I just got back from receiving a great blessing in my life and what do I find? Normally, I would be one to jump in here and say, "hey, let's calm down, let's take a deep breath, and back off." I say normally because that is more my nature than it is to jump in feet first and let someone have it. Which, is exactly what I am going to do.
Cicerone Imposter, IMO and this is strictly my opinion I'm speaking of here, you provide little more than licking the boot heels of your so called heroes. If it suits you to lower yourself to this then I am sorry, but that does not say much about your character to me. You do not seem to even have enough pride in yourself to admit when you may have made a tiny mistake and you will jump to the defense of someone criticizing and ridiculing someone who does not believe as you or they do.
And please don't give me that "that's not a very loving thing to say Momma Angel, because actually, yes, it is. The Bible says we must admonish one another. The Bible says to discipline your children so they grow up in the path that is straight. I am making no discernment other than the fact that from what you post, it shows what you want us to see.
And Frank, I am sorry you see things as you do. I am sorry you feel we are deluded sheep. But, the fact that you rail against Christians and their beliefs the way you do would be enough to make me want to be a Christian because I don't want to treat people the way you do.
You can be nice, Frank. You have been for awhile now, but I can see that is over.
Now, I am not going to apologize for anything I have said here. You kick a dog long enough, it's going to run away or bite you back and you have no one to blame but yourself. Being a Christian does not mean we are spineless. We are human. We have feelings that obviously do not seem to matter to some of those out there. But, we do and it's high time (IMO) that everyone recognizes everyone's right to be treated decently.
And, in your famous words, Frank. Deal with it.
Seems to me like folks with shaky foundations get very upset with folks who tap those foundations to test their strength.
The Christians always seem to be the kids who pack up and go home when the other kids won't play the game by their rules.
*My contribution today brought to you by "Mixed-Metaphors-R-Us"
Eorl,
Make no mistake ~ I am not going anywhere! I am just not putting up with the offensive stuff anymore!
Rules? What rules? We ask for common decency. This is TOO MUCH to ask for? If it is, what is mankind becoming?
That's crap, Eorl.
I can't speak for how "Christians" are in the general populace. Infact, I have my own MAJOR problems with so-called "Christians" like Franklin Graham, George W. Bush, Jerry Falwell, etc. But I have a pretty good feel, after posting here for a couple years, of the character of those who self-identify as Christians on A2K.
Those people aren't "getting upset at folks who tap their foundations", as you characterize it. If a genuine challenge to their faith is presented, I see a whole lot of patient efforts to explain and to find middle ground when the explanations don't satisfy. What I see Christians and others of faith "getting upset" about is the constant attempt to denigrate them and their beliefs with needlessly derogatory terms. IMO, the weak ones are those who mount attack after attack against those of faith, using any kind of asinine incendiary tactic to get a rise they can. I don't see anyone trying to raise intellectual questions which arise out of genuine curiosity. I see potshots getting taken that have the tone of frustrated teenagers. "Why can't your god do this?" or, "What's wrong with your god?" or, "Your god is a lowdown so-and-so!" The reactions from Christians, IMO, have been admirably restrained.
And I don't see any of them threatening to pack up anything and go anywhere.
And before anyone says anything, I don't count my own efforts here as among those "restrained" replies I referred to. I know I get down in the dirt with the best of them. I happen to think I serve as a counterbalance to certain people here who would run roughshod otherwise.
Momma Angel wrote:Well, then can you explain why Eve told the serepent what God said about not eating the apple?
She was obviously cognitive enough to do that. She told that to the serpent after the serpent said it was okay to eat the fruit.
Sounds like to me that Eve knew it was against what God wanted.
Do you hear how crazy all that sounds? Talking serpents, women who don't know right from wrong debating with reptiles, snakes talking... are you really taking all that literally? Just what do you think the garden of Eden was like, a complete fantasy looney bin?
real life wrote:Actually I am fascinated by science and enjoy it immensely.
If you were the head of a scientific research project, and Sir Isaac Newton applied for a position it would be quite an interesting interview, I think.
Would you hire him after he told you he literally believed that God created the world and all that is in it?
It all depends on whether he has a good sense of humor and if I can stand talking to him over my first cup of coffee every morning
mesquite wrote:real life wrote:Actually I am fascinated by science and enjoy it immensely.
