Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Christian Doctor Chemically Castrated Boy As Part Of 'Gay Cure'.


  • Please log in to reply
346 replies to this topic

#271 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,042 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:10 PM

Yes a buddhist did not word for word say a prostitute should continue in her line of work.

But according to hinduism and buddhism caste system, the only way to be reincarnated into a better life is to fulfill the life you have been given.


speaking of hinduism here is something i read the other day ,
Girl dies during menstrual confinement
Thu, 13 Sep, 08:42 PM
A girl died in Nepal's far-west after being buried under a landslide in a cow-shed, where she had been confined while menstruating, local media reported Thursday.

In the western districts of the country, girls are confined to sheds during menstruation, in a local tradition called chaupadi. They are forbidden to visit temples or enter the house during their period and are made to sleep in the cow-sheds.

Kumari Basnet, 16, was killed in a remote village in Jajarkot district on Monday night, when the shed was buried under a landslide, The Kathmandu Post daily reported.

Women are considered impure during menstruation in the Hindu tradition.

In western Nepal, many women following the chaupadi tradition die due to infections or attack by animals. Some also fall victim to rapists because the sheds are sometimes located at a distance from houses

It seems all the big relgions descriminate against women , how many examples of descrimination does it take for people to realise that religion is at the core of most of the predjudice and descrimination in the world today .
  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#272 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:12 PM

Yes a buddhist did not word for word say a prostitute should continue in her line of work.

But according to hinduism and buddhism caste system, the only way to be reincarnated into a better life is to fulfill the life you have been given.


I wonder why you said that a buddhist did say that to a prostitute then? I hope you weren't attempting to bear false witness against a buddhist.

I also hope you realize that Buddha rejected the Brahmanistic caste system a very long time ago.

"Birth does not make one a priest or an outcaste. Behaviour makes one either a priest or an outcaste" - Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#273 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:12 PM

There are some flaws in your logic here. How do I know that it's my boss' car? How do I know it's his office? How do I know it's his jacket? Probably because I've seen him get into his car, working in his office, or seen him wearing that jacket.

The problem is that your credible evidence has to be supported by empirical evidence. What credible evidence is there that god exists? There is none. Any evidence put forth claiming that god exists is either based off assumption or faith. You cannot use the word evidence when trying to prove god exists because so far there is none.



Evolution surely does not lend credence to the bible, since believers say that the world is only a few thousand years old.




Such as?



At least we can agree on that part, lol.




Um, I'm not sure if you're aware, but people actually worshiped the Greek gods. They built temples to them, they prayed to them, and they made sacrifices to them. They truly believed that making sacrifices to Demeter would bring a better harvest. They believed that making sacrifices and praying to Ares would bring them fortune in war. They feared that not praying to Poseidon and offering him sacrifice would bring storms and poor fishing.

And given authority? By whom? Sure, Jesus existed, it was documented, but are the claims of his divinity true? So he "entwined" with real life people. That does not prove anything other than the fact that Jesus walked the earth. I'm not denying the existence of Jesus, and not once did I do so, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.



So he reveals himself by having people invent stories about him? Do tell me, how these books are proven to be ivine, god's word? Surely you cannot.


1. Credible evidences does not hinge on empirical evidence. Someone introducing you "this is the boss" is enough reason for you to believe "this guy is the boss".

2. I don't think this world is a few thousand years old. It takes at least a million years to even cool down from being formed.

3. The existence of Evil is also evidence of a God. How can Evil exist without God?

4. You are right, people did worship Greek gods. But here is where logic comes into the fray. Is it logical to worship a metaphor, an illusion, a story? Of course it isn't.

So let me ask you then, for the thousands upon thousands of years humans existed BEFORE those scriptures were written, everyone was just.... wrong? Plain wrong and uninformed? Their gods are inferior to yours?



Explain to me then how it is that god is eternal, as you claim.



:rolleyes:

You're just contradicting yourself now.


1. TBH I don't know what happened before scripture. God reveals himself with or without scripture. I'm sure he can reveal himself in a form of a dream, or clouds, or prophets.

2. LOL dude, you just asked me to empirically prove that my God is eternal? HOW? He just is. Okay here do this with me. Imagine for just 10 seconds that an infinite being, an almighty supreme force existed. This thing is eternal. There you go. You can imagine a God being eternal. That's the best I can do. I can't explain it for the life of me.

