Quote :

"I'm not saying you're wrong...oh wait I am."

**Shrug** I didn't write the study. Like you, I found it in wikipedia citations on the subject of growth of Christian population in the US. I actually saw the one you posted first but immediately closed it when I saw "Trinity College" because I figured that it must be a religious school and thus you wouldn't believe anything it said.

Your study also seems to suggest that the growth of atheism/no religion is slowing precipitously:

Quote :

"The “Nones” (no stated religious preference, atheist, or agnostic) continue to grow, though at a much slower pace than in the 1990s, from 8.2% in 1990, to 14.1% in 2001, to 15.0% in 2008."

Quote :

"Number of adults in 2008 that identified as Christian in 2008: 173,402,000"

OK, clearly they're using a different metric than the one in the study I posted. But both studies indicate growth, because according to yours as recently as 2001 there were a mere 159,514,000 Christians. That's an even sharper rate of growth than the period from 1990 (when the number was 151,225,000).

Either way, in absolute terms I see an expanding rather than contracting religion.

---

Lazarus, I'll get to you when I get back from class. How you misunderstood what I was saying so badly is beyond me.

4/25/2011 9:41:59 AM

In absolute terms, yes growth. As a percentage of total population, which isn't that what we'd want to use anyway, shrinkage.

4/25/2011 9:43:24 AM

Well, I never intended to claim that society as a whole was becoming more religious, just that major religions were still expanding their membership rather than fading into oblivion. And even in percentage terms, the paper you posted suggests that the growth of atheism has slowed down dramatically, as has the decline in religion. (Though for all I know that my change in the future)

Quote :

"It seemed to me you were suggesting that the lack of impressive displays of their existence was an indicator that the old Greek gods never really existed (or perhaps ceased to exist around the time that such displays stopped being reported)."

Far from it. I specifically said that these gods had a reputation for impressive displays of their existence (as far as the stories about them go, anyway, and lest there be more confusion, I don't think they displayed anything because I don't think they existed).

Remember that the question that spawned this was why I (well, aaronburro) don't worship Zeus instead, following a long conversation about whether he'd researched all his options and what have you. Well, let's say I'm researching my options and I get to Greco-Roman mythology. I look at this long history of divine actions on Earth and see them cease, in spite of the decline and eventually extinction of that religion. If these gods existed, and they gave half a shit about whether we believed in them, they would have intervened again. Certainly they had intervened over far lesser matters, often just a desire to fuck somebody or something.

So my answer to the question was, "I don't believe in Zeus because clearly he either doesn't exist or he doesn't care whether anybody believes in him, in which case I'm better off not being the world's lone Zeustafarian who everybody laughs at, instead of just atheists."

Quote :

"Are you saying that the Christian god isn't revealing himself as burning shrubbery anymore because he has a strong following at the moment?"

If God's followers were dwindling down to me and a handful of other people and He didn't start making with the miracles or the end times I'd have a pretty serious re-evaluation of my choices.

Quote :

"There are parts of the globe, like India, where hundreds of millions of people do not believe in the Christian god. Shouldn't god, per your logic, be over there dazzling the peasants with his sorcery and revelations?"

Nothing in my argument suggests that a deity should put on a song and dance show for everyone on earth until he has 100% compliance. Furthermore, the Biblical instruction is for followers to "spread the word," which they've done in India and every other corner of the Earth. There's a regional bias in that those followers originated in one spot, but that's as far as it goes.

4/25/2011 12:06:02 PM

Quote :

"Well, I never intended to claim that society as a whole was becoming more religious, just that major religions were still expanding their membership rather than fading into oblivion. And even in percentage terms, the paper you posted suggests that the growth of atheism has slowed down dramatically, as has the decline in religion. (Though for all I know that my change in the future)"

And I hate to keep banging this nail, but the numbers don't show that it is expanding at the rate of population growth. This means that it in fact not expanding except in the most absolute and unhelpful usage of the word "expanding". It's not genuine to suggest that it's expanding when it's not.

The growth of atheism has slowed down, but it's still positive. The growth of Christianity has plateau'd but is negative. An even more telling stat on the chart is every denomination of Christianity is on the decline while "General/Non-denominational" Christianity is on the rise.

That aside, I'm interested to see if aaronburro will come in here and yell at you that you have no idea how a God should act but he's still going to believe something anyway.

Quote :

"Nothing in my argument suggests that a deity should put on a song and dance show for everyone on earth until he has 100% compliance. Furthermore, the Biblical instruction is for followers to "spread the word," which they've done in India and every other corner of the Earth. There's a regional bias in that those followers originated in one spot, but that's as far as it goes."

For being omnipotent, if his goal is to have people worship him, he's doing pretty poorly. Surely he could think of something better than "followers to 'spread the word'. If his goal is to do a shitty job and appear as though he isn't there, then he's doing a bang-up job.

4/25/2011 1:02:19 PM

After reading that, I think I understood your point perfectly. It is still absurd (indeed, we are now wading into the depths of absurdity) that God - who is supposed to be intensely fixated on the idea that everyone should be worshiping him, and who weeps when they don't - would spend several thousand years conjuring up all kinds of hocus pocus in order to secure the following of an irrelevant tribe in a remote part of the Arabian desert, only to be suddenly blase about billions of souls in Asia.

Which is more likely: that a celestial wizard has grown content enough his with fan base that he has decided to holster the magic wand, or that it is simply harder to pass off such nonsense in an increasingly enlightened world? That a thinking person could choose the former is proof only of the power of cognitive dissonance and wishful thinking.

[Edited on April 25, 2011 at 1:26 PM. Reason : ]

4/25/2011 1:14:33 PM

Quote :

"This means that it in fact not expanding except in the most absolute and unhelpful usage of the word "expanding"."

It would be unhelpful if I were arguing that American society is becoming more religious (or really Christian, since you're ignoring the "Other Religion" category that has consistently grown). As things are, I was arguing with d357r0y3r's claim that religion was "on its way out" in general and moron's statement that it was "shrinking" in the US in particular.

As far as those two claims go: If one kid grows faster than the other, do we say that the other kid is "shrinking" because he has a diminishing percentage of their combined body mass? No. One day the faster-growing kid might be able to pick on the smaller one, but the smaller one is not shrinking. Similarly, religion in the US is not "shrinking."