If you were the head of a scientific research project, and Sir Isaac Newton applied for a position it would be quite an interesting interview, I think.
Would you hire him after he told you he literally believed that God created the world and all that is in it?
Considering the amassed information that was available to Isaac Newton during his time I do not see it as unusual at all that he believed a God created it all.
If however he had knowledge and access to the amassed information of today and then stated that he believed in a literal translation of Genesis, then he would have to have a lot better arguments than I have seen presented here before I hired him for a scientific research project.
Such a belief would to me indicate a lack or reasoning ability which is crucial to scientific work.
It would seem to me that Newton's scientific track record speaks for itself. If you can't recognize the value of what Newton contributed to science , then who has a lack of reasoning ability?
cicerone imposter wrote:rosborne, What rl and their ilk are good at is called "projection." They try to make it a personal analogy by offering negatives that has no relationship to the original question. There's no logic in their arguments.
Hi CI,
I know it may seem like you are being pummeled by a crowd when you read my posts, because you seldom have a reasonable answer to any; but actually I'm just one guy so you can use "his" instead of "their" when you want to refer to me.
cicerone imposter wrote:rosborne, What rl and their ilk are good at is called "projection." They try to make it a personal analogy by offering negatives that has no relationship to the original question. There's no logic in their arguments.
What relationship does this have to the original question and what is the substance and logic to your argument?
I don't feel "pummeled" at all; just the mystery of how you'all seem to be able to pull out of a comic book called the bible a message in direct contradiction to the predominant verses in it. You'all were asked to provide verses from the bible that shows your god's presence when he showed "love, mercy, kindness, virtue, nobility, pious, godlike, moral character," and all you can come up with is his giving a 90-year old woman a child. Whereas, Frank can find many, many, verses that shows jealousy, vindictiveness, mass killings, immoral, licentious, faithless, treacherous, Machiavellian personality. More than anything, I'm a bit confused on how you'all can conclude what you do about the comic book god.
Unfortunately, your confusion does not make a valid arguement for your claim that the bible is a comic book.
Here's why it gets so nasty....
Some of us folks think "Your god is a ridiculous notion...how on earth can you swallow this crap?"
It's not easy to find a nice, pleasant way to say that, and I'm not really sure why anyone should try to soften it.
The frustration comes from not getting any logical answers to the above question.
Posted on Sun, Oct. 09, 2005
A central blunder on life's `design'
WHEN BELIEFS MEET FACTS, WHICH WILL GIVE WAY?
By David P. Barash
Attend the tale of Tycho Brahe. An influential Danish star-charter of the late 16th century, Brahe served as mentor to the great German astronomer and mathematician Johannes Kepler. In his own right, Brahe achieved remarkable accuracy in measuring the positions of planets as well as stars. But his greatest contribution (at least for my purpose) was something that he would doubtless prefer to leave forgotten, because Brahe's Blunder is one of those errors whose very wrongness (and ubiquity) can teach us a lot about ourselves.
Deep in his heart, Brahe rejected the newly proclaimed Copernican model of the universe, the heretical system that threatened to wrench the Earth from its privileged position at the center of all creation and relegate it to just one of many planets that circle the sun.
But Brahe was also a careful scientist whose observations were undeniable, even as they made him uncomfortable: The five known planets of Brahe's day (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) circled the sun. That much was settled; Copernicus, alas, was right, and nothing could be done about it.
But Brahe, troubled of spirit yet inventive of mind, came up with a solution, a kind of strategic intellectual retreat and regrouping. It was ingenious, allowing him to accept what was irrefutably true while still clinging stubbornly to what he cherished even more: what he wanted to be true.
And so Brahe proposed that the five planets indeed circled the sun, but that this same sun and its planetary retinue obediently revolved around an immobile Earth.
Beware Brahean Blunders. They are not limited to astronomy. Rather, they're a reflection of a basic, widespread human tendency: to accept what you absolutely must, but whenever possible, continue to retain your core beliefs, whether true or not, and regardless of how much mental gymnastics such retention demands.
I suspect that a Brahean Blunder lies at the core of the widespread refusal -- at least in the United States -- to accept an evolutionary origin for the human species, even among people who acknowledge the reality of natural selection. The issue is being raised once again before the national media as a trial in Pennsylvania -- what some are calling a second Scopes ``monkey trial'' -- considers whether ``intelligent design'' should be taught alongside evolution or whether it is religious and has no place in biology class.