3. I'm not contradicting myself. I seriously don't think Genesis should be read literally, so therefore Christians should not believe that creation was formed in literally six days. I am being consistent in my beliefs.
  • 0
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#274 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:14 PM

I wonder why you said that a buddhist did say that to a prostitute then? I hope you weren't attempting to bear false witness against a buddhist.

I also hope you realize that Buddha rejected the Brahmanistic caste system a very long time ago.

"Birth does not make one a priest or an outcaste. Behaviour makes one either a priest or an outcaste" - Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha


My apologies. The caste system is the force behind dharma.

I can admit that I'm wrong. Buddha never claims someone born into prostitution is the way to enlightenment.
  • 0
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#275 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:27 PM

My apologies. The caste system is the force behind dharma.

I can admit that I'm wrong. Buddha never claims someone born into prostitution is the way to enlightenment.


No worries. We're all wrong from time to time, including myself, at least once or twice a year. ;)
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#276 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:31 PM

speaking of hinduism here is something i read the other day ,
Girl dies during menstrual confinement
Thu, 13 Sep, 08:42 PM
A girl died in Nepal's far-west after being buried under a landslide in a cow-shed, where she had been confined while menstruating, local media reported Thursday.

In the western districts of the country, girls are confined to sheds during menstruation, in a local tradition called chaupadi. They are forbidden to visit temples or enter the house during their period and are made to sleep in the cow-sheds.

Kumari Basnet, 16, was killed in a remote village in Jajarkot district on Monday night, when the shed was buried under a landslide, The Kathmandu Post daily reported.

Women are considered impure during menstruation in the Hindu tradition.

In western Nepal, many women following the chaupadi tradition die due to infections or attack by animals. Some also fall victim to rapists because the sheds are sometimes located at a distance from houses

It seems all the big relgions descriminate against women , how many examples of descrimination does it take for people to realise that religion is at the core of most of the predjudice and descrimination in the world today .


This was also done in the Qum'ran community, that is said to be the home of John the Baptist.

For women in their time of uncleanness, they are to be put outside the community, and then brought back.

It's not a sexist discrimination, it's for health purposes. I disagree with their methods, I think they should be brought up to speed with tampons and what have you, but they don't.
  • 0
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#277 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,042 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:36 PM

This was also done in the Qum'ran community, that is said to be the home of John the Baptist.

For women in their time of uncleanness, they are to be put outside the community, and then brought back.

It's not a sexist discrimination, it's for health purposes. I disagree with their methods, I think they should be brought up to speed with tampons and what have you, but they don't.


IN THEIR TIME OF THE UNCLEANESS , WTF.

i really try to stay even tempered when posting but this post really PISSES ME OFF .

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 13 September 2012 - 05:36 PM.

  • 3

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#278 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:40 PM

IN THEIR TIME OF THE UNCLEANESS , WTF.

i really try to stay even tempered when posting but this post really PISSES ME OFF .


Ya I don't agree with it but that's how things roll back in the day.

They are/were okay with it. It's culture. Like arranged marriages. They didn't oppose it like the new hit movie "Brave" would portray.
  • 0
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#279 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,499 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:42 PM

This was also done in the Qum'ran community, that is said to be the home of John the Baptist.

For women in their time of uncleanness, they are to be put outside the community, and then brought back.

It's not a sexist discrimination, it's for health purposes. I disagree with their methods, I think they should be brought up to speed with tampons and what have you, but they don't.


Holy cow, man .. you have justified the treatment of these innocent young ladies using Old Testament logic!! .. maybe the religious people could help them with the whole Tampax thing .. some of them revel in "justifiable insertion" I have heard ..
  • 2

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#280 Jai604

Jai604

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,036 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:02 PM

1. Credible evidences does not hinge on empirical evidence. Someone introducing you "this is the boss" is enough reason for you to believe "this guy is the boss".

2. I don't think this world is a few thousand years old. It takes at least a million years to even cool down from being formed.

3. The existence of Evil is also evidence of a God. How can Evil exist without God?


I know realize that we're not even having a logical debate anymore. You're just preaching now.

Anybody could tell you that anybody is the boss. Should you just believe it on blind faith?

