Breaking news; the tea party is retarded

I'm not religious either. But I do believe in dragons, aliens and lesbian sex. Who doesn't, right?

 

This frustrated me as early as first grade. Greek religious studies so casually append the word "myth" to the subject, but modern day religions don't. When I asked why the Greek religion was treated as myth, my Christian instructor explained that there is no archeological evidence that the gods inhabited Mt. Olympus. That is actually a pretty good explanation, now show me Jesus's fossilized sandal.

 

Silly archaeologists, it's because the Greek gods live above Mount Olympus, as shown in this documentary. Duh.

 

I'm going to preface this with something rather applicable to the situation - I sometimes speak in metaphors only relevant to myself, and have no other way to word my thoughts (and I've been doing that my whole life). Creative interpretation helps while reading, because I'd rather not rephrase something 8 times until people get it.

What's the point of a destination if the journey has no significance?

Same end result for two animals in entirely different branches of the animal kingdom. That's how they reproduce, the general area they live in, and both animals have cloacas - which I didn't mention before.

All that matters is the cut is no longer an issue, which I specified. How you get there doesn't matter, according to what you had said.

History gets buried with time. After religion had died out on one planet, eventually there'd be no reason for people to ever bring it up, just like it was never brought up on the areligious planet in the first place. With no choice, there's no need for conviction. That was my point in the first place, because with known possible choices, a person can either become consciously agnostic or take their pick. It's the whole point of my argument that you're glossing over with introduced hypotheticals, and still missing.

You're correct, I read and interpreted this differently from how you did. I also directly read his words as;

He's got 3 more articles on the same subject, and in each one he says all atheists are at least weak atheists, with certain atheists requiring further categorical division regarding their active arguments against God or gods, though he also implicitly states that many theists will categorize atheists to corroborate their "atheism is just another religion" argument. While different views on the same subject don't qualify something as a religion, it doesn't mean there aren't differing views that can be delineated in the first place.

As far as degrees of perspective, you have to start somewhere, right? However, once the stance has shifted from "I don't accept or deny this because..." to "I deny this and here's a good reason why..." it's a different mindset.

 

Would you like an explanation of what I mean? Scripture is loaded with verses that utilize a comparison between marriage and God's people's relationship with him, ranging From the Israelite's idoltry being compared to sexual immorality To Jesus comparing himself to the bridegroom in Mark 2:19. I could go on for paragraphs if you wished it.

No, No, and No. If you ask someone to marry you and she says "No", she has effectively ended the relationship if the guy who proposed in primarily looking for a long-term relationship. If she says "wait" because she hasn't made up her mind, then, if the man is patient, he will wait for her to make up her mind (or until she starts dating someone else, and even then some will still wait).

One person's experience is not the whole of reality. (Stop being so self-centered.) When Daniel prayed, his prayer was heard and the answer was given, but he had to wait to learn of the answer because of the resistance against the angel that delievered it. Just because you haven't experienced a thing doesn't mean that actions aren't being taken in response to your request. And those actions are the answer, not your experiences.

If you answer "yes" to the pudding, doesn't it take time for the pudding to reach your mouth after you utter the answer? The amount of time is dependent upon whether or not the pudding is ready and the question of how near at hand the pudding is. Just because the answer was given doesn't mean immediate gratification.
Therefore, even a "Yes" can create the same experience as "No" because of the delay in receiving the pudding. If experience is key determinant, then, in the immediate moment after the answer is given, all answers are the same as saying "No"; this is the same as saying that all theists are atheists.

Yes, I believe that it is possible for life to exist on other planets, but No, I don't believe that life actually exists on other planets. Is this a statement of belief or disbelief?

If the question is solely whether or not you believe that it is possible, then Gross is theist because he believes that it is possible that God may exist. If the question is one of certainity, then contrary to your position that neutral is belief, my statement declares a disbelief in ETs. If atheism is the certainity that God doesn't exist, then Gross is agnostic, but not an atheist because he concedes the point that such a being may exist.
However, not all belief is based on certainity. Many believe that God exists without the certainity that will lay waste to their doubts. Are they atheists because of their uncertainity even though they call themselves theists? So which is it? What role does certainty play in belief? Are people who are uncertain about whether or not God exists atheists even if they say they are theists, or is Gross a theist for not being certain that God doesn't exist?

-----------------------

The gods are real in the sense that they represent what we, in modern times, now call natural forces. Posideon, for example, is the natural forces of seas and oceans which are beyond human control; Cupid represents the natural force of physical attraction. Each of the gods and what they represent are indeed greater than an individual, but the Creator is greater than all. Therefore, we shouldn't worship the powers within the world that cannot hear us, we should worship the Creator.