Quote :

"For being omnipotent, if his goal is to have people worship him, he's doing pretty poorly. Surely he could think of something better than "followers to 'spread the word'."

For having some money, if my goal is to have sex, I'm doing pretty poorly. Surely I could think of something better than "trying to get to know and develop relationships with women." Paying any of the prostitutes down the road, for example.

You are assuming one very narrowly defined goal.

---

Lazarus -- my point was merely to offer an explanation of why someone might reject an extinct religion. I've already been round and round with you about your explanation of why someone should reject the ones that aren't extinct.

4/25/2011 1:35:14 PM

Quote :

"For having some money, if my goal is to have sex, I'm doing pretty poorly. Surely I could think of something better than "trying to get to know and develop relationships with women." Paying any of the prostitutes down the road, for example. You are assuming one very narrowly defined goal."

You are not omnipotent. I'm assuming that an omnipotent being should be ultimately capable of accomplishing its goals no matter what they are in exactly the way that it feels.

It appears as though there is no benevolent and omnipotent God. Unless the God that really exists myriad goals does not include "make people know I'm there" he's failing at one of his myriad goals. I'm sure any Christian (except aaronburro) would tell you that the whole purpose of the Bible is to make people know he exists. That he would use an ancient text and personal revelation, when he obviously knows (he knows everything, right?) that falsifiable evidence and reason work much better means that he either isn't there, is incompetent to its own claimed goals (assuming the Bible is in any way partly divinely inspired as it claims to be), or is a dick.

Him being a dick covers just about every "you don't know god's plans, narrow plans" etc. If god does exist, and his plan to make me believe in him includes the amount of human and animal suffering in this world, then he is a monster of the greatest caliber possible. Or supremely impotent.

Quote :

"As far as those two claims go: If one kid grows faster than the other, do we say that the other kid is "shrinking" because he has a diminishing percentage of their combined body mass? No. One day the faster-growing kid might be able to pick on the smaller one, but the smaller one is not shrinking. Similarly, religion in the US is not "shrinking.""

Whatever. The numbers are there. No one is claiming that church attendance is increasing. Fringe religions are picking up, sure, but so is secularism. A lot of this is also includes people unwilling to check "atheist" for cultural reasons.

[Edited on April 25, 2011 at 2:00 PM. Reason : .]

4/25/2011 1:56:04 PM

Sigh. Point to increasing numbers of Christians and get met with something about church attendance. Meanwhile describe Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and every other religion that isn't Christianity as "fringe." Say that really there are more secret "stealth" atheists out there (never mind the lazy or wannabe intellectuals who will come running back to religion as soon as something goes against them -- these people exist, and I can no more count them than you can your closet atheists).

I've done the "all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful god" routine with you before. I don't feel compelled to repeat it since we each know each other's moves fairly well.

There was a specific question about why people choose some religion over another, I offered some thoughts on it, and as usual is spiraled into a number of comfortably worn-out tangents. I'll leave you guys to aaronburro.

[Edited on April 25, 2011 at 3:03 PM. Reason : ]

4/25/2011 3:03:06 PM

Pseudo-Scholarship in the Popular Press

The popular press has been very active in its attempt to diminish the intellectual respectability of biblical faith, and the new atheists are one of the best examples. Their academic arrogance is nothing short of astounding, and only further highlighted by their lack of understanding of biblical studies. One of the most egregious examples of religious ignorance is found in David Mills’ book Atheist Universe:

It’s fairly easy to demonstrably prove that the Genesis accounts of Adam and Eve, and Noah’s worldwide deluge, are fables. It’s easier to prove these stories false because, unlike the notion of God, the Creation account and Noah’s flood are scientifically testable. Science may explore human origins and the geologic history of Earth. In this regard, science has incontrovertibly proven that the Book of Genesis is utter mythology (2006, p. 28).

Mills provides a priceless example of just how badly militant atheists misunderstand ancient literature. Within a mere paragraph, Mills uses the terms “fable,” “mythology,” and (false) “story” interchangeably. None of these terms are synonyms. A fable is a whimsical tale, usually containing a moral or teaching point, in which talking animals frequently play primary roles. Aesop’s Fables immediately comes to mind. This is quite different from the term “mythology,” which centers on stories of the gods and often has a religious or cultic function. These stories also have varying degrees of contradiction with other myths within the same corpus in which the deities are represented. Incidentally, this is also different from a “legend,” which is an embellished story about a human figure containing at least a kernel of historical truth.

Unlike myths, fables, and fictive stories, the Old and New Testaments are concerned with reporting factual details. The historical books frequently reference other sources such as the Book of Jashar (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18), the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14), and the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah (2 Chronicles 27:7). It appears that the divinely-guided Hebrew writers worked with sources in similar fashion to modern historians. The writers often used source material and on occasion point the reader to those sources where additional information could be found at the original time of writing (e.g., 1 Kings 14:19). Luke makes it clear that he conducted an extensive investigation of the sources in the composition of his gospel account (Luke 1:1-4). His attention to geographical detail, long recognized by scholars for its accuracy and thoroughness, is quite out of keeping with ancient myths, which had no concern for this type of information. Finally, Paul (1 Corinthians 15:5-8), Peter (2 Peter 1:16), and John (1 John 1:1-2) all offer eyewitnesses testimonials, presupposing their readers had the ability to verify their claims.

It is important to note that the ancients rarely believed their myths actually happened in real time and space. Actual history is of very little concern in mythology, which may come as a surprise to many moderns. It seems to be just as surprising to the critics of the Bible, who invariably equate myth with fiction. The new atheists assume that Jesus is a mythological creation of the early church, missing the point that the early Christians actually believed that He walked the Earth, performed miracles, and rose from the dead. Unlike the pagan populace of Greece and Rome, early Christians were willing to die for their convictions.

4/26/2011 5:16:34 AM

Hey asshole, post an original thought. That tripe is retarded. Atheists interchangeably use synonyms? bwahahahahahahahah

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Pseudo-Scholarship+in+the+Popular+Press

[Edited on April 26, 2011 at 8:35 AM. Reason : asshole]

4/26/2011 8:34:39 AM

Quote :

"Unlike myths, fables, and fictive stories, the Old and New Testaments are concerned with reporting factual details. The historical books frequently reference other sources such as the Book of Jashar (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18), the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14), and the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah (2 Chronicles 27:7). It appears that the divinely-guided Hebrew writers worked with sources in similar fashion to modern historians. The writers often used source material and on occasion point the reader to those sources where additional information could be found at the original time of writing (e.g., 1 Kings 14:19)."