4. You are right, people did worship Greek gods. But here is where logic comes into the fray. Is it logical to worship a metaphor, an illusion, a story? Of course it isn't.


So.... why do you?


1. TBH I don't know what happened before scripture. God reveals himself with or without scripture. I'm sure he can reveal himself in a form of a dream, or clouds, or prophets.

2. LOL dude, you just asked me to empirically prove that my God is eternal? HOW? He just is. Okay here do this with me. Imagine for just 10 seconds that an infinite being, an almighty supreme force existed. This thing is eternal. There you go. You can imagine a God being eternal. That's the best I can do. I can't explain it for the life of me.

3. I'm not contradicting myself. I seriously don't think Genesis should be read literally, so therefore Christians should not believe that creation was formed in literally six days. I am being consistent in my beliefs.


See, you've not once been able to provide any evidence at all. You can't explain it..... because there is no credible explanation.

The part I bolded is exactly what a religious mind has to think in order to believe in a man-made sky father figure.

There's no explanation or evidence, it just is.
  • 2

RIP LB RR PD


#281 Jai604

Jai604

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,036 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:05 PM

This was also done in the Qum'ran community, that is said to be the home of John the Baptist.

For women in their time of uncleanness, they are to be put outside the community, and then brought back.

It's not a sexist discrimination, it's for health purposes. I disagree with their methods, I think they should be brought up to speed with tampons and what have you, but they don't.


Yeah..... not much more needs to be said. Your thinking is.... backward and medieval.

Comments like these only prove to support the arguments made against religion in this thread.
  • 1

RIP LB RR PD


#282 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:23 PM

Yeah..... not much more needs to be said. Your thinking is.... backward and medieval.

Comments like these only prove to support the arguments made against religion in this thread.

Oh sh*t so I should let me wife back in the house...?
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#283 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,499 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 07:55 PM

Oh sh*t so I should let me wife back in the house...?


That was another "oops I spewed tea on my monitor" moment .. thanks a lot .. :lol:
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#284 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:15 PM

Yeah..... not much more needs to be said. Your thinking is.... backward and medieval.

Comments like these only prove to support the arguments made against religion in this thread.


Do you know anything about 3rd century BCE?
  • 0
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#285 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 13 September 2012 - 11:31 PM

I know realize that we're not even having a logical debate anymore. You're just preaching now.

Anybody could tell you that anybody is the boss. Should you just believe it on blind faith?



So.... why do you?




See, you've not once been able to provide any evidence at all. You can't explain it..... because there is no credible explanation.

The part I bolded is exactly what a religious mind has to think in order to believe in a man-made sky father figure.

There's no explanation or evidence, it just is.


Go watch some debates between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig.

You're the one who doesn't understand. Scholars are on my side, even skeptics.

One does not need to fully understand how a computer works in order to believe it works.

What kind of God can be fully explained? If a mere human can explain it, then it wouldn't be a God.

Edited by dajusta, 13 September 2012 - 11:49 PM.

  • 0
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#286 Jai604

Jai604

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,036 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 10

Posted 14 September 2012 - 03:09 AM

Go watch some debates between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig.


I've watched them. Hitchens isn't the best equipped to take on those kinds of debates because he was not a scientist. He was a journalist. In every debate where the debate is about religion, Hitchens wins.

You're the one who doesn't understand. Scholars are on my side, even skeptics.


You seem to make a lot of these blanket statements but I've never seen you give a single piece of concrete information backing up your claims. Care to bring some of this skeptics and scholars to light?

One does not need to fully understand how a computer works in order to believe it works.


And.... what's your point?

I think you meant to say one does not need to understand how a computer works to know that someone made it?

I surely can see that the world works, that much is clear. That doesn't mean I need to believe there is a celestial supervisor watching me at every turn.

Let me ask you this, since you brought up William Lane Craig. Which of the two ideas do you think is more fanciful:

1) Out of nothing, a bunch of random gases and elements and compounds started swirling around, and after millions upon millions of years and random events, thing crashed into one another and things were formed.

or

2) Out of nothing, a supreme being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, something clearly extremely ordered and advanced and sophisticated, sprang forth?