I am willing to accept the possiblities of any belief, even reincarnation; however, my God is greater than these lesser things so it doesn't really matter if they exist or not. Can there be fairies and other things that are invisible? Yes. Is it possible that the ocean and other natural forces have wills? Yes. Does it matter? Not really, as none of them care about us and there is no way to communicate to most of them.

Dragons? Dragons are large lizards while dinosaurs are large, dead lizards. The only difference in belief is whether or not you believe that man and dinosaurs lived on the planet at the same time. Since we have proved that lizards can be large and alive with the dinosaurs, I don't understand why people can't accept the idea that lizards can be large while man lived. The reason that lizards (who, btw, never stop growing) don't get large today is insufficent food sources... except may be in the Amazon and the deep seas.

As for the spiritual world, there really are individuals who have power there. Scripture refers to them as prophets, and not all prophets are good. Therefore, there is a very real threat in this area. It's called temptation and possession. You think that every thought in your head comes from your own imagination? From whence did the idea of muses come from then? Where does knowledge that was impossible for a person to know come from? There are real cases that prove foreknowledge; and science's only problem is that it hasn't yet been able to determine how it is possible because they don't yet understand how the brain works.

Reality is more complex than we yet know; anything is possible.

 

You still do not adress the fact that we invented these things, not the other way around. Muses are allegories of inspiration. Greek gods are allegories of natural forces. Your creator is an allegory and a wish for a purposeful origin (just like the big bang). Faeries, dragons, elves and trolls... they are simply pictures we have painted with words to describe things which cannot be easily understood. We have invented all of these things, our myths and theories, in a desperate attempt at understanding a world which is very hard to grasp in its entirety.

Mythology and religion is ancient, outdated theory. Nothing more.

 

I go to work every day and I don't feel that the journey itself has any great significance. Not everything is important.

If the cut really is all that matters, then yeah - cutting off your hand would be a valid way of dealing with it, I guess. Though presumably you'd have to burn the hand afterwards, to get rid of the cut that would still be on it? I'm struggling to see the point of this example.

My point is that in the case of religious belief, one of the choices is the "default", which is the same as being agnostic atheist. And that was backed up by the link you provided. Of course, atheists are aware of the concept of God, because on this planet it's hard to avoid it. And maybe they can have conviction about the non-existence of specific Gods. I'm no longer sure that they don't. So let's just say you've won the argument and leave it at that.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

I see you're having trouble with my pudding example. Okay, forget about the pudding - here is a better illustration of an "A or not" type question:

You are standing on some train tracks, and a train is hurtling towards you at too great a speed to stop. You now have a choice - to jump off the train tracks, or to continue standing there and be killed. In this case, the default passive "non-choice" option is the same as an active "stay and be killed" choice. If you decide to choose later, or have trouble making your mind up, or you don't hear the train coming and are looking in the other direction, these will all end up with the train hitting you. It is an "A or not" type decision, where all paths other than A lead to "not".

The reason that atheism is a choice of the "A or not" variety is that you need to be told about the concept of God before you can believe in it. Babies are born atheist because they don't know about God. (Yeah, you're going to say that they think their mother is God or something, but that's not the same - they don't know about Jesus.) A remote jungle tribe that's been isolated for three thousand years doesn't know about God either. (Sure, they probably believe in tree spirits, but they don't know about Jesus.) In order to believe in God you need to be told about it. Not being told has the same result as not believing, because in both cases the person will not pray to God, will not go to church, will not consult the Bible, or will not do any other religious activity. And they won't substitute "atheist activities" instead, because there is no such thing - they just won't be religious.

It's two separate statements. You're taking the line of least belief in each case, akin to the "not" choice. Congratulations.

You have to be careful with your definition of God. If you're talking about a generic divine entity, then atheists (like Gross and me) will admit that one is possible. But if you're talking about your specific Jesusy God, then all the evidence points against it, so atheists (like Gross and me) don't believe it exists.

This is a contradiction. Theists believe that God does exist. They can't at the same time be uncertain whether or not God exists. Perhaps these people are using the wrong term for themselves.

 

The journey is what lets you go to work. Don't think the journey is important? Why not simply not make it each day you're supposed to work and see what happens. Now, your job may allow you to work from home, but you still have to make a "journey" to somewhere in your house so that you can work.