Those are lost/removed books of the Bible. History books do not source themselves.

Quote :

"Luke makes it clear that he conducted an extensive investigation of the sources in the composition of his gospel account (Luke 1:1-4). His attention to geographical detail, long recognized by scholars for its accuracy and thoroughness, is quite out of keeping with ancient myths, which had no concern for this type of information."

How is this evidence at all?

Quote :

"Finally, Paul (1 Corinthians 15:5-8), Peter (2 Peter 1:16), and John (1 John 1:1-2) all offer eyewitnesses testimonials, presupposing their readers had the ability to verify their claims."

Again, not evidence. We don't know if any of these people existed.

It would do you good to read and comprehend this stuff, instead of just copy-pasting it for us to refute.

4/26/2011 8:40:17 AM

Archaeology does not always mention any one individual, and in the case of Christ, more substantial evidence comes from history rather than archaeology. One significant find is the 1990 discovery of the ossuary (bone box) of Joseph Caiaphas, high priest at the time of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion (John 11:49-53). Jesus is mentioned by the Roman writers Suetonius and Tacitus, the Roman governor Pliny the Younger, and is indirectly referenced by the Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata. He is also noted in a Jewish composition from the fifth century called the Toledoth Jesu, which gives an alternate explanation for the empty tomb from a hostile source. Jesus is far from the “myth” critics claim Him to be.

4/26/2011 10:14:25 AM

Suetonis:

Quote :

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [ Claudius ] expelled them [the Jews] from Rome"

That's it. Chrestus was a common name for slaves. Even if it's referring to Christ himself, it's 3rd hand knowledge at best and not evidence of anything more than a rabble-rouser named Chrestus.

Tacitus:

Quote :

"Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular"

Tacitus isn't speaking from personal experience and doesn't reference his source. And again, it's at best 3rd hand knowledge that there were people who claimed that a man who was executed was the Jewish Messiah. We all know this.

4/26/2011 10:41:41 AM

So try and refute for me the prophecies in the old testament and how the chances of only 48 of the prophecies being fulfilled in person is 1 in 10^157. Or go here http://www.squidoo.com/messianicprophecy. I am wondering how many of you have actually looked at Christianity with an open mind before.

[Edited on April 26, 2011 at 3:23 PM. Reason : ']

4/26/2011 3:21:45 PM

Have you actually read the Old Testament? The Jews have it right: Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophesies as written.

And since you think I would be convinced by a link with no exploratory thought:
http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_messiah3.htm

Quote :

"1) JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will: A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28). B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6). C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4) D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9)."

4/26/2011 3:30:19 PM

You did not answer my question.

4/26/2011 3:42:23 PM

OMFG you're right. What are the chances that followers of one book would write another book that reiterated exactly what they read about in the first book!?!?!

This could change the world. Does anybody know about this?


[Edited on April 26, 2011 at 4:03 PM. Reason : asdfasdf]

4/26/2011 3:50:43 PM

You asked me to refute the prophecies in the OT. I did. I didn't answer "what was the chance" because the chance is irrelevant. Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophesies as written in the Old Testament. It's the reason Jews aren't Christians.

Additionally, do you honestly expect me to be impressed that it's written in one book that a character fulfilled some of the prophesies written in another book? (edit: Damn you, EuroTitToss)

You're stating as a given that Jesus fulfilled any prophesy without any evidence. It's not a given. It has not been proven. You need to start there before we spend any time talking about how unlikely it would be for a person to fulfill a particular number of prophesies.

[Edited on April 26, 2011 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2011 4:09:15 PM

Well of course Jews don't believe he fulfilled any prophecies because they didn't believe he was the Messiah.

Genesis 3:15 "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel." Jesus is the only person who can be referred to as the "seed" of a woman. In terms of lineage the Messiah must be born of the seed of woman, the lineage of Shem, the race of the Jews, the line of Jacob, and tribe of Judah, the family of Jesse, and the house of David.

In Micah 5:2 all other cities of the world are eliminated except for Bethlehem, with less than 1000 people, as the Messiah's birthplace. Isiah 7:14 says Jesus will be born of a virgin. His own people, the Jews, will reject him, and the Gentiles will believe in him (Psalms 22:7-8; 118:22; Isaiah 8:14; 49:6; 50:6; 52:13-15).

He will have a forerunner, a voice in the wilderness, one preparing the way before the Lord, a John the Baptist (Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1).

Psalm 41:9; Zechariah 11:12-13 These verses reveal that the Messiah will be betrayed, by a friend, for 30 pieces of silver, and that money will be cast on the floor of the Temple.

Psalm 22:6-18;Zechariah 12:10 Predict that this man's hands and feet will be pierced and that he will be crucified. This description if the manner of his death was written 800 years before the Romans used crucifixion as a method of execution.

What is it that you guys have against Christianity?

4/26/2011 4:50:34 PM

Did you just try to show the truth of the Bible with......Bible quotes? Why should I be convinced when there are many other ancient texts claiming to be the truth with exactly the same amount of evidence supporting them?

And understand this: it's not just Christianity that is false. We're only discussing it in this thread because there aren't Hindus in here proclaiming the grace of Lord Ganesha.

Quote :

"Well of course Jews don't believe he fulfilled any prophecies because they didn't believe he was the Messiah."

They don't believe he is the Messiah because he doesn't fit the description in the OT. You believe he is the Messiah because you want to and ignore the bits of OT that he doesn't fit (including what I quoted above) It's also widely known that 'virgin' is a mistranslation and thus the story of the virgin birth is almost assuredly made up on that basis alone (never mind the impossible miraculous claim of a virgin birth in humans in the first place). This is explained in the link I provided if you care to read it. I'm sure you won't because if you had the open mind you bemoaned of us, you probably wouldn't believe in fairy tales like virgin births, dragons, giant arks that have 2 of each animal, woman growing from a man's rib, angels, fire and brimstone, walking on water, resurrecting, healing with a touch, fishes and loaves, etc.

Quote :

"What is it that you guys have against Christianity?"