Current promoters of intelligent design generally accept the power and primacy of natural selection to generate small-scale evolutionary change. The evolution of antibiotic resistance among bacteria, for example, is beyond dispute. Ditto for the biochemical and genetic similarity of closely related species.
But when it comes to their fundamental belief system, they are clinging to the illusion that human beings are so special that only a benevolent god could have produced them and, therefore, the material world -- like Brahe's sun and its five planets -- must revolve around them.
Brahean Blunders abound and not only in the realms of science (like Brahe's field, astronomy) and pseudoscience (like intelligent design). We also see them in the political ideologue who, faced with contrary, unpalatable yet undeniable facts, stubbornly manages to retain his dogma, often remarkably unchanged. Capital punishment doesn't actually reduce the murder rate? Well, it ``sends a message'' nonetheless. Climate heating up? Well, there's always been variability in the Earth's temperature, and besides, warming might actually be good for us.
I also suspect that in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, American conservatives will partake of their own Brahean Blunder, acknowledging grudgingly that maybe government has some very limited, teensy-weensy role to play when it comes to contributing to the public good, but insisting that such a role should be limited to disaster relief.
Finally, there is the biggest Brahean Blunder of them all: refusal to admit to the possibility of Brahean Blunders in the first place.
DAVID P. BARASH, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington, wrote this article for the Los Angeles Times.
cicerone imposter wrote:Posted on Sun, Oct. 09, 2005
A central blunder on life's `design'
WHEN BELIEFS MEET FACTS, WHICH WILL GIVE WAY?
By David P. Barash
Attend the tale of Tycho Brahe. An influential Danish star-charter of the late 16th century, Brahe served as mentor to the great German astronomer and mathematician Johannes Kepler. In his own right, Brahe achieved remarkable accuracy in measuring the positions of planets as well as stars. But his greatest contribution (at least for my purpose) was something that he would doubtless prefer to leave forgotten, because Brahe's Blunder is one of those errors whose very wrongness (and ubiquity) can teach us a lot about ourselves.
Deep in his heart, Brahe rejected the newly proclaimed Copernican model of the universe, the heretical system that threatened to wrench the Earth from its privileged position at the center of all creation and relegate it to just one of many planets that circle the sun.
But Brahe was also a careful scientist whose observations were undeniable, even as they made him uncomfortable: The five known planets of Brahe's day (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) circled the sun. That much was settled; Copernicus, alas, was right, and nothing could be done about it.
But Brahe, troubled of spirit yet inventive of mind, came up with a solution, a kind of strategic intellectual retreat and regrouping. It was ingenious, allowing him to accept what was irrefutably true while still clinging stubbornly to what he cherished even more: what he wanted to be true.
And so Brahe proposed that the five planets indeed circled the sun, but that this same sun and its planetary retinue obediently revolved around an immobile Earth.
Beware Brahean Blunders. They are not limited to astronomy. Rather, they're a reflection of a basic, widespread human tendency: to accept what you absolutely must, but whenever possible, continue to retain your core beliefs, whether true or not, and regardless of how much mental gymnastics such retention demands.
I suspect that a Brahean Blunder lies at the core of the widespread refusal -- at least in the United States -- to accept an evolutionary origin for the human species, even among people who acknowledge the reality of natural selection. The issue is being raised once again before the national media as a trial in Pennsylvania -- what some are calling a second Scopes ``monkey trial'' -- considers whether ``intelligent design'' should be taught alongside evolution or whether it is religious and has no place in biology class.
Current promoters of intelligent design generally accept the power and primacy of natural selection to generate small-scale evolutionary change. The evolution of antibiotic resistance among bacteria, for example, is beyond dispute. Ditto for the biochemical and genetic similarity of closely related species.
But when it comes to their fundamental belief system, they are clinging to the illusion that human beings are so special that only a benevolent god could have produced them and, therefore, the material world -- like Brahe's sun and its five planets -- must revolve around them.