No, no burning required unless you enjoy the smell of burning human. You don't have to deal with the cut in both cases. Rather graphic, but it works. I guessed that since you said "all concepts are equivalent," and I agreed with that, the example I gave to demonstrate the silliness of saying "the means don't matter as much as the end" would've been equivalent itself due to just being a concept with different paths toward a single result. It wasn't meant to be directly allegorical, due to the problem of finding another issue so structurally similar to the problem "at hand."

Well...ok. You miscredited my quote, though.

 

Actually, this "the journey is significant" crap has always bugged me. People say it like it's some kind of deep philosophical wisdom, but the majority of journeys are dull relocations from A to B in order to do something. The journeys themselves don't matter the least little bit.

I recently moved, and chose my new abode specifically so that I could spend less time travelling to and from work every day. At one time I was driving for 50 minutes twice a day. Now I walk for 20 minutes twice a day. And you know what? I don't spend a SINGLE SECOND of my walk thinking "Oh boy, I wish I was still making that old car journey." It managed to be tedious, stressful, and expensive, and didn't enrich my life or teach me any valuable lessons. (Other than - minimize the amount of travelling you have to do in your daily life.) There is only one instance where the journey is more important than the destination, and that's when you go on a travelling holiday. The other instance is when you go for a walk.

And don't give me any crap about life being a journey. Firstly, that's only a metaphor, and secondly - no it's not.

 

Except you forgot to take into consider my experiences are the basis for my belief that God exists and in the supernatural. We do not invent that which we experience. We only invent explanations for our experiences (and that is true whether it be science or mysticism). If explanations are myths, then science is as much of a myth as God. And if science is a myth, then why can't mythical creatures be real?
Anyways, the "pictures" of mythical beasts that we paint for ourselves are the product of the fact that we don't experience them, but that doesn't mean that someone else didn't or isn't experiencing them.



Why are the young always so blind as to the experiences of others?

-----------------

And yet you said...

So I think that you understand the wisdom, just not the correlation between the wisdom and the saying because...

Life really is a journey, you are moving through time, the fourth dimension. And what determines life's value and therefore the journey's value is happiness. Reaching work (the destination) after a good walk doesn't provide happiness, the walk does. In like manner, outcomes and accomplishments only bring temporary happiness while the manner in which you live can create continuous happiness.

 

First, this is how your transit to work is important;

If you discount the importance of point A to B, you might as well not go anywhere and make your destination the same as the point of departure. The journey is important because it's how you go from place to place - not just some metaphorical philosophy application, but in this case a literal "If I don't travel, I don't go anywhere" deal. You've obviously taken your trip for granted, and if no journey is actually important, I encourage you to endorse premature ejaculation. You still need to travel to get to work, and since you're walking 40 minutes a day, isn't this journey physically and mentally better for you than driving for 100 minutes, not to mention much cheaper than fueling your car, or paying for car maintenance?

Second, this is a long winded explanation for the metaphorical use of "journey";

Making the same trip over and over can be a chore, and gradually you can lose the sense of importance it used to carry. "Knowing" it will be the same each day it happens is like assuming nothing ever changes, though. I live my life differently from the way you do, because my mind is still as inquisitive as it was when I became consciously aware of my surroundings. Given our different outlooks, I understand that if our places were reversed, you would be the one telling me how important a journey can be. Life can't literally be considered a journey, but one use of journey is a process or course likened to traveling, i.e. the figurative journey of life. If you still don't think life is a journey, you could probably benefit from a more exciting life.

What's odd about my saying this is how I interpret everything literally.

 

Option C - A giant-winged creature swoops down and carries you off the tracks.

My problem is not with your examples, it is with the simple fact that I refuse to see only the given options. (I enjoy thinking outside of the box too much.) Reality is too complex to be bogged down with generalizations. Anyways, over-generalization is a logical fallacy.

In other words... "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17

The Native Americans knew about the Great Spirit. You forget that I believe that we are Sons of Adam and Adam knew God. He told his child and so on down the line until you have the incomplete understandings of God such as the Native American's Great Spirit. Furthermore, the Israelites of the OT didn't have an opportunity to know Jesus, but they still had the prophets who prophesied of the coming Messiah. And then you have Balaam who wasn't an Israelite, and yet his prophecy of the Star of David guided the three wise men to Jesus. Prophets are not limited to the people of the Bible, but have existed in every place where God creates them. Therefore, how can you say that the remote jungle tribes had no knowledge of Jesus? The God of Israel is the God of all.

So who told the first man that God exists, if God himself didn't? From where did the knowledge of the concept of God come from if we need to told? Why would the first peoples ascribe more power to natural forces than what they possess unless the idea that such power existed first? Isn't it more logical to believe that God came first and then the corruption of that knowledge which created the mythological gods?