It's one of many religions that perpetuate the idea that faith is a virtue. That ignoring evidence and reason is a good thing. I perpetuates the idea that this life, the only life we get to experience is superficial and must be controlled to assure an afterlife that almost assuredly isn't there.

It is an unnecessary superstition that distracts us from serious inquiry about the nature of human existence. Christianity and every other religion is unproven bullshit, and yet our lives are affected every day by the religious or unscrupulous politicians pandering to the religious.

Scientific inquiry, science education, women's rights, homosexuals' rights, the fight against HIV, all of these things are impeded by religion today, not to count the wonderful periods of darkness and violence in the name of God.

[Edited on April 26, 2011 at 11:34 PM. Reason : apostrophe fail]

4/26/2011 11:34:21 PM

The existence of Jesus is irrelevant to the existence of a god. Other religions believe, and have proof of, the existence of their religious figures.

But even if we accept the existence of Jesus, and even the divinity of Jesus, what does this mean? The universe is still billions of years old, the earth is still billions of years old, live evolved, dinosaurs existed and died, Noah's ark wasn't a world-wide event, different languages didn't emerge because God didn't want people building a tower to heaven, etc. CLEARLY the Bible (and Koran) are wrong on these points and others. There's still no real truth or agreement that could be garnered. We don't know who to believe, and we're marginally closer, at best, to the truth.

4/26/2011 11:49:55 PM

But we sure know who not to believe. Science has proven itself to be the best method to work toward truth and the folks that ignore science in the name of faith needn't be considered. Non-falsifiable claims can and should be considered false pending evidentiary support.

And before the mouth-breathers come in and claim that I think science is infallible, I don't. Science is falsifiable, and most importantly self-correcting. When new evidence comes in that is contrary to existing theory, we don't ignore the evidence to suit the theory. We evaluate the evidence, modify the theory based on new evidence or throw the theory out entirely if the evidence renders it incompatible. It is obvious that this is superior at working toward the truth about reality than faith could possibly be.

4/26/2011 11:55:42 PM

Quote :

"Because you're playing the ultimate Devil's Advocate but when it comes to actually discussing something your balls shrivel up. You're willing to naysay all but when I ask why you don't believe in something particular you hem and haw. Why?"

Again, because it's wholly irrelevant when talking about someone having proof for or against religion.

Quote :

"That he would use an ancient text and personal revelation, when he obviously knows (he knows everything, right?) that falsifiable evidence and reason work much better means that he either isn't there, is incompetent to its own claimed goals (assuming the Bible is in any way partly divinely inspired as it claims to be), or is a dick."

Or, he put a value on faith. It's not like there is a shit ton of discussion in the Bible about faith. nope. none at all.

Quote :

"If god does exist, and his plan to make me believe in him includes the amount of human and animal suffering in this world, then he is a monster of the greatest caliber possible. Or supremely impotent."

or never promised to make everything harmony harmony oh love for you.

Quote :

"In this regard, science has incontrovertibly proven that the Book of Genesis is utter mythology"

No, it really hasn't.

Quote :

"So try and refute for me the prophecies in the old testament and how the chances of only 48 of the prophecies being fulfilled in person is 1 in 10^157."

Because a lot of what is called "prophecy" is quite a bit of a stretch. Not much of that is some guy saying "hey, this is gonna happen." Rather, a lot of it is some random psalm or praise that ends up having another event occur which seems to be similar. I wouldn't consider that "prophecy," but maybe something was lost in the translation.

Quote :

"Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophesies as written in the Old Testament. It's the reason Jews aren't Christians."

mmmmm, it might be more accurate to say that he didn't fulfill them in a way that the Jews recognize.

Quote :

"That ignoring evidence and reason is a good thing."

I most certainly do not see evidence for this claim. Where in the Bible does it say to abandon all logic and reason? right, it doesn't.

4/27/2011 10:13:36 PM

Quote :

"Or, he put a value on faith. It's not like there is a shit ton of discussion in the Bible about faith. nope. none at all."

you make it sound like faith is a good thing. while humans don't have the knowledge or tech to falsify all religions, there isn't much reason to believe in outlandish stories written thousands of years ago unless you just want to. which is fine.

4/28/2011 1:09:26 AM

Quote :

"Again, because it's wholly irrelevant when talking about someone having proof for or against religion."

Ahhh, more impotence from aaronburro. Shocker. How are you declaring by fiat that the topic of this thread is 'having proof for or against religion' only? Justifiable belief is necessarily related to 'having proof for or against' anyway. It's not tangential by any definition of the word.

You're just being evasive because you know where it leads. "My bullshit religion is justified, but the billions of other non-proven beliefs are not, even though I haven't disproven them."

Quote :

"Or, he put a value on faith. It's not like there is a shit ton of discussion in the Bible about faith. nope. none at all."

Is a dick. Covered. Also the Bible isn't proven by any stretch of the imagination, especially by your inane standards. Unproven claims.

Quote :

"or never promised to make everything harmony harmony oh love for you."

Any divine plan that includes millions of children dying of cancer every year is morally repugnant. Do you disagree with this statement?

Quote :

"No, it really hasn't."

Only to obtuse fucks like you who equivocate on the meaning of 'proof'.

Quote :

"mmmmm, it might be more accurate to say that he didn't fulfill them in a way that the Jews recognize."

Nope. It's more accurate to say the Christians ignore passages that don't work for their definition of fulfillment or arbitrarily decide that Jesus will fulfill them during his 2nd coming which has absolutely no justification from the OT.

Either way, both the OT prophesies and the NT "fulfillment" of said prophesies are unproven claims by your bullshit standards so you even referring to them in this manner reeks of intellectual dishonesty or rote compartmentialism.

Quote :

"I most certainly do not see evidence for this claim. Where in the Bible does it say to abandon all logic and reason? right, it doesn't."

Faith is the abandonment of logic and reason. You mention in your post that the Bible extols the value of faith throughout it.

Quote :

"there isn't much reason to believe in outlandish stories written thousands of years ago unless you just want to. which is fine."

It is NOT fine if you care in the least whether what you believe in is true.

[Edited on April 28, 2011 at 9:06 AM. Reason : .]

4/28/2011 9:06:03 AM

Quote :

"you make it sound like faith is a good thing."

do you have any evidence to show it is always a bad thing?

