|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 30, 2019 20:26:30 GMT
One thing clear about religions is that they have a really, really low tolerance for competition. They often have special words in their vocabulary like crusade and jihad. While atheists are shining examples of what exactly? I don't know, too broad and ill-defined a group. It would make more sense to make a comparison with science.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 30, 2019 20:56:28 GMT
While atheists are shining examples of what exactly? I don't know, too broad and ill-defined a group. It would make more sense to make a comparison with science. Do you believe atheists are more logical or scientific than people who have a systematic moral code? Isn't that queer? I thought we thoroughly disproved that. Remember when the internet had all those surveys that showed "religious" people had higher divorce rates, earned less income and were less educated? Remember when I called the bluff and said don't count Christianity as a religion? Remember how all the actual religions not counting Christianity have lower divorce rates, earn more income and are better educated? Remember that now? Remember when we said atheists and Christians are just two sides of the same bad coin? Perhaps your very scientific and likely religious doctor can suggest memory boosting supplements.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 30, 2019 21:17:27 GMT
It's easy. I just stand still and watch you run off. Or perhaps you would like to explain what will make the short RNA chains stop tearing each other apart? Evasion still noted.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 30, 2019 21:26:10 GMT
Do you believe atheists are more logical or scientific than people who have a systematic moral code? We've been here before. What is more logical Arlon? To believe something based on positive evidence or something without? Remember how all you came up with last time was the Argument from Popularity and the God of the Gaps? We do. Terrorists have a self-professed 'systematic moral code' very often according to their religious beliefs, do they not? Some bluff. Hey, I know: is that when you argue with dictionaries 'and win again'? Remember how once I challenged you to provide one reference work which denied Christianity was a religion and, oddly, you could not? I do. Is that an actual true Scottish religion? For someone who believes the world was created supernaturally upon which god made life and has admitted to praying you certainly seem down on Christianity for some reason, deny it is a religion and all. You could almost be one of those 'theophobes' CJGCool is obsessed with...LOL Remember how you said how all definitions (especially yours) are arbitrary? We do. And how you later said that means definitions are not necessarily right? What have you been doing here but parading a lot of preferred interpretations and suggesting arbitrary definitions.? Evasions will be noted. Just as they are here from the unanswered questions from last time.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 30, 2019 21:38:26 GMT
I don't know, too broad and ill-defined a group. It would make more sense to make a comparison with science. Do you believe atheists are more logical or scientific than people who have a systematic moral code? Isn't that queer? I thought we thoroughly disproved that. Remember when the internet had all those surveys that showed "religious" people had higher divorce rates, earned less income and were less educated? Remember when I called the bluff and said don't count Christianity as a religion? Remember how all the actual religions not counting Christianity have lower divorce rates, earn more income and are better educated? Remember that now? Remember when we said atheists and Christians are just two sides of the same bad coin? Perhaps your very scientific and likely religious doctor can suggest memory boosting supplements. You're talking to yourself. I'm not talking specifically about atheists, you are. I mention science and you respond with a rhetorical question about atheism and ramble on from there. Perhaps your doctor (assuming that you ever see one) could provide you with a supplement to help with your cognition.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 30, 2019 21:52:15 GMT
It is impossible to describe the color green to a person blind since before birth, just as it is impossible for you to know what the Bible means. Here's the thing Arlon: if neither you or another person can describe something then there is no way of knowing what they and you have in mind is the same or not when it cannot be checked. (And there is a difference between knowing a colour and understanding what it is, too) It certainly does not mean one of you is wrong. All it takes is for a blind person to be told green exists, whereupon it would be natural to try and imagine it. And here's the other thing, which I had cause to remind you of last time this came up: 'knowing' God is not even like 'knowing' green since, quite obviously, there are plenty of blind people who are Christians (and plenty of atheists who know exactly what the different notions of god are.) Now, I know according to your arbitrary definition this does not apparently make them religious, but it doesn't affect the point that appreciation of the purported transcendental is nothing like seeing a colour and in fact (it is thought) is something hardwired into the human psyche. Hence credible people don't have to be told a god exists to have faith it does. It is the birth culture which changes, not the essential nature of the metaphysical idea. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 31, 2019 1:01:19 GMT
Do you believe atheists are more logical or scientific than people who have a systematic moral code? We've been here before. What is more logical Arlon? To believe something based on positive evidence or something without? Remember how all you came up with last time was the Argument from Popularity and the God of the Gaps? We do. Terrorists have a self-professed 'systematic moral code' very often according to their religious beliefs, do they not? Some bluff. Hey, I know: is that when you argue with dictionaries 'and win again'? Remember how once I challenged you to provide one reference work which denied Christianity was a religion and, oddly, you could not? I do. Is that an actual true Scottish religion? For someone who believes the world was created supernaturally upon which god made life and has admitted to praying you certainly seem down on Christianity for some reason, deny it is a religion and all. You could almost be one of those 'theophobes' CJGCool is obsessed with...LOL Remember how you said how all definitions (especially yours) are arbitrary? We do. And how you later said that means definitions are not necessarily right? What have you been doing here but parading a lot of preferred interpretations and suggesting arbitrary definitions.? Evasions will be noted. You are obviously far too lost in the jungle of communications to make a point. You have never learned that you can't prove things with a dictionary. It doesn't matter what you call it. You may call Christianity a "religion" if you like. There are many and varied definitions of religion. Please do not miss the point though. The point is that they are substantially different from every other religion, and curiously compare more to atheists. That is the point that matters. You can call them roofing nails if you like and it wouldn't change any of their properties.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 31, 2019 15:42:45 GMT