And don't tell me that man made it up, I have spent the last 20 years trying to come up with a new idea that isn't based on what anything else, and I have failed.
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

If you had eyes, you would see. If you had ears, you could hear. "For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." Matthew 13:15

Religious activities aren't a product of belief, spiritual activities are a product of belief. Religious activities are merely the outward things that can be copied. Even an unbeliever can perform religious activities, but such cannot perform a spiritual activity because such requires faith.

What evidence disproves Jesus? All I see is a mountain of testimony that says that Jesus exists.

Anyway, the question is not whether or not a person is of a specific religion (and therefore a specific diety), but whether or not they are theist as you have defined atheist to mean "not theist". And a theist is a person who believes that god(s) exist, but not necessarily the nature of said god or gods. So do you BELIEVE that god(s) exist even if you don't know them (or him or her or it) specifically?

This description described me when I forgot the experiences that told me God exists. As a teen, I didn't pay attention to my past. This lack of remembrance created doubts and uncertainty even in the midst of a time where I encountered God's presence in every worship service. Faith is not the absence of doubt, it is the willingness to continue in spite of doubt.
Every believer goes through this period where the Tempter tries to destroy their faith. In my case, the Destroyer failed.

BTW, my intitial argument wasn't that atheism is a religion. What I said was..

My primary position is that your argument(s) was (are) shit, not that atheism is a religion. I note that you changed your wording to "example of an atheist activity" which is less shitty; however, your supporting arguments are still full of holes.

 

The greek myths are called myths because the scientists of the day (500bc) decided they were just analogies and called them myths. They were still very useful analogies, though. Worth keeping.

I definitely think that the words of Jesus in the gospel are worth keeping too. Funny thing is, most of what he says is explicit analogy too. "The kingdom of heaven is like this..." Certainly useful stuff whatever your creation story.

In fact, the original source scriptures of all the major world religions I know are precious wisdom. Well worth keeping. Additionally, every source scripture I've studied, with commentaries and translations, does not contradict science whatsoever. This is of course distinct from the popular conceptions of scripture.

Having now defended religion against science I conclude with a backflip. Smuel, you're quite correct indeed old chap: Religion is scientifically incorrect and science is not a religion. Xyle, old bean, I think you need to get some sleep.

 

Good one! Common sense. It's very helpful to me.I am totally agree with your oppinion. Thanks for sharing with us your wisdom. Come on and keep writting, it will be more attractive.

 

Why, thankyou, Zanza!

Ps - I just discovered this gem in the coalface of tl;dr.

Gosh!

 

I wish I was smart enough to change the subject so fancily 'n' shit: I'd've just said it like a normal person and stuff; I obviously haven't been gifted with the mental capacity to appear as such a cunt.

 

By far the best bot comment ever.

 

Such modesty.

 

Getting from place to place is what's important. If it were possible to use a transporter, I would do that to get to work instantaneously. The fact that I have to take a 20 minute walk, or a 50 minute drive is incidental.

Your argument is equivalent to saying "Breathing is important to live. Therefore it is not how you live but how you breathe that counts". No, it is not.

Most journeys are tedious chores that you would gladly substitute for shorter ones. As I said - I'm delighted to be spending 20 minutes walking instead of 50 minutes driving to get to work. I'd like it even more if I lived right next door to my job so that my journey-time was zero. But if this were true of life as well, people would jump at the chance to die earlier. They don't. Life is not a journey. It is not even like a journey.

- - - - - - - - -

Seriously? Okay, here's another one. Imagine that my fist is speeding towards your face. You are too inept at self-defence to block, so your choice is to duck or to get hit in the face by my fist. If you don't notice that I'm there, or you think "Hey, maybe a winged creature will swoop down and carry Smuel off before he has a chance to hit me" then this will result in me punching you right in the fucking face.

Damn, that was satisfying. Let me know when you're ready for another illustration of an "A or not" type choice. And please feel free to reply with something like "In that situation I let you punch me in the face in order to illustrate some point about Jesus." Yes, Xyle, I am eager to learn all about it. Let's get to the lessons as soon as possible. Where do you live?

While you were "refusing to see the given options", you got hit by a train. Or punched in the face. This is an idiotic way to approach life, and I don't think you really "think outside the box" when in a life-theatening situation. Or a face-threatening situation. In any case, there is no point trying to explain things to you if you're going to ignore reality and then run off cackling about how you're so much more enlightened than me. This debate is over.