Quote :

"How are you declaring by fiat that the topic of this thread is 'having proof for or against religion' only?"

because it was specifically about a debate where two people claimed to have evidence for both sides, and then someone else came in and claimed to have his own evidence, followed by someone else doing the same... sounds like that's the topic.

Quote :

"Justifiable belief is necessarily related to 'having proof for or against' anyway."

really? That's your low bar for proof? no wonder you are having trouble comprehending the difference between evidence and argument.

Quote :

"You're just being evasive because you know where it leads. "My bullshit religion is justified, but the billions of other non-proven beliefs are not, even though I haven't disproven them.""

No, I'm specifically avoiding it because I'm not arguing that Christianity is a justified religion in which to believe.

Quote :

"Is a dick. Covered."

That's your opinion. Yet it seems perfectly within reason to look at the Bible's emphasis on faith and draw the conclusion that it puts an importance on faith. I don't consider that "being a dick." But a militant atheist probably would.

Quote :

"Also the Bible isn't proven by any stretch of the imagination, especially by your inane standards. Unproven claims."

That's fine. nowhere have I said the Bible has been proven true. Are you getting your feelings hurt or something?

Quote :

"Any divine plan that includes millions of children dying of cancer every year is morally repugnant. Do you disagree with this statement?"

If the specific intent is to have those children die, then it would be hard not to call it morally repugnant. But I see no evidence to suggest that it is God's divine plan to specifically give children cancer and then watch them suffer.

Quote :

"Only to obtuse fucks like you who equivocate on the meaning of 'proof'. "

proof:
1) any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something;
2) a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it

I see no equivocation. "Hey man, God doesn't do what I want him to do" isn't "proof."

Quote :

"Nope. It's more accurate to say the Christians ignore passages that don't work for their definition of fulfillment or arbitrarily decide that Jesus will fulfill them during his 2nd coming which has absolutely no justification from the OT. "

I could see that.

Quote :

"Either way, both the OT prophesies and the NT "fulfillment" of said prophesies are unproven claims by your bullshit standards so you even referring to them in this manner reeks of intellectual dishonesty or rote compartmentialism."

you really have a hangup with me having a logical requirement of proof. lol. you need to get out more. I would be hard pressed in general to suggest that fulfillment of prophecy could be "proven," as first you would have to show that the person making the prophecy was specifically talking about the person who fulfilled it. I suppose in some instances that could be done, but I highly doubt it is possible in most cases of prophecy. Thus, there is, *gasp*, an element of belief and faith involved. What a terrible thing!

Quote :

"Faith is the abandonment of logic and reason."

Hardly. It's a cutesy statement, but it's not true in any fashion. I'm still waiting for your evidence for where the Bible says to abandon all logic and reason...

Quote :

"It is NOT fine if you care in the least whether what you believe in is true."

to you.

4/28/2011 6:12:18 PM

Quote :

"do you have any evidence to show it is always a bad thing?"

if we are talking about faith [feyth] -belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

then yea

4/28/2011 6:51:52 PM

que?

4/28/2011 7:43:58 PM

Justifiable belief isn't a valid topic but faith as a virtue is?

Know how I know you're being evasive?

Quote :

"Hardly. It's a cutesy statement, but it's not true in any fashion. I'm still waiting for your evidence for where the Bible says to abandon all logic and reason..."

Faith is believing in something without evidence or reason to support it. The very definition of 'abandoning reason and logic'. Now, you said that faith is supported throughout the Bible. Unless you have a problem with my definition, QED.

[Edited on April 28, 2011 at 8:41 PM. Reason : .]

4/28/2011 8:23:32 PM

Quote :

"Faith is believing in something without evidence or reason to support it. The very definition of 'abandoning reason and logic'."

not so much. but even still, it's not the abandoning of ALL REASON AND LOGIC. which is what you said it was. you lose. again. but, faith, in general, is based on something. it's not like faith is deciding tomorrow to up and believe that the sky is green. faith has some basis to it.

Quote :

"Justifiable belief isn't a valid topic but faith as a virtue is?"

the fuck? now I can't say ANYTHING other than talking about evidence? jesus, you are reaching at this point. It seems pretty obvious that I was talking about faith as an alternative to your "God is a dick" rant. please, forgive me for giving a valid alternative to your false dilemma

[Edited on April 28, 2011 at 10:56 PM. Reason : ]

4/28/2011 10:55:24 PM

Quote :

"not so much. but even still, it's not the abandoning of ALL REASON AND LOGIC. which is what you said it was. you lose. again. but, faith, in general, is based on something. it's not like faith is deciding tomorrow to up and believe that the sky is green. faith has some basis to it."

No, faith is deciding to specifically ignore the evidence and believe something contrary to it. How about instead of saying "no no no" you define faith. I have defined it, all you've done is say "no no no".

Does it take faith to believe something proven by evidence? Of course it does not. Because that's exactly what faith is, guy.

Quote :

"the fuck? now I can't say ANYTHING other than talking about evidence? jesus, you are reaching at this point. It seems pretty obvious that I was talking about faith as an alternative to your "God is a dick" rant. please, forgive me for giving a valid alternative to your false dilemma"

False dilemma? I provided three possibilities, GIVEN GOD'S OMNIPOTENCE. You do realize that given certain parameters, it is possible to limit the possibilities and not actually be a false dilemma, right? Tell me, if God is omnipotent, isn't everything that happens precisely as he chose it? Doesn't that make logical sense? Even if he created it to be out of his hands, the very act of creating it in such a manner was of his choosing. The system by which souls are judged and damned is by his design. Suffering in this world is by his design. I'm saying absolutely nothing of his motives in this paragraph, only of the logical necessity of if he is actually omnipotent, then he has the power to make things happen any way and has chosen (for whatever reason, don't want your panties to get in a twist in response to this) to make them happen (or allow them to happen) this way.

And yes, if you're going persist with the notion justifiable belief not being on topic, I'm going to give you shit for every topic that isn't mentioned in the title of this thread to illustrate what a stupid response "It's not the topic of this thread" is to a dynamic conversation.

And I meant to respond to this earlier:

Quote :

"to you."

No, not just to me.