Brahean Blunders abound and not only in the realms of science (like Brahe's field, astronomy) and pseudoscience (like intelligent design). We also see them in the political ideologue who, faced with contrary, unpalatable yet undeniable facts, stubbornly manages to retain his dogma, often remarkably unchanged. Capital punishment doesn't actually reduce the murder rate? Well, it ``sends a message'' nonetheless. Climate heating up? Well, there's always been variability in the Earth's temperature, and besides, warming might actually be good for us.
I also suspect that in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, American conservatives will partake of their own Brahean Blunder, acknowledging grudgingly that maybe government has some very limited, teensy-weensy role to play when it comes to contributing to the public good, but insisting that such a role should be limited to disaster relief.
Finally, there is the biggest Brahean Blunder of them all: refusal to admit to the possibility of Brahean Blunders in the first place.
DAVID P. BARASH, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington, wrote this article for the Los Angeles Times.
Psych professor lecturing us on evolution, eh? Pretty thin if you look beyond his obvious political bias, which seems to be his main point in writing the article.
Maybe he should stick to psychology. He could ask, " I know you WANT to believe in evolution, but how do you FEEL about it? "
It's obvious why creationists wouldn't like Dr Barash's opinion. Rather than attacking the messenger, some people should try challenging the thesis - if they can.
Eorl Wrote:
Quote:Here's why it gets so nasty....
Some of us folks think "Your god is a ridiculous notion...how on earth can you swallow this crap?"
It's not easy to find a nice, pleasant way to say that, and I'm not really sure why anyone should try to soften it.
The frustration comes from not getting any logical answers to the above question.
Well, simply stated, you might just say, we have differing viewpoints. Do we ridicule you for your non-belief? Why is it so hard to understand common courtesy?
And I suppose you could say that our frustration comes from being ridiculed for what we believe instead of trying to understand why we might believe it.
Cicerone Imposter Wrote:
Quote:I don't feel "pummeled" at all; just the mystery of how you'all seem to be able to pull out of a comic book called the bible a message in direct contradiction to the predominant verses in it. You'all were asked to provide verses from the bible that shows your god's presence when he showed "love, mercy, kindness, virtue, nobility, pious, godlike, moral character," and all you can come up with is his giving a 90-year old woman a child. Whereas, Frank can find many, many, verses that shows jealousy, vindictiveness, mass killings, immoral, licentious, faithless, treacherous, Machiavellian personality. More than anything, I'm a bit confused on how you'all can conclude what you do about the comic book god.
And from this day forward thou shalt be called Frank's Mini Me. More than anything, I am confused on how you think it's ok to ridicule God and our Christian beliefs.
Eorl wrote:Here's why it gets so nasty....
Some of us folks think "Your god is a ridiculous notion...how on earth can you swallow this crap?"
It's not easy to find a nice, pleasant way to say that, and I'm not really sure why anyone should try to soften it.
The frustration comes from not getting any logical answers to the above question.
Yeah, you're right - that IS why it gets nasty - exactly. And some of us can't understand why someone asking a question like this: "I think your father is a phoney piece of crap - can you prove me wrong?!"
- should think they deserve a respectful response.
snood wrote:Eorl wrote:Here's why it gets so nasty....
Some of us folks think "Your god is a ridiculous notion...how on earth can you swallow this crap?"
It's not easy to find a nice, pleasant way to say that, and I'm not really sure why anyone should try to soften it.
The frustration comes from not getting any logical answers to the above question.
Yeah, you're right - that IS why it gets nasty - exactly. And some of us can't understand why someone asking a question like this: "I think your father is a phoney piece of crap - can you prove me wrong?!"
- should think they deserve a respectful response.
Because it seems to be true (at least from my point of view). If you COULD understand it, you might actually have some respect for MY point of view.
(but just to clarify...I don't think your "father" is a phony piece of crap...I simply don't think he is anything....why would he?....where is he?...what makes you think he is there at all??? apart from a lifetime habit of trusting your feelings ahead of the data and believing stuff that other people told you must be accepted as true.....and that people who don't accept it are evil.....etc...etc?)
One thing many theists seem to dismiss instantly is my (and many others) preparedness to accept that a god does exist. All we need is sufficient information to support the notion....I see this as not only reasonable but the only fair response to the all the various god claims that I can honestly give.
If your god exists it will get all the respect in the world from me. If it doesn't, it won't get any.
Show me a god, anybody, please. Let's get this settled.
