Religion and faith

[Amaris]

It's also probably not wise to refer to religious people as living in caves. I even used the reference in one of my responses to you, Ha'kiv. Some of your posts are dripping with condescension and contempt. New members who start doing that early on, and who fail to listen to others and choose instead to over-dramatize and take offense, usually do not have long term memberships that end well. That is what we have been saying.

Well, at least, that's what I've been saying. Boobatuba's just been kicking ass and chewing bubble gum, and I heard he's all out of bubble gum.

 

[Ha'kiv]

...Pretty snarky? How old are we? This is the internet. You should be aware that by making a claim, you are exposing yourself to comments and objections, and you should be ready to defend your claims - of course, unless you have people who jump in and shove back all who do not agree. Disagreements are essential for good debates, and you should welcome them, unless you it is your plan to build a wall around your elitist world.

And then deny that you are biased? Did she not point out atheists are the ones in the cave in her metaphor? What I did was turn it around. This is offensive, and hers is not?

 

[boobatuba]

...Pretty snarky? How old are we? This is the internet. You should be aware that by making a claim, you are exposing yourself to comments and objections, and you should be ready to defend your claims - of course, unless you have people who jump in and shove back all who do not agree. Disagreements are essential for good debates, and you should welcome them, unless you it is your plan to build a wall around your elitist world.

Some of my friends in TNZ would love to see a quote of me being called "elitist."

Not everyone appreciates a condescending statement like "Are you certain you understand the universe enough to claim it is too complex to be without a creator?" Especially the mods. Just sayin'.

ETA: Here's Dorian's post:

I'm a number 3. I can't help it. There has to be some higher form of consciousness. The universe is too wonderful and complex and magnificent. What created that first speck of microscopic cosmic whatever it was and sat back to watch the show as it all evolved independently? Is it God as reported in the Christian Bible? Probably not. But there's something that exists. I'm not positive, but I lean towards theism.

I don't see anything where she claimed atheists are in a cave. You're getting pretty mixed up here.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Once I used a logical proof:

1. If God existed, then there would be scientific evidence.
2. There is no scientific evidence of God.
3. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
4. Except, God says that without faith, He cannot exist, and proof nullifies faith, so He does not provide it.
5. At which point Man says, "I recorded it when You said that. I now have proof You exist."
6. And thus God says, "Drat." And disappears in a puff of smoke and logic.

I also made the argument first that, in a universe that is so complex that requires a creator, a creator for the creator would also, logically, be required.

I hope you don't mind the way I amended your quote.

That last argument of yours assumes that cause and effect are still law in whatever extra-universal place God lives in. But He told us in the Bible that that isn't the case, when He says that He has no beginning or end. Of course, one could also take that as Him just being full of Himself.

Dorian's statement was one of faith, and a harmless one.

Bearing in mind that I fundamentally agree with you about the lack of importance of that one specific sentence that Dorian said, I must amend that to "mostly harmless". Both because it is never completely harmless to base one's opinions on ignorance (literal ignorance of the nature of the universe at its "beginning", this isn't meant as a dig at Dorian), and in honor of Douglas Adams.

Two former Christians turned atheists arguing vehemently for a Christian's right to express faith.

Good ole Voltaire, nes pas?

I would understand your opposition if I was actually challenging someones faith. As this is not the case, I-
Ah, look, there I go again. My apologies, I was not aware that stating someone's statement is incorrect is considered trying to pick a fight. I will be more cautious in the future and try my best to agree with inaccurate statements.

You continued to refer to Dorian as 'he' after it was pointed out that she is not a he. Which means that you have made inaccurate statements, and also, you aren't paying enough attention to what the rest of us are saying to make respectful and, more importantly, thorough argument with any of it.

And if you don't like me saying that, then you'll be a hypocrite, because I am merely disagreeing with your inaccurate portrayal of Dorian as a male.

So there's you in a nice neat little package, isn't it.

 

[Ha'kiv]

Asking her.. if she is certain she understands the universe enough.. to make a certain statement.. is condescending. I would appreciate a list of things I'm allowed to say, because clearly, your logic is beyond me.

No, this is me in a neat little package: "Good ole Voltaire, nes pas?"
It's n'est-ce pas.

 

[Amaris]

...Pretty snarky? How old are we?

I'm way too goddamn old to pretend that I give a fuck about snarky people. I just like pointing out what may become a comedy of errors.

This is the internet. You should be aware that by making a claim, you are exposing yourself to comments and objections, and you should be ready to defend your claims - of course, unless you have people who jump in and shove back all who do not agree. Disagreements are essential for good debates, and you should welcome them, unless you it is your plan to build a wall around your elitist world.

Ah, I hear that train a comin'. It's comin' round the bend.

And then deny that you are biased? Did she not point out atheists are the ones in the cave in her metaphor? What I did was turn it around. This is offensive, and hers is not?

You were the only one who used the word "cave" in your response to Dorian, which didn't mention anything about caves.

Asking her.. if she is certain she understands the universe enough.. to make a certain statement.. is condescending. I would appreciate a list of things I'm allowed to say, because clearly, your logic is beyond me.

No, this is me in a neat little package: "Good ole Voltaire, nes pas?"
It's n'est-ce pas.

Oh, shit. You're going to go Grammar Nazi, too. You're just batting 1.000.

 

[boobatuba]

Once I used a logical proof:

1. If God existed, then there would be scientific evidence.
2. There is no scientific evidence of God.
3. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
4. Except, God says that without faith, He cannot exist, and proof nullifies faith, so He does not provide it.
5. At which point Man says, "I recorded it when You said that. I now have proof You exist."
6. And thus God says, "Drat." And disappears in a puff of smoke and logic.