Take any notion that you take on faith without evidence or reason to believe it. What methods would you use to determine whether that notion was true? What are the best methods to use to determine whether a claim is true? (I'll give you a hint, you spent pages railing me about proof and facts). The best methods for determining whether a claim is true (examining evidence, testing, falsifying, peer reviewing, etc) DO NOT WORK ON CLAIMS BASED ON FAITH.

Faith is not a reliable path to determining whether a thing is true. Being that it does not rely on evidence or reason, there is no justifiable reason to believe anything based on faith. Therefore, if anyone cares whether what they believe in is true, faith is not viable.

It is not possible for a person to have faith and care at all about whether the claims they believe in purely on faith are true. Not just me. Everyone. If you have faith that you have a soul, and that God loves you, then you haven't taken the time to examine the evidence and reasoning for the existence of your soul, or your God, and you don't care whether it's actually true that you have a soul or there is a God. You want to believe it, so you ignore the evidence and reason. That's faith.

4/28/2011 11:20:26 PM

Quote :

"No, faith is deciding to specifically ignore the evidence and believe something contrary to it."

no, that's not it. nice try. again, you said it was the abandonment of logic and reason. you also said the Bible says this. it does not.

Quote :

"How about instead of saying "no no no" you define faith. "

I've never asked you to define it. You did so on your own volition, and then gave an incorrect definition.

Quote :

"Does it take faith to believe something proven by evidence? Of course it does not. Because that's exactly what faith is, guy."

that's completely different from "believing something despite obvious and contrary evidence." nice try.

Quote :

"False dilemma? I provided three possibilities, GIVEN GOD'S OMNIPOTENCE."

jesus. providing any number of possibilities and saying "these are the only things possible" is what makes it a false dilemma, dipshit. I show it is a false dilemma by giving you an alternative possibility. Ergo, FALSE FUCKING DILEMMA. you are very good at making them.

Quote :

"Tell me, if God is omnipotent, isn't everything that happens precisely as he chose it?"

bam, problem #1. I can be 100% capable of stopping something from falling but chose not to do so. That does not mean I caused it to fall.

Quote :

"Suffering in this world is by his design."

BAM, problem #2. Suffering is allowed via free will, not caused or designed. It is we who cause said suffering.

Quote :

"And yes, if you're going persist with the notion justifiable belief not being on topic, I'm going to give you shit for every topic that isn't mentioned in the title of this thread to illustrate what a stupid response "It's not the topic of this thread" is to a dynamic conversation."

At which point I can show the relevance. You CAN'T show the relevance of demanding me to explain my beliefs. See how easy that was?

Quote :

"Take any notion that you take on faith without evidence or reason to believe it."

Grumpy has already spoken to this. Faith is NOT believing in something without reason. it is this improper definition upon which your absurdity is based.

Quote :

"Being that it does not rely on evidence or reason,"

oh look, another falsehood. good work!

Quote :

"It is not possible for a person to have faith and care at all about whether the claims they believe in purely on faith are true."

Yep, every single person out there with a religious belief doesn't care if their beliefs are true. that's why they have those beliefs and follow those beliefs. yep. that makes PERFECT fucking sense

Quote :

"If you have faith that you have a soul, and that God loves you, then you haven't taken the time to examine the evidence and reasoning for the existence of your soul, or your God, and you don't care whether it's actually true that you have a soul or there is a God. You want to believe it, so you ignore the evidence and reason. That's faith."

what a perfect NON-definition of faith. I couldn't construct a better fallacy if I tried. you know what's even funnier? You have faith in something and don't even realize it. It's quite comical

[Edited on April 28, 2011 at 11:34 PM. Reason : ]

4/28/2011 11:34:11 PM

Quote :

"no, that's not it. nice try. again, you said it was the abandonment of logic and reason. you also said the Bible says this. it does not."

Show me where I said "the bible says that faith is the abandonment of logic and reason".

Quote :

"I've never asked you to define it. You did so on your own volition, and then gave an incorrect definition."

How can we talk about what faith is without defining it? I swear, can you hear yourself think? You're a pure contrarian, nothing more.

Quote :

"that's completely different from "believing something despite obvious and contrary evidence." nice try."

Not it is not. Believing something that is supported by evidence != faith. Believing something that is is not supported by evidence (this includes something that has obvious and contrary evidence) is faith. Again, contrarian without any actual thought.

Quote :

"jesus. providing any number of possibilities and saying "these are the only things possible" is what makes it a false dilemma, dipshit. I show it is a false dilemma by giving you an alternative possibility. Ergo, FALSE FUCKING DILEMMA. you are very good at making them."

Wrong again, pedestrian. Given parameters to a claim, you can limit the possibilities. For instance, I say, given a specific person has brown hair, him having black hair is no longer a possibility. Bingo bango, you now have less than infinite possibilities and the potential for a false dilemma is eliminated as long as you give all possibilities that allow for brown hair.

Quote :

"bam, problem #1. I can be 100% capable of stopping something from falling but chose not to do so. That does not mean I caused it to fall."

But you are certainly responsible for it falling, are you not? I wasn't going to bring this analogy up, but you did. If I have the power to stop someone from murdering you and I do not, am I responsible for your murder? If I have the power to stop a boulder from crushing you, but let it fall any way, am I not responsible for your death? If I have the power to prevent millions of children from dying from cancer every year and I do not, am I not responsible for their deaths?

Quote :

"AM, problem #2. Suffering is allowed via free will, not caused or designed. It is we who cause said suffering."

Man, i guess I need to pray harder to stop all those tornadoes and childhood cancers then. You're full of shit. You spend every post telling me how my claims are unproven and you bring "Suffering is allowed via free will" in here? My eye sockets do not support the amount of rolling that would be an appropriate response to your hypocrisy.

Quote :

"At which point I can show the relevance. You CAN'T show the relevance of demanding me to explain my beliefs. See how easy that was?"

Then do so, ass. I did explain how justifiable belief is relevant to the conversation at hand and you gave the typical, "nuh-uh, nuh-uh" response.

Quote :

"Grumpy has already spoken to this. Faith is NOT believing in something without reason. it is this improper definition upon which your absurdity is based."

THEN WHAT IS THE DEFINITION????? Let's start there. Wouldn't that be a good place to start? I provide a definition, you disagree, then provide the definition you think it is then we discuss. Isn't that how a conversation works?

Quote :

"oh look, another falsehood. good work!"

Given the definition I have provided. Derp. Until you provide an alternate definition and we come to a consensus regarding it, I claim authority on the definition during the scope of this thread.

Quote :

"Yep, every single person out there with a religious belief doesn't care if their beliefs are true. that's why they have those beliefs and follow those beliefs. yep. that makes PERFECT fucking sense "

They don't care whether their specific beliefs that don't have evidentiary support or logical support are true. Because they wouldn't believe them if they did. This is a god damned tautology and you still try to counter it with "yep. that makes PERFECT fucking sense." Brilliant counter, btw.

Quote :

"what a perfect NON-definition of faith. I couldn't construct a better fallacy if I tried. you know what's even funnier? You have faith in something and don't even realize it. It's quite comical"

Until you provide a definition of faith, I don't even know what you're talking about. How could I possibly know what you mean by "You have faith in something..." if you haven't even explained what you mean by "faith"?

[Edited on April 28, 2011 at 11:53 PM. Reason : .]

4/28/2011 11:52:07 PM

Quote :

"Show me where I said "the bible says that faith is the abandonment of logic and reason". "

you certainly stated that religions say this, which would imply that the Bible says this. oh look here we have it!

Quote :

"It's one of many religions that perpetuate the idea that faith is a virtue. That ignoring evidence and reason is a good thing."

Quote :

"How can we talk about what faith is without defining it?"

I agree. but don't accuse me of asking you to define it and then bitch at me about it.

Quote :

"Not it is not. Believing something that is supported by evidence != faith. Believing something that is is not supported by evidence... is faith."

Yes, both of those are true. But you said, and I'll quote: "No, faith is deciding to specifically ignore the evidence and believe something contrary to it." Ergo, there's a difference. However, the part in parenthesis " (this includes something that has obvious and contrary evidence)" is NOT true. you lose. good day sir.

Quote :

"But you are certainly responsible for it falling, are you not?"

nope. something else caused it to fall, and is therefor responsible.

Quote :

"Wrong again, pedestrian. Given parameters to a claim, you can limit the possibilities. For instance, I say, given a specific person has brown hair, him having black hair is no longer a possibility. Bingo bango, you now have less than infinite possibilities and the potential for a false dilemma is eliminated as long as you give all possibilities that allow for brown hair."

True. But the thing you were trying to limit wasn't that simple. ergo, false fucking dilemma, as proven by the fact that I provided an alternative. jesus, this is difficult, dude.

Quote :

"You spend every post telling me how my claims are unproven and you bring "Suffering is allowed via free will" in here?"

There's nothing surprising in that claim. If God were to eliminate suffering, he would have to remove free will, as that is the cause of a great deal of the suffering in the world. We murder people left and right, causing suffering. The only way to prevent such suffering would therefor be for God to a puppet-master and control every single move we make.

Quote :

"Man, i guess I need to pray harder to stop all those tornadoes and childhood cancers then."

Too bad that's not the only extent of suffering, you twit. Maybe I should have said "Suffering is often caused by free will." Would that make your panties happier

Quote :

"I did explain how justifiable belief is relevant to the conversation at hand and you gave the typical"

no, you really didn't. kind of the point.

Quote :

"THEN WHAT IS THE DEFINITION????? Let's start there. Wouldn't that be a good place to start? I provide a definition, you disagree, then provide the definition you think it is then we discuss. Isn't that how a conversation works?"

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+faith
note how NONE of those definitions say "abandon all logic and reasoning"

Quote :

"They don't care whether their specific beliefs that don't have evidentiary support or logical support are true. Because they wouldn't believe them if they did. This is a god damned tautology"

only, it's not. clearly such people show the care about their beliefs, and I have fucking shown so.

4/29/2011 12:08:40 AM

Quote :

"bam, problem #1. I can be 100% capable of stopping something from falling but chose not to do so. That does not mean I caused it to fall."

So, God gave us free will. However, God is omniscient and therefore knows the path we will choose before we choose it. Why, then, would he create people with the predisposition to reject him? We're doomed to burn in hell from birth.

[Edited on April 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM. Reason : .]

4/29/2011 12:36:33 AM

He did not create us with the predisposition to reject him. Instead sin entered into humanity through Adam and Eve. This is known as Original Sin and is a characteristic that every human is born with. This original sin gives us the predisposition to defy God through rejecting His love when making a choice.

That "defiance" is really what constitutes Sin and that "predisposition" is what we call Original Sin - it is that simple.

Expressed differently - Sin is the rejection of Divine Love, a Love which has set down just a few basic Laws for our own well being ; a well being that is not defined as "instant happiness" but as "long term enduring happiness".

4/29/2011 2:53:27 AM

Quote :

"Why, then, would he create people with the predisposition to reject him?"

I dunno. it's a question many people have had.

Quote :

"This is known as Original Sin and is a characteristic that every human is born with."

the concept of Original Sin is such bullshit. I'm not fucking guilty on account of what some tart allegedly did 4000 years ago any more than OJ's kids are guilty on account of OJ being a murdering bastard.

4/29/2011 3:41:50 AM

Quote :

"the concept of Original Sin is such bullshit. I'm not fucking guilty on account of what some tart allegedly did 4000 years ago any more than OJ's kids are guilty on account of OJ being a murdering bastard."

It would be more accurate to say that's your just your interpretation.

4/29/2011 7:36:37 AM

Quote :

"He did not create us with the predisposition to reject him. Instead sin entered into humanity through Adam and Eve. This is known as Original Sin and is a characteristic that every human is born with. This original sin gives us the predisposition to defy God through rejecting His love when making a choice. "

Then why did he create Adam and Eve with the predisposition to eat from the fucking tree of knowledge? He's God. He knew they would do it. What a dick.

4/29/2011 8:47:27 AM

Quote :

"Too bad that's not the only extent of suffering, you twit. Maybe I should have said "Suffering is often caused by free will." Would that make your panties happier"

My panties? It's the truth, you insolent fuck. Even if for the sake of argument I accept your premise that free will exists (I don't.) only some of the suffering in this world is the result of free will. A majority of the suffering in this world, human and lower animal, is not. Disease, natural disasters, climate issues, predation, etc.

This is what you said:

Quote :

"Suffering is allowed via free will, not caused or designed. It is we who cause said suffering."

Which is misrepresenting reality and dishonest. If any of the suffering in this world is not caused by free will, then how is your statement valid in the least? We don't cause this suffering.

Further, given your premise of free will, who gave us free will in the first place? If I design a robot that can choose to kill you and does, am I responsible? No matter how you equivocate and rationalize, responsibility will always regress to the omnipotent being that either is controlling everything or set everything up exactly in the way that it chose.

Quote :

"There's nothing surprising in that claim. If God were to eliminate suffering, he would have to remove free will, as that is the cause of a great deal of the suffering in the world. We murder people left and right, causing suffering. The only way to prevent such suffering would therefor be for God to a puppet-master and control every single move we make."

Is that false dilemma I smell? That's the ONLY way to prevent such suffering? Surely an omnipotent being has more options, yes? And it doesn't matter even if that was the only way to prevent the suffering. He CHOSE THE WAY THAT DOESN'T PREVENT SUFFERING.

Quote :

"http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+faith note how NONE of those definitions say "abandon all logic and reasoning""

Let's take the very first one:

Quote :

" a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny"

belief in a supernatural power DENOTES belief in something that has no evidentiary support. It is after all, supernatural. Therefore, it is not using reason or evidence to support that belief.

And this is the definition of faith that I'm using (which I clearly explained in this very thread). Not "confidence in something" or other generic definitions. I'm talking about religious faith, obviously.

Quote :

"only, it's not. clearly such people show the care about their beliefs, and I have fucking shown so."

No you haven't. Here's you "fucking showing so":

Quote :

"Yep, every single person out there with a religious belief doesn't care if their beliefs are true. that's why they have those beliefs and follow those beliefs. yep. that makes PERFECT fucking sense "

This is you being a sarcastic fuck, and not showing anything.

I explained exactly what it takes to care about your beliefs (spend time determining whether they are true using the correct methods for determining whether things are true). It is obvious that anyone who believes any supernatural claim has not done so to any actual extent.

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

Quote :

"He did not create us with the predisposition to reject him. Instead sin entered into humanity through Adam and Eve. This is known as Original Sin and is a characteristic that every human is born with. This original sin gives us the predisposition to defy God through rejecting His love when making a choice. That "defiance" is really what constitutes Sin and that "predisposition" is what we call Original Sin - it is that simple. Expressed differently - Sin is the rejection of Divine Love, a Love which has set down just a few basic Laws for our own well being ; a well being that is not defined as "instant happiness" but as "long term enduring happiness"."

Prove that any of this horseshit is real. The evidence suggests that humans evolved other animals and developed our culture and society over roughly 2,000,000 years in our current form.

Quote :

"the concept of Original Sin is such bullshit. I'm not fucking guilty on account of what some tart allegedly did 4000 years ago any more than OJ's kids are guilty on account of OJ being a murdering bastard."

But why? How can you say that "the concept of Original Sin is such bullshit" WITHOUT PROOF THAT IT IS BULLSHIT?????????????

Further, does it make more sense that Jesus is guilty on account of what you and the rest of humanity does? None of this hairbrained nonsense makes sense for a reason: it's hairbrained nonsense.

[Edited on April 29, 2011 at 9:06 AM. Reason : .]

4/29/2011 9:00:56 AM

Seems pretty cut and dry, and completely mathematically sound. Why hasn't the mainstream (lamestream!) media covered this chart?

4/29/2011 11:10:22 AM

It's mathematically sound that work of fiction corroborates another work of fiction? Shocker.

How the balls do you get the probability of being a miracle worker any way? How is this non-scientific garbage "cut and dry"?

4/29/2011 11:18:07 AM

You can't argue with the numbers.

4/29/2011 11:31:26 AM

sarcasm detector needs maintenance

4/29/2011 11:38:36 AM

^^^^ Did you know that low probability events occur in every day life? In fact, the sum of a whole bunch of low probabilities can make a high probability, which will result in a list of low-probability events.

I believe the point, anyway, was that these events were foretold by other parts of the bible. In other words, the bible predicted itself. You know, not considering that it's possible that either the prediction or the event itself could have been post-hoc fabrications.

I mean, if I assume the bible is true, and use this assumption to prove that the bible is true... well that would make me a Christian.

4/29/2011 11:46:05 AM

^^

4/29/2011 11:53:47 AM

Yeah, didn't realize spooky was fucking w/ me.

4/29/2011 4:10:58 PM

I forgot what it's called, but there's a name for when a group's arguments are so inane that you can't distinguish it from satire.

4/29/2011 4:22:28 PM

^and vice versa: Poe's Law

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

4/29/2011 6:32:58 PM

Quote :

"My panties? It's the truth, you insolent fuck. Even if for the sake of argument I accept your premise that free will exists (I don't.) only some of the suffering in this world is the result of free will. A majority of the suffering in this world, human and lower animal, is not. Disease, natural disasters, climate issues, predation, etc."

so, again, "God doesn't do what I want waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"

Quote :

"Therefore, it is not using reason or evidence to support that belief."

Right. that one thing. and maybe a few others. that is hardly "abandonment of all logic and reason," which you have purported it to be. thank you for proving my point.

Quote :

"Is that false dilemma I smell? That's the ONLY way to prevent such suffering?"

to prevent suffering caused by free will, well, yeah. DUH.

Quote :

"No matter how you equivocate and rationalize, responsibility will always regress to the omnipotent being that either is controlling everything or set everything up exactly in the way that it chose."

you seem to have a belief that "responsibility == directly causes". not one and the same. But yeah, in this wonderful world, it's always nice to pawn off our own responsibility for our actions onto someone/thing else.

Quote :

"This is you being a sarcastic fuck, and not showing anything."

only, not really. clearly people who have these beliefs do things that show they care about them. as in, following them. ergo, I showed that they fucking care. ergo, get the sand out of your vagina.

Quote :

"I explained exactly what it takes to care about your beliefs (spend time determining whether they are true using the correct methods for determining whether things are true)."

ooooh, fantastic! the ONLY WAY to show you care about your beliefs is to do what you say people should do. hmmm... what do we call that again?

Quote :

"You know, not considering that it's possible that either the prediction or the event itself could have been post-hoc fabrications. "

to be fair, the predictions are at least in writings that we know are quite older than the alleged fulfillment of said predictions.

4/29/2011 6:51:32 PM