Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

cant stand religion bashers watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    Haha, he didn't want to hear my 'reason' or 'evidence' to support my view, religious nuts don't care about reason and evidence, that would be an oxymoron. Which is ideal since I don't try to reason or provide religious people with evidence. I only argue with people that seem worthwhile.
    Right...

    I have a feeling that you would also classify me as a religious nut, because I am a Christian.

    Please, share the reason or evidence to support your views. I really do care about these things. At the end of the day, I really care about truth. If I am following a lie, I want to know it. If you know that God doesn't exist, or that the bible (the basis of my religion) is false, then please, show us!

    I hope you classify me as 'worthwhile' to argue with.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    I really do care about these things.
    But I don't.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Pride)
    Anyway, yes. Atheists tend to come up with weak examples of apparent contradictions.
    I find the same to be true of deists and theists with regards to examples of natural phenomena that necessitate the existence of a creator.

    I think I could come up with better ones. I would also point out that you assume that you would be able to perceive what is true if I were to make a point to you. The bible disagrees.
    Your elevation of the Bible to something that is unquestionably true is something that I find quite amusing. Here you are, telling me that it is incorrect to assume that I (and presumably other humans with a functioning brain) am able to perceive what is true because the Bible said so. And yet, unless you were born believing the Bible to be unquestionably true, you made this very same assumption in deciding that the Bible is unquestionably true, even though the Bible apparently disagrees. That is something of a paradox, wouldn't you say?

    It's a cop-out to say that you can't make a point to me because I'm incapable of perceiving what is true, especially when the basis for this claim relies on the truth of a book which makes a number of claims that any rational person can see are false (and which have quietly assumed the status of 'metaphors' among mainstream Christian denominations in recent years).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    Haha, he didn't want to hear my 'reason' or 'evidence' to support my view, religious nuts don't care about reason and evidence, that would be an oxymoron. Which is ideal since I don't try to reason or provide religious people with evidence. I only argue with people that seem worthwhile.
    (Original post by Pride)
    Right...

    I have a feeling that you would also classify me as a religious nut, because I am a Christian.

    Please, share the reason or evidence to support your views. I really do care about these things. At the end of the day, I really care about truth. If I am following a lie, I want to know it. If you know that God doesn't exist, or that the bible (the basis of my religion) is false, then please, show us!

    I hope you classify me as 'worthwhile' to argue with.
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    But I don't.
    [...care about these things]

    Can you not see how you have demonstrated your hypocrisy? I'm the 'religious nut', willing to reason, while you're not a 'religious nut', yet unwilling to reason.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    driftaway
    Have you deleted your first message?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    driftaway
    Have you deleted your first message?
    No, obviously. I guess it was too popular to the mods to handle. 50+ reps
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Can you not see how you have demonstrated your hypocrisy? I'm the 'religious nut', willing to reason, while you're not a 'religious nut', yet unwilling to reason.
    OK, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, no need to quote me though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    No, obviously. I guess it was too popular to the mods to handle. 50+ reps
    It's because someone reported you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    It's because someone reported you.
    Yeah, it makes me contemplate converting to Islam so that I can find an excuse to chop their hands and head off xo
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    especially when the basis for this claim relies on the truth of a book which makes a number of claims that any rational person can see are false (and which have quietly assumed the status of 'metaphors' among mainstream Christian denominations in recent years).
    Being a rational person, you can justify why these claims were meant to be literal? Perhaps contemporary understanding of the texts in question (probably the stronger type of evidence regarding this)



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Your elevation of the Bible to something that is unquestionably true is something that I find quite amusing. Here you are, telling me that it is incorrect to assume that I (and presumably other humans with a functioning brain) am able to perceive what is true because the Bible said so. And yet, unless you were born believing the Bible to be unquestionably true, you made this very same assumption in deciding that the Bible is unquestionably true, even though the Bible apparently disagrees. That is something of a paradox, wouldn't you say?

    It's a cop-out to say that you can't make a point to me because I'm incapable of perceiving what is true, especially when the basis for this claim relies on the truth of a book which makes a number of claims that any rational person can see are false (and which have quietly assumed the status of 'metaphors' among mainstream Christian denominations in recent years).
    I think I see what you're saying. My point was not to say that I, without reason for doing so, trust the bible over what you think. It was just a point to illustrate that people often wrongly trust their own reasoning/opinion when listening to a point someone else makes that they disagree with. I'm not saying that we should never trust our own reason.

    I can expand on this point. Let me give an example.

    I regularly speak with atheists about these topics. My three housemates are naturalists. Now, we have discussed our beliefs, and they often come up when we talk about current affairs. One of my housemates insists we have free will. Another one will admit that this isn't possible without the supernatural. So he will admit that free will is an illusion, to be consistent with his naturalism. Yet, this first housemate refuses to follow. He insists he has free will, despite rejecting the notion that there is the supernatural.

    Now, why do you think he does this? We are all relatively bright people. We study the same, competitive course at university. Yet, he's unwilling/unable to reason to the point where he recognises that he must not have free will. His naturalist belief demands determinism, reductionism etc. But he will construct logical fallacies, or go defensive, or go and do something else, or even insult me.