I also made the argument first that, in a universe that is so complex that requires a creator, a creator for the creator would also, logically, be required.

I hope you don't mind the way I amended your quote.

I don't mind even a little bit. I appreciate the vigorous debate.

I would, however, point out that in a purely logical exploration of whether God exists or not it would be illogical to consider extra-universal planes (as Spock would say, "the existence of which cannot be explained logically") and/or other varieties of "magic."

 

[Ha'kiv]

You can find offensiveness in any statement if you look for it desperately enough.

 

[Amaris]

You can find offensiveness in any statement if you look for it desperately enough.

You seem to be looking for it quite desperately.

 

[Ha'kiv]

Oh you're a funny ol' chap, aren't ya.

 

[Amaris]

Oh you're a funny ol' chap, aren't ya.

Yes.

 

[Ha'kiv]

So it would seem.

 

[boobatuba]

T-minus 1 hour, 30 minutes and counting...

 

[Amaris]

So it would seem.

I'm rather delightful. Sometimes cheeky.

 

[Ha'kiv]

I'm rather delightful myself.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Asking her.. if she is certain she understands the universe enough.. to make a certain statement.. is condescending. I would appreciate a list of things I'm allowed to say, because clearly, your logic is beyond me.

No, this is me in a neat little package: "Good ole Voltaire, nes pas?"
It's n'est-ce pas.

Ah! Clearly I rattled your cage, and you have shown yourself to be the hypocrite in the process. Correct my French all you want. I am unrattled because I am old enough and wise enough to have a fairly accurate feel for the actual importance of this conversation.

But since you have asked what you should have said, I will tell you. It ifs rude to call someone's beliefs wrong. A better approach would have been to actually explain the statistical science that would allow for a universe this complex to occur without outside interference. I can do so for you, if you would like, but you should have done so already for your own side of the discussion, rather than letting yourself get distracted by your own indignance at being called rude.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Is, not ifs. Sorry, posting from my phone.

 

[Ha'kiv]

*pats* That's quite alright, chap, quite alright.

 

[Trekker4747]

I consider myself Agnostic, but to make people give me a WTF face I call myself an Agnostic Christian Scientist. My "religious" beliefs fall mostly with the Christian side of things but I don't believe in their book's sayings when it comes to the origins of life, the universe and everything, there I fall more in line with what science says and I do not believe we know, or can know, everything there is to know about God and what He may or may not want. (Agnostic.)

I see God as more of a guider of things, he set the whole thing in motion through The Big Bang and the universe has been doing whatever it wants ever since and all God can do is maybe slightly guide things or make the occasional interaction but neither is something he does very often, his "powers" can mostly only interact with minds and living beings.

For example, some people credit God with the survival of Gabby Lee Giffords the victim of the Arizona shooting earlier this year, while I think that's possible I do not think God made the bullet turn in mid-air to hit the "right" side of her brain, I don't think he re-wired her brain to lessen the damage it caused but I think "maybe" he could've made Jared Loughner's aim not so ideal. When "miracles' like that happen I willing to believe "something" happened but I don't think it's a big, obvious, sign because I think that'd provide too much "proof" of a god and as I understand things God is nothing without Belief and proof denies Belief.

I'm willing to accept there could be "beings" that live on other planes or in higher dimensions and we can't be aware of them accept through their actions. A 2-Dimensional being living in a 2-dimensional plane would not be aware of us in the 3D world but could see the effects of us interacting with his 2D world, our interactions requiring us to obey the laws of not only our universe but also the universe of the 2D creatures.

I think there's enough mystery in the known, and unknown, universe and whatever lies above and beyond it for there to be room for "a god" and that this "god" could be playing some role in what happens in the universe but I do not think he's too concerned about the everyday goings on of you or me and certainly couldn't care less on who wins this year's World Series. Hell, I'm not even entirely sure he can even know what we're thinking unless it's said out loud and even then I'm not even sure he's aware of it and if he is he's pretty damn choosy on who he listens to and why, he's like the rest of us with his own problems and biases and whatever living in a 5th dimension.

I'm not sure any of that makes any sense but I have what I call my beliefs and I try and to find a good balance between what I think make sense and what is practical (science, the creation of the universe and life) and what I think is within a realm of possibility (theology) and I've had more than a couple "experiences" when it comes to God or things that I cannot easily or logically explain and take them as "signs" as "something" is "out there." The universe to me is too complicated, vast, and mysterious for it all to have happened by accident.

I think evolution did happen but that "a god" could've guided and controlled it into what we now have today as the way things work and what is here for us to use as a byproduct of epochs of changes is just "too perfect" for it to be an accident. If there is a god he has to obey the rules of the universe he made and there's no cheat codes so if he, for example, wants to wipe out all prehistoric life on Earth to make way for mankind then he needs to guide an asteroid just so through the cosmos to make it impact the planet at just the right time.

Again I think both can exist, God and the way we believe the universe to be what it is through science, but both have to give something up and a lot of what has to be given up is that God just snapped the universe into existence for the hell of it inside of a few days, the Adam and Eve thing and the whole Moses lived for 600 years things. A lot of that, to me, is just myths, legend and stories told to a simple people who couldn't grasp science yet that's been muddied and taken way too seriously in the intervening time.

....

Yeah, I think that covers my beliefs.

 

[{ Emilia }]

*pats* That's quite alright, chap, quite alright.

I suppose you realize that the condescending tone in many of your posts isn't helping your arguments.

You make us atheists look bad. You're just giving the religious nutters more reason to whinge about being suppressed in our society (which couldn't be further from the truth).

And all that just to look tough on the web. I'm sure people are incredibly impressed. You're a weird mix between science and anger.

Or in other words: