Bible conundrum hampsterwheel
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 171
Nothing ironic about it, I'm perfectly well aware that the possessive pronoun virtually never uses the apostrophe.
That I did so twice is mortifying!
The only reason I didn't ask about "his" abilities instead, was to avoid the obvious claim about gender presupposition!
That I did so twice is mortifying!
The only reason I didn't ask about "his" abilities instead, was to avoid the obvious claim about gender presupposition!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,334
Well Chips, here's a pretty rude one from your side...
I think Bronx just scored an own goal against the relgionists!
Who was it who was saying they thought the impolite posts came from the rationalists? Bronx just shot you in the foot. Kind of appropriate for a colonial.
Originally Posted by Bronx
Still blaming your school for your lack of education.
Who was it who was saying they thought the impolite posts came from the rationalists? Bronx just shot you in the foot. Kind of appropriate for a colonial.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Originally Posted by BabyBear
If we accept all as described does not happen by 'random chance' (we can come back to what you mean by random chance) why do some feel the need to explain the reason (or the how) for the yet to be understood as being Devine intervention?
When:
Throughout history the unexplained and previously attributed to Devine intervention has time and time again been subsequently explained by science.
Never in history has anything, not one solitary thing, been shown to be the result of Devine intervention.
Why does the same common sense not lead you to believe that yet again there is an explanation that has yet to be uncovered by science?
Please????
When:
Throughout history the unexplained and previously attributed to Devine intervention has time and time again been subsequently explained by science.
Never in history has anything, not one solitary thing, been shown to be the result of Devine intervention.
Why does the same common sense not lead you to believe that yet again there is an explanation that has yet to be uncovered by science?
Please????
ruddman
Flying Lawyer
Keef
Originally Posted by Mr Chips
Because of the extreme views being expressed on this thread by the antis
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 243
Vastly different. Indoctrinating them in a religion is teaching them something which is unprovable and irrational; further, it is teaching them that it's OK ignore logic and evidence.
Bringing your kids up in the Christian tradition, which, like it or not, is responsible for most of the good in western society, while acknowledging the fact that much of Christian mythology is difficult to grasp, or indeed to embrace, is what we do.
I've expounded at length about the advantages of the philosophy, regardless of the theology, but the atheistic deists refuse to see their noses before their faces, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. ( wanna live in Damascus or in Vienna?)
Go on, though, about sky fairys and such, with the realization that, when a non-Christian power runs the show, such public expression, which is now merely regarded as mildly inflammatory and childishly insulting to those with whom you are pleasantly debating, will be an immutable capital offense.
Just think about that a bit.
It will happen, much to our mutual dismay.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 243
Rowan Williams may have bad eyebrows, and ++ Justin may be kind of wishywashy, but I feel sure that none of his ilk are sharpening up the beheading knives, or planning a suicide bombing for the Feast of the Epiphany.
The Pope is the logical outgrowth of liberation theology, but I rest assured that he would never trade an innocent for a political end.
Say the same about any other belief system, including atheism, I challenge you.
The Pope is the logical outgrowth of liberation theology, but I rest assured that he would never trade an innocent for a political end.
Say the same about any other belief system, including atheism, I challenge you.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,334
Can you provide some evidence that the Christian tradition is responsible for most of the good in western society?
I said this:
Vastly different. Indoctrinating them in a religion is teaching them something which is unprovable and irrational; further, it is teaching them that it's OK ignore logic and evidence.
The reason he gives for me being wrong is: "Bringing up kids in the christian tradition.... ...is what we do".
Talk about begging the question!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 243
perthsaint Can you provide some evidence that the Christian tradition is responsible for most of the good in western society?
To what do you attribute the good in non-western society?
To what do you attribute the good in non-western society?
I don't stand as an apologist for non-western societies.
I think, in fact, that the reason that most of the decent world is western-influenced is evidence of the observation that Christian societies are less likely to behave badly than are others.
That doesn't mean that there aren't well-behaved members of other religions, (As I am well aquatinted with many), but that "we" seem to be particularly good at it.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Well done SSD, in 21 pages there are maybe two slightly rude posts againsts the atheists. Now please count the rude posts against the theists. I know you will notice a huge variance
Babybear, I have not laid the blame for the extreme rudeness in this thread on you personally, but on the non-believers, as I pointed out, the use of varying derogatory and condescending expressions, and now accusing believers of child abuse.
Babybear, I have not laid the blame for the extreme rudeness in this thread on you personally, but on the non-believers, as I pointed out, the use of varying derogatory and condescending expressions, and now accusing believers of child abuse.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 243
perthsaint Well, no-one I know of any or no belief system would do any of these things.
Nobody would shoot a 13 y/o in the head for going to school.
Noone would behead hundreds of innocents for their beliefs,
Certainly it is implausible that anyone at all would suggest that, having once been indoctrinated into their belief system, recanting said belief would be a crime punishable by death.
I'm sorry, you're clearly right...
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,334
Well done SSD, in 21 pages there are maybe two slightly rude posts againsts the atheists.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
I'll come to grips with BabyBear's supposed question, when he and his cohorts answer the question I've asked before, and you all have conveniently ignored:
Since you have stated you think Western society and culture would have been better off in the absence of religious influence,
Do you think an equal or equivalent set of values (cultural, moral, social -- however you wish to define it) would now exist in Western countries?
Since you have stated you think Western society and culture would have been better off in the absence of religious influence,
Do you think an equal or equivalent set of values (cultural, moral, social -- however you wish to define it) would now exist in Western countries?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
So SSD, in your "non-delusional" way (which infers you are calling all theists delusional which strikes me as less than polite) do you genuinely feel/believe/claim that there are more insults from theists than atheists?
I'll give you a clue. There aren't
I'll give you a clue. There aren't
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,334
obgraham, the answer to your question could only ever be supposition, no matter what the person who answers it believes. I think it's a resounding YES, by the way for the reasons perthsaint gives. But that can only ever be an opinion.
BabyBear's question, on the other hand, couldn't be more straightforward to answer. Stop obfuscating!
Chips - your track record on recording which side of this argument is the ruder doesn't give me confidence you are qualified to make a fair observation.
BabyBear's question, on the other hand, couldn't be more straightforward to answer. Stop obfuscating!
Chips - your track record on recording which side of this argument is the ruder doesn't give me confidence you are qualified to make a fair observation.
