Matriarch
0 likes
Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
Christians v Atheists
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
Funny
Lurker
0 likes
Sadly, atheists and Christians are both wrong.
Everyone should be touched by the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage. It's really a beautiful thing.
Everyone should be touched by the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage. It's really a beautiful thing.
Lurker
0 likes
What? The don't be afraid of the spaghedeity.
He teaches, for example, that global warming is directly related to thedeclining number of pirates in the world. Which makes sense, because pirates are so cool.
He teaches, for example, that global warming is directly related to thedeclining number of pirates in the world. Which makes sense, because pirates are so cool.
Lurker
0 likes
FSM!!! My LORD and MASTER!! LOL
Lurker
0 likes
"Let's bow our heads and pass the rum."
Lurker
0 likes
Amen Brother Roccotool. *passing bottle to my left*
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
only if they dress cool, wear big hats and sail around in cool ships, the new pirates are just lame.
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
First for the pirate lovers
And for the christians and athesists
Lurker
0 likes
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
LOL
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
Amen to that lot!
Lurker
0 likes
Right on, Chef-Sugar. It seems to me a "loving God" wouldn't create childhood cancer and leukemia.
Lurker
0 likes
I actually had someone tell me once, Roc, that those are the special lucky children that God wants to bring home sooner because he misses them so much.
Lurker
0 likes
I was wondering what their excuse was for that and now I know. What a mind fuck.
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe in God. But the argument that there can be no God because "bad things happen to good people" is just silly - an unbelievably anthrocentric view of the Universe. Since when does God owe us anything? Pain and suffering are as much a part of life (and death) as quasars and DNA. The simplistic concept of "reward and punishment" is also just plain silly - do good and you're rewarded, do bad and you're punished. That sets up God as Pavlov, and humans as Pavlov's Dogs. If there is a God, He/She/It is a lot more sophisticated than that.
Lurker
0 likes
While I don't want to jump into the fray here, I will say that I am a spiritual person and believe that the universe is a far more complicated place than any of us can imagine. Having said that I am going to do yoga.
Lurker
0 likes
Quote by NotReallySure
But the argument that there can be no God because "bad things happen to good people" is just silly - an unbelievably anthrocentric view of the Universe.
And of course, the great being who exists outside of space and time and who decided to create all of this just so that we would have a lovely home is neither silly nor anthropocentric.
Since when does God owe us anything?
well, there are actually a number of covenants betwee God and man mentioned in the Bible. So according to that book, he owes us a great deal. But I do take your point. He owes us no more than the clay ever owes the potter.
If there is a God, He/She/It is a lot more sophisticated than that.
I would say that if there is a God, it is hard to say whether he is more sophisticated than that. He did make us the way we are, and look how fucked up we are. If an architect designs a building that will not stand, or an engineer a car that will not move, we call him a failure. Should God not be held to some higher standard? And since we - his creation - seem to be not doing so well a great deal of the time, can we really call him a sophisticated designer?
Lurker
0 likes
snicker, this could get good. 
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
Durrasch -
(laughing) I think that this is the most unlikely forum that I can imagine for a theological discussion. Or maybe not so unlikely - I have come to learn that people who have their head on straight about sex tend to have their head on straight about other things as well. I will only add two things:
a) I know it's a lot cooler to be cynical, but I think that humanity is a lot less of a failure than you seem to. Flawed, no doubt, but still rather amazing on the whole.
b) I fully agree that the Sophisticated Designer concept is no more reasonable than the God of the Gaps. But rather than me wasting this forum's time any further, I recommend reading "The Goldilocks Enigma" by Paul Davies, if anyone is interested.
And thanks for playing.....
Daniel
(laughing) I think that this is the most unlikely forum that I can imagine for a theological discussion. Or maybe not so unlikely - I have come to learn that people who have their head on straight about sex tend to have their head on straight about other things as well. I will only add two things:
a) I know it's a lot cooler to be cynical, but I think that humanity is a lot less of a failure than you seem to. Flawed, no doubt, but still rather amazing on the whole.
b) I fully agree that the Sophisticated Designer concept is no more reasonable than the God of the Gaps. But rather than me wasting this forum's time any further, I recommend reading "The Goldilocks Enigma" by Paul Davies, if anyone is interested.
And thanks for playing.....
Daniel
Lurker
0 likes
Hey Daniel, love your insight!!
Why is it a waste of time?
My cynicism has nothing to do with coolness. It has to do with 100 million indigenous Americans killed in 400 years by Europeans; with 11 million dead Jews, Roma, and Sinti; 26 million dead Russians. It has to do with one Rwandan hacked down every 12 seconds for 100 days... every 12 seconds... a million of them. It has to do with Srebrenica and Cambodia and Guatemala and Burundi. It has to do with 12 million AIDS orphans in sub-Saharan Africa alone. It's about 150 million children in the world with no access to education.
I don't think I need to continue,do I?