You have never learned that you can't prove things with a dictionary. You can prove a standard definition and do a QED. And so I do. If Christianity is not a religion then what is it? A glee club? The opportunity still exists for you to find a definition of christianity from a standard dictionary which does not mention it being a religion, which is more to the point. I will need to see exactly how Christianity differs from every other religion in substantial ways, and how instead it compares more to a lack of belief in God before I accept this view. Evasion will be noted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 31, 2019 19:25:34 GMT
You have never learned that you can't prove things with a dictionary. You can prove a standard definition and do a QED. And so I do. If Christianity is not a religion then what is it? A glee club? The opportunity still exists for you to find a definition of christianity from a standard dictionary which does not mention it being a religion, which is more to the point. I will need to see exactly how Christianity differs from every other religion in substantial ways, and how instead it compares more to a lack of belief in God before I accept this view. Evasion will be noted. Dictionaries contain labels, not facts. The labels fit or they don't fit according to most recent facts. You may not deny or affirm any fact based on a definition. Being true "by definition" means nothing. You are obviously not able to understand these things and thus meaningful communication with you is impossible. The facts are that people who identify as Christians have higher divorce rates, earn less income, and are less educated than other "religions." This might well be because so many "Christians" have no moral code and fear no god while all the other "religions" fear a god and have a moral code and follow it. A person who is not mentally retarded as you are can readily see that Christians, or large numbers of them anyway, are different from "other" religious people and for obvious reasons. You are trying to use some dictionary definition of religion to prove that "religious" people have higher divorce rates. earn less income, and are less educated. Dictionaries only provide labels, not facts. In your case the label does not fit the facts. Yet in your abject confusion and misunderstanding you believe you can fit the facts to the definition rather than the definition to the facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 31, 2019 23:08:46 GMT
You can prove a standard definition and do a QED. And so I do. If Christianity is not a religion then what is it? A glee club? The opportunity still exists for you to find a definition of christianity from a standard dictionary which does not mention it being a religion, which is more to the point. I will need to see exactly how Christianity differs from every other religion in substantial ways, and how instead it compares more to a lack of belief in God before I accept this view. Evasion will be noted. Dictionaries contain labels, not facts. The labels fit or they don't fit according to most recent facts. You may not deny or affirm any fact based on a definition. Being true "by definition" means nothing. You are obviously not able to understand these things and thus meaningful communication with you is impossible. The facts are that people who identify as Christians have higher divorce rates, earn less income, and are less educated than other "religions." This might well be because so many "Christians" have no moral code and fear no god while all the other "religions" fear a god and have a moral code and follow it. You are trying to use some dictionary definition of religion to prove that "religious" people have higher divorce rates. earn less income, and are less educated. Dictionaries only provide labels, not facts. In your case the label does not fit the facts. Yet in your abject confusion and misunderstanding you believe you can fit the facts to the definition rather than the definition to the facts. What on earth are you going on about? I am not trying to 'prove' anything. I was merely replying to your claim that Christianity is not a religion and moreover apparently compares most readily to atheism. Evasion noted. A personal insult is not an argument as I have told you before. I have also told you before that I have an autistic brother and so this is even more offensive than you might hope. I tell you again. Tell me the 'obvious reasons'. I asked for your reasoning before. Evasion noted. Er .. then your words about about Christianity 'not being a religion' based on your own definition of what one is or is not, and of Christians as a supposed fact being 'different' from other religious folk, are neither here nor there since, apparently, I am not permitted to affirm the truth of your statements, even if I wanted to. In fact, by your logic neither are you. All we have is just you running your mouth off. LOL See how this works?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 1, 2019 10:30:08 GMT
Dictionaries contain labels, not facts. The labels fit or they don't fit according to most recent facts. You may not deny or affirm any fact based on a definition. Being true "by definition" means nothing. You are obviously not able to understand these things and thus meaningful communication with you is impossible. The facts are that people who identify as Christians have higher divorce rates, earn less income, and are less educated than other "religions." This might well be because so many "Christians" have no moral code and fear no god while all the other "religions" fear a god and have a moral code and follow it. You are trying to use some dictionary definition of religion to prove that "religious" people have higher divorce rates. earn less income, and are less educated. Dictionaries only provide labels, not facts. In your case the label does not fit the facts. Yet in your abject confusion and misunderstanding you believe you can fit the facts to the definition rather than the definition to the facts. What on earth are you going on about? I am not trying to 'prove' anything. I was merely replying to your claim that Christianity is not a religion and moreover apparently compares most readily to atheism. Evasion noted. A personal insult is not an argument as I have told you before. I have also told you before that I have an autistic brother and so this is even more offensive than you might hope. I tell you again. Tell me the 'obvious reasons'. I asked for your reasoning before. Evasion noted. Er .. then your words about about Christianity 'not being a religion' based on your own definition of what one is or is not, and of Christians as a supposed fact being 'different' from other religious folk, are neither here nor there since, apparently, I am not permitted to affirm the truth of your statements, even if I wanted to. In fact, by your logic neither are you. All we have is just you running your mouth off. LOL See how this works? My definitions are as usual accommodated to the facts, whereas your "facts" are as usual accommodated to the definitions.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Sept 1, 2019 10:49:48 GMT
The point is that they are substantially different from every other religion, and curiously compare more to atheists. That is the point that matters. I will need to see exactly how Christianity differs from every other religion in substantial ways, and how instead it compares more to a lack of belief in God before I accept this view. Evasion will be noted. Christianity is a religion. As you already noticed before, the claim that Christianity is not a religion and has more in common with atheism is nothing more than a variant of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I have never met a Christian who claimed that Christianity wasn't a religion. That's what matters. If some adept of Dunning and Kruger doesn't see things that way, it might provide entertainment, but will not lead to more wisdom and knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 1, 2019 12:34:38 GMT
I will need to see exactly how Christianity differs from every other religion in substantial ways, and how instead it compares more to a lack of belief in God before I accept this view. Evasion will be noted. Christianity is a religion. As you already noticed before, the claim that Christianity is not a religion and has more in common with atheism is nothing more than a variant of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I have never met a Christian who claimed that Christianity wasn't a religion. That's what matters. If some adept of Dunning and Kruger doesn't see things that way, it might provide entertainment, but will not lead to more wisdom and knowledge. ^^^^ This explains why there are many Christians and atheists, they are hopelessly pedestrian in their thinking with extremely limited language skills. It's no use presenting facts. They will not allow anything to challenge what they have learned by rote.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 1, 2019 16:27:38 GMT
My definitions are as usual accommodated to the facts, whereas your "facts" are as usual accommodated to the definitions. I am still waiting to hear why, in fact, Christianity is 'not a religion' being 'closer to atheism' for 'obvious reasons'. And the point that if it is really the case that "You may not deny or affirm any fact based on a definition" remains: that your own (as you say) arbitrary definitions do not affirm any facts not matter how accommodating they are to your preferred reality. Evasion noted, again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 1, 2019 16:31:54 GMT
My definitions are as usual accommodated to the facts, whereas your "facts" are as usual accommodated to the definitions. in fact, Christianity is 'not a religion' being 'closer to atheism' for 'obvious reasons'. And the point that if it is really the case that "You may not deny or affirm any fact based on a definition" remains: that your own (as you say) arbitrary definitions do not affirm any facts. Evasion noted again. That's because the problem is on your end. Search education by denomination et cetera.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 1, 2019 16:44:36 GMT
I am still waiting to hear why, in fact, Christianity is 'not a religion' being 'closer to atheism' for 'obvious reasons'. And the point that if it is really the case that "You may not deny or affirm any fact based on a definition" remains: that your own (as you say) arbitrary definitions do not affirm any facts. Evasion noted again. That's because the problem is on your end. Search education by denomination et cetera. Evasion noted, yet again. You know that without substantiation, 'facts' are just opinions - right?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrellaguru on Sept 1, 2019 16:57:03 GMT
I believe in god or some sort of higher power and I also have no problem with the theory of evolution. Evolution is only an issue for theists who have a very narrow view of god based on a literal young earth interpretation if the bible or whatever holy book they use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 1, 2019 17:21:56 GMT
That's because the problem is on your end. Search education by denomination et cetera. Evasion noted, yet again. You know that without substantiation, 'facts' are just opinions - right? ^^ Did not search education by denomination or any other parameter by denomination, shows up anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 1, 2019 17:26:46 GMT
I believe in god or some sort of higher power and I also have no problem with the theory of evolution. Evolution is only an issue for theists who have a very narrow view of god based on a literal young earth interpretation if the bible or whatever holy book they use. Only about 95 percent of people agree with you, just saying. Most people are not aware, but the short RNA chains are not getting longer because of their tendency to tear each other apart instead. Do you know what that means?
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Sept 1, 2019 18:13:59 GMT
Most people are not aware, but the short RNA chains are not getting longer because of their tendency to tear each other apart instead. Do you know what that means? I know exactly what it means: your limited education and understanding of science has allowed you to get bizarrely attached to one particular meme about RNA that means a lot to you but means almost nothing to scientific professionals who make it their life's work to try understanding how life came to be.
|
|
