your good self? And you didn't mention possibly praying on these boards very lately? I see. Its good to know. My position, well explained to you oft times before, is of soft atheism. As for yours well, it is apparently still to prove coherent if the implication of your denials above are really to be believed. Are you "just asking to see evidence" yet again? It has already been pointed out to you that you never were, are not now, and likely never will be, appointed arbiter of what is or is not evidence. That being the case, you dismiss evidence based on your beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2019 11:45:51 GMT
It needs little talent to ask obvious questions of the credulous and of the supernatural claims they atheists make. Can we blame you? It is so much easier to defeat gods of your own design isn't it? Atheists leave that to theists. Atheists just lack belief in ANY of them and nothing more. If you look thoroughly enough you might find "theists" who believe all sorts of ridiculous things about gods. There are also "science" fans who believe all sorts of ridiculous things about science. There is no difference whatsoever. If religion is "defeated" by its least informed followers than science should be too. That is to be consistent. It is not my opinion. In my opinion some science is valuable and some religion is even more valuable. Neither is defeated by the least informed.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 1, 2019 19:22:10 GMT
So you don't think that the supernatural necessarily created life on a previously molten earth, being dead set as you are against the alternative of abiogenesis, or that the Dover trial verdict (which was all about Creationism, er intelligent design, not being taught as 'science') is not, after all, to be appealed by your good self? And you didn't mention possibly praying on these boards very lately? I see. Its good to know. My position, well explained to you oft times before, is of soft atheism. As for yours well, it is apparently still to prove coherent if the implication of your denials above are really to be believed. Are you "just asking to see evidence" yet again? It has already been pointed out to you that you never were, are not now, and likely never will be, appointed arbiter of what is or is not evidence. That being the case, you dismiss evidence based on your beliefs Now, this is ironic since the regular reader on this board will remember how Arlon has told us lately that, apparently, "all definitions are arbitrary", and so here he ought to be saying exactly the opposite: that what can be defined as evidence is after all in this context a matter for me, even if he may not agree. But as it happens I am not here asking Arlon for positive evidence for his purported deity (mainly since he never really offers anything more than Arguments from Popularity or the God of the Gaps.) I am just reminding him that one can easily deduce the sort of god he believes in based on what he has already, quite clearly, told us - despite his usual obfuscation. QED.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 1, 2019 22:24:08 GMT
Atheists leave that to theists. Atheists just lack belief in ANY of them and nothing more. If you look thoroughly enough you might find "theists" who believe all sorts of ridiculous things about gods. There are also "science" fans who believe all sorts of ridiculous things about science. There is no difference whatsoever. If religion is "defeated" by its least informed followers than science should be too. That is to be consistent. It is not my opinion. In my opinion some science is valuable and some religion is even more valuable. Neither is defeated by the least informed. What, about nothing more don't you understand? It is also clear that you don't ,never have and never will, actually understand what science really is. Oh and I don't 'believe' in it!
|
|