Alongside that book, which you should totally read (I have added it to my late summer list; thank you Daniel), check out Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Hitchens' God is Not Great: How Religion Spoils Everything.
My favourite challenge to the faithful has always been the matter of willingness to see the truth. Ask any atheist what it would take to convince them that God is real, and they will almost invariably give you a list of things that they will accept as evidence of God's existence. Ask the faithful what it would take to convince them that God is not real, and they will almost invariably say "nothing could ever make me believe that." I ask you... which approach seems more interested in the truth?
Why is it a waste of time?
My cynicism has nothing to do with coolness. It has to do with 100 million indigenous Americans killed in 400 years by Europeans; with 11 million dead Jews, Roma, and Sinti; 26 million dead Russians. It has to do with one Rwandan hacked down every 12 seconds for 100 days... every 12 seconds... a million of them. It has to do with Srebrenica and Cambodia and Guatemala and Burundi. It has to do with 12 million AIDS orphans in sub-Saharan Africa alone. It's about 150 million children in the world with no access to education.
I don't think I need to continue,do I?
Alongside that book, which you should totally read (I have added it to my late summer list; thank you Daniel), check out Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Hitchens' God is Not Great: How Religion Spoils Everything.
My favourite challenge to the faithful has always been the matter of willingness to see the truth. Ask any atheist what it would take to convince them that God is real, and they will almost invariably give you a list of things that they will accept as evidence of God's existence. Ask the faithful what it would take to convince them that God is not real, and they will almost invariably say "nothing could ever make me believe that." I ask you... which approach seems more interested in the truth?
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
D -
The fact that no one else has jumped in here is probably the best indication that - if we keep this up - they will all run away screaming from this thread. But at the risk of being accused of insisting on having the last word -
I read Dawkins on Darwin ("The Selfish Gene") - his writing style is more than a bit dense, but he certainly has what to say. I think you'll find Paul Davies more readable. And a bit less dogmatic - he tends to present multiple viewpoints and let the facts speak for themselves.
About the cycnicism - no doubt there's room for that aplenty. I could try to list human achievements in a vain attempt to counter the horrors that you've listed. However, I think that the (absolutely amazing) fact that an inanimate universe with simple physical laws has produced a mind capable of contemplating (and understanding) it dwarfs everything else by comparison.
About your last point - I doubt that most atheists are any more likely to accept anything as a proof of God than most of the faithful are otherwise. Either side can always find some explanation to justify their stance or deny the other (e.g. all "miracles" are just unusual natural phenomena). There are plenty of truth-seekers though, on both sides.
But I promise to let you have the last word....(*smiling*)
The fact that no one else has jumped in here is probably the best indication that - if we keep this up - they will all run away screaming from this thread. But at the risk of being accused of insisting on having the last word -
I read Dawkins on Darwin ("The Selfish Gene") - his writing style is more than a bit dense, but he certainly has what to say. I think you'll find Paul Davies more readable. And a bit less dogmatic - he tends to present multiple viewpoints and let the facts speak for themselves.
About the cycnicism - no doubt there's room for that aplenty. I could try to list human achievements in a vain attempt to counter the horrors that you've listed. However, I think that the (absolutely amazing) fact that an inanimate universe with simple physical laws has produced a mind capable of contemplating (and understanding) it dwarfs everything else by comparison.
About your last point - I doubt that most atheists are any more likely to accept anything as a proof of God than most of the faithful are otherwise. Either side can always find some explanation to justify their stance or deny the other (e.g. all "miracles" are just unusual natural phenomena). There are plenty of truth-seekers though, on both sides.
But I promise to let you have the last word....(*smiling*)
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
I knew it! I killed the thread! Oh well.
[Maybe it can still be revived.....]
So what color panties is anyone wearing?
[Maybe it can still be revived.....]
So what color panties is anyone wearing?
Lurker
0 likes
Quote by NotReallySure
D -
The fact that no one else has jumped in here is probably the best indication that - if we keep this up - they will all run away screaming from this thread. But at the risk of being accused of insisting on having the last word -
I read Dawkins on Darwin ("The Selfish Gene") - his writing style is more than a bit dense, but he certainly has what to say. I think you'll find Paul Davies more readable. And a bit less dogmatic - he tends to present multiple viewpoints and let the facts speak for themselves.
About the cycnicism - no doubt there's room for that aplenty. I could try to list human achievements in a vain attempt to counter the horrors that you've listed. However, I think that the (absolutely amazing) fact that an inanimate universe with simple physical laws has produced a mind capable of contemplating (and understanding) it dwarfs everything else by comparison.
About your last point - I doubt that most atheists are any more likely to accept anything as a proof of God than most of the faithful are otherwise. Either side can always find some explanation to justify their stance or deny the other (e.g. all "miracles" are just unusual natural phenomena). There are plenty of truth-seekers though, on both sides.
But I promise to let you have the last word....(*smiling*)
NRS, I was trying desperately to NOT take the last word... but I can resist no longer. Dawkins' style is a bit heavy, sure, but it is a heavy subject that he has chosen to take on. I don't always agree with him, and he sometimes crosses the line from atheism into anti-theism - particularly in interviews - but for the most part he says nothing that doesn't make sense.