Those who believe in god say that nothing can come of nothing. It must be created, right? Well, that would mean that god also could not come from nothing, and thus would have had to have been made. Then by whom? See how that argument gets you nowhere? William Lane Craig's argument that the universe is finite and thus must have been created is subject to the same problems as the big bang theory.

What kind of God can be fully explained? If a mere human can explain it, then it wouldn't be a God.


Oh, that's convenient.

No need explaining it, as long as you just blindly believe in it, right?
  • 0

RIP LB RR PD


#287 Jai604

Jai604

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,036 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 10

Posted 14 September 2012 - 03:11 AM

double post

Edited by Jai604, 14 September 2012 - 03:13 AM.

  • 0

RIP LB RR PD


#288 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 14 September 2012 - 08:14 AM

Let me ask you this, since you brought up William Lane Craig. Which of the two ideas do you think is more fanciful:

1) Out of nothing, a bunch of random gases and elements and compounds started swirling around, and after millions upon millions of years and random events, thing crashed into one another and things were formed.

or

2) Out of nothing, a supreme being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, something clearly extremely ordered and advanced and sophisticated, sprang forth?

Those who believe in god say that nothing can come of nothing. It must be created, right? Well, that would mean that god also could not come from nothing, and thus would have had to have been made. Then by whom? See how that argument gets you nowhere? William Lane Craig's argument that the universe is finite and thus must have been created is subject to the same problems as the big bang theory.

I'm not going to fight dajusta's battles but I will say with regards to number 1 that sounds an awful lot like magic, and with regards to number 2 no theist anywhere believes that.

I'll leave it at that and let you and dajusta get back to duelling it out. I need to study for first set of finals.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#289 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:45 AM

I've watched them. Hitchens isn't the best equipped to take on those kinds of debates because he was not a scientist. He was a journalist. In every debate where the debate is about religion, Hitchens wins.


Hitchens can't even provide evidences to prove that people should believe in atheism. Did you know by asserting "there is no god" is pretty much asserting your own truth? The belief in atheism requires evidence as well. And to argue the absence of evidence as evidence for absence, isn't a strong enough argument.

You seem to make a lot of these blanket statements but I've never seen you give a single piece of concrete information backing up your claims. Care to bring some of this skeptics and scholars to light?


I'm at home right now and can't get the quotes, but essentially they embrace the argument that I present. They don't refute or rebut the claims that I have made. They see it as evidence, but feel it is not enough evidence to prove God. It's sad really, the position that scholarly skeptics sit. To embrace the evidence, but choosing to say it isn't enough weight.

The morality evidence and the cosmological evidence. They don't refute it because they cannot.

I'l sum up the two arguments right here:

1. The existence of observable matter and existence right now is indicative of an eternal and all-powerful source. The big bang just cannot have been created from ex nihilo. Physics also show that nothing is eternal. Everything will eventually approach max entropy, which points to a beginning of all creation. How is that you can refute this simple scientific truth but then believe every other scientific claim, ie evolution? By choosing to reject this notion of science, aren't you picking and choosing what part of science you believe in?

2. No matter how you spin it, humanity acknowledges a moral foundation. We have this feeling inside of us that feels for the next person. It is a very sound argument that altruism exists. We have this thing called genuine love that we share with our family and friends. We also have the moral mandate to protect others from being hurt, and to the extreme, we have the responsibility of preventing genocides and massacres. We act this way because there is sacredness in human life. The sanctity and value of human life exists. What makes life sacred? What gives life value? What gives the moral mandate to protect life? Only the existence of a transcendent being can do this. Not random chance. If God does not exist, then there would be no moral mandate or moral foundation to prevent 6 million Jews from dying.

And.... what's your point?

I think you meant to say one does not need to understand how a computer works to know that someone made it?

I surely can see that the world works, that much is clear. That doesn't mean I need to believe there is a celestial supervisor watching me at every turn.

Let me ask you this, since you brought up William Lane Craig. Which of the two ideas do you think is more fanciful:

1) Out of nothing, a bunch of random gases and elements and compounds started swirling around, and after millions upon millions of years and random events, thing crashed into one another and things were formed.

or

2) Out of nothing, a supreme being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, something clearly extremely ordered and advanced and sophisticated, sprang forth?

Those who believe in god say that nothing can come of nothing. It must be created, right? Well, that would mean that god also could not come from nothing, and thus would have had to have been made. Then by whom? See how that