    Like I said, I often talk with atheists about these topics. Often the flaws in their arguments are glaringly obvious, yet they don't see them. They will just insult or patronise you, or dodge the question, or attack a straw man, or some other fallacy. Why? Well, the bible explains why. In fact, discussing God with atheists tends to strengthen my belief in the bible.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    Yeah, it makes me contemplate converting to Islam so that I can find an excuse to chop their hands and head off xo
    Don't forget stones.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    OK, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, no need to quote me though.
    That's just a poisoning the well fallacy. You have ignored my point. I emboldened specific parts of those quotes, to highlight your hypocrisy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    You can prove a negative. You can show that David Cameron is not a girl for example. You can show that the US does not have a population of 100 people. You can show that a 10 foot unicorn statue does not exist on the steps of 10 Downey Street.e
    Yes, you can prove a specific negative but that isn't the same as proving something doesn't exist at all, anywhere. I see no evidence for the existence of a god - certainly not of a god with any interest in what goes on on Earth - but I can't prove that there is no god.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Don't forget stones.
    Lmao yeah I can stone them as foreplay :sexface:
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Being a rational person, you can justify why these claims were meant to be literal?
    They aren't my claims -- for most of Christian history, they were regarded as literal claims. The move towards treating them as metaphors is fairly recent and represents what I consider to be a shifting of the goalposts.

    In many ways, a Christian who believes them to be anything but literal is sawing away at the branch that he or she is sitting on, as it were. If certain parts of the Bible are decided to be non-literal and metaphorical despite previous Christian thought regarding them as literally true, then some sort of mechanism for this shift needs to supplied. What's the criteria for determining what is literally true and what is metaphorical?

    Perhaps contemporary understanding of the texts in question (probably the stronger type of evidence regarding this)
    'Contemporary understanding of the texts', as you so generously put it, appears to be motivated by little else than a desire to avoid looking foolish in light of overwhelming contradictory evidence. One particular favourite of mine is the attempt to incorporate evolution by natural selection into the creationist model by saying that yes, species do evolve and that, yes, all organisms are related to each other, but that life itself was originally created by God (which, I hope it's apparent, is a classic God of the gaps argument).

    I can't wait to see how this particular explanation is also turned into a metaphor if (note to Pride, who will undoubtedly read this and attempt to turn this 'if' into 'when' to accuse me of scientific arrogance: I said if, not when) a natural process by which organic molecules give rise to primitive life is eventually found.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Compost)
    Yes, you can prove a specific negative but that isn't the same as proving something doesn't exist at all, anywhere. I see no evidence for the existence of a god - certainly not of a god with any interest in what goes on on Earth - but I can't prove that there is no god.
    PRSOM.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Compost)
    Yes, you can prove a specific negative but that isn't the same as proving something doesn't exist at all, anywhere. I see no evidence for the existence of a god - certainly not of a god with any interest in what goes on on Earth - but I can't prove that there is no god.
    To an extent but you can show things to be impossible. I forget the specifics but living things can only be so big due to physics. A hypothetical being which surpasses that barrier can be shown not to exist.

    Some say the idea of God is impossible, so there's that route too.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    They aren't my claims -- for most of Christian history, they were regarded as literal claims. The move towards treating them as metaphors is fairly recent and represents what I consider to be a shifting of the goalposts.

    In many ways, a Christian who believes them to be anything but literal is sawing away at the branch that he or she is sitting on, as it were. If certain parts of the Bible are decided to be non-literal and metaphorical despite previous Christian thought regarding them as literally true, then some sort of mechanism for this shift needs to supplied. What's the criteria for determining what is literally true and what is metaphorical?



    'Contemporary understanding of the texts', as you so generously put it, appears to be motivated by little else than a desire to avoid looking foolish in light of overwhelming contradictory evidence. One particular favourite of mine is the attempt to incorporate evolution by natural selection into the creationist model by saying that yes, species do evolve and that, yes, all organisms are related to each other, but that life itself was originally created by God (which, I hope it's apparent, is a classic God of the gaps argument).

    I can't wait to see how this particular explanation is also turned into a metaphor if (note to Pride, who will undoubtedly read this and attempt to turn this 'if' into 'when' to accuse me of scientific arrogance: I said if, not when) a natural process by which organic molecules give rise to primitive life is eventually found.
    Oh really? Fairly recent you say? Let's take the example in Genesis you give. Got any evidence that Christians only thought this to be literal until science shone light on this? Seems that Christians and church leaders who argued for a metaphorical reading centuries before any pressure from science begun would show you to be wrong. Actually, it may show the diverse groups of thought throughout Christianity's history (you always have that potential problem when you talk of christian thought in such straight forward, simple terms)

    Certainly, there was no 'deciding' of a literal reading over other types, as though the matter was put to bed, but rather debates to and fro from different camps. So perhaps your point about sawing the branch had merit IF it was decided as christian doctrine. I've yet to see any evidence of that.

    More broadly, the many books within the bible provide a framework for understanding the type of literature. How much literal reading do you think there are in poetic psalms for instance?

    The motivation in seeking contemporary understanding is to help show how the initial society understood it, as well as the meaning the authors had in mind. This is paramount when building a case on what a text is saying. It should be the reference point for checking if there is a contradiction.








    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Oh really? Fairly recent you say? Let's take the example in Genesis you give. Got any evidence that Christians only thought this to be literal until science shone light on this? Seems that Christians and church leaders who argued for a metaphorical reading centuries before any pressure from science begun would show you to be wrong. Actually, it may show the diverse groups of thought throughout Christianity's history (you always have that potential problem when you talk of christian thought in such straight forward, simple terms)

    Certainly, there was no 'deciding' of a literal reading over other types, as though the matter was put to bed, but rather debates to and fro from different camps. So perhaps your point about sawing the branch had merit IF it was decided as christian doctrine. I've yet to see any evidence of that.

    More broadly, the many books within the bible provide a framework for understanding the type of literature. How much literal reading do you think there are in poetic psalms for instance?

    The motivation in seeking contemporary understanding is to help show how the initial society understood it, as well as the meaning the authors had in mind. This is paramount when building a case on what a text is saying. It should be the reference point for checking if there is a contradiction.








    Posted from TSR Mobile
    PRSOM. Shifting the goalposts my ass
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 1, 2015
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.