I am curious now to read Goldilocks. Can you tell me what the dilemma is? These facts that Davies allows to speak for themselves, what sort of things are they? I very briefly googled Davies; is he one of those "intelligent design" theorists, arguing that the universe is too complex to have sprung from nothing, that it must have had a so-called first-mover?
I'd like to hear the human achievements that can counter the abbreviated list of horrors I suggested earlier. Are there good things? Sure there are. But they pale in comparison to the evil that man has historically perpetrated upon his fellows. A great many of the good things accomplished have been done by one man, or by a small group of men, going against the greater tide of humanity. The scale of involvement in horrors like genocide and mass and exploitation is immense by comparison.
I think we have a substantial disagreement on the quest for truth, too. I have never met a "believer" that was interested in finding the truth, because they take their faith as truth. They have their faith, and that trumps any objectively proven truth. The argument that faith = truth is absurd... "I know God exists because I feel him". It demonstrates nothing, and proves less. It makes no more sense than the Celestial Teapot. As an atheist, I can give you a list of things that I would accept as proof that I am wrong, and that God does indeed exist. Find me a believer who will offer a list of acceptable evidence to prove that God does not actually exist?
And I am not wearing any panties.
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
Quote by NotReallySure
I knew it! I killed the thread! Oh well.
[Maybe it can still be revived.....]
So what color panties is anyone wearing?
I'm wearing atheist colored panties.
That's an ungodly shade of pink.
You've been a bad girl! Now take your pajamas off and go to my room!
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
For the two gentlemen above I have a few questions, I have read all your threads and they made me think, what are you calling flaws / victories? Yes I read the list of all the horrible things mankind has done to itself, however from most of those things good has come along somewhere in some other aspect (I am NOT saying I agree with any of those attrocities), but the questions comes up as which way are you looking at the world.
Here's an example that everyone is used to: The holocost in WWII, they killed millions of Jews (I think one of you said 11 million), and that (in my book) is a bad thing, but had you have talked to the men and women who where responsible for it (and not just Hitler, hes another topic all by himself) they saw that what they were doing was a good thing, so our perceived flaw to them was a victory. Also from there you got Dr. Mangdala, who made considerable advances in medicine (not my perfered way of scientific study but...) others later on used his diaries to confirm what he had done and for it we have more knowledge in medicine (would we have gotten to the same place without him, its definatly possible but he was a fast forward button) Also remember because of that we were our own hippocrites since we did the same exact thing at the same time to millions of Japanesse Americans, as far as I know we didnt put them in gas chambers BUT what we did was just as bad in other regards, however ask those men and women and they will say what they did was right because they were protecting thier country, okay to me that doesnt make a bunch of sense.
As for God making us a failure, He made us just like him, very selfish, if you don't beleive me look at the first commandment, no false idols, or other Gods, because only He is right.
To me there is no ONE right religion, ( I was raised Catholic) they all have the same backbone its the details that are different, and those details to me don't make one more right or wrong then another. Wars in "God's name" are a silly excuse for man to show his dominace over other groups of man.
I think that is way more then enough, now I will sit back and wait for the angry people to come rip me to shreads over this.
Here's an example that everyone is used to: The holocost in WWII, they killed millions of Jews (I think one of you said 11 million), and that (in my book) is a bad thing, but had you have talked to the men and women who where responsible for it (and not just Hitler, hes another topic all by himself) they saw that what they were doing was a good thing, so our perceived flaw to them was a victory. Also from there you got Dr. Mangdala, who made considerable advances in medicine (not my perfered way of scientific study but...) others later on used his diaries to confirm what he had done and for it we have more knowledge in medicine (would we have gotten to the same place without him, its definatly possible but he was a fast forward button) Also remember because of that we were our own hippocrites since we did the same exact thing at the same time to millions of Japanesse Americans, as far as I know we didnt put them in gas chambers BUT what we did was just as bad in other regards, however ask those men and women and they will say what they did was right because they were protecting thier country, okay to me that doesnt make a bunch of sense.
As for God making us a failure, He made us just like him, very selfish, if you don't beleive me look at the first commandment, no false idols, or other Gods, because only He is right.
To me there is no ONE right religion, ( I was raised Catholic) they all have the same backbone its the details that are different, and those details to me don't make one more right or wrong then another. Wars in "God's name" are a silly excuse for man to show his dominace over other groups of man.
I think that is way more then enough, now I will sit back and wait for the angry people to come rip me to shreads over this.
Apple
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
Quote by AppleOfYourEye
For the two gentlemen above I have a few questions...
Rats!
I thought you were gonna ask me a few questions about my panties.
You've been a bad girl! Now take your pajamas off and go to my room!
Active Ink Slinger
0 likes
sorry buddybear but I prefer my man in either boxers or briefs and not panties but to each his own 
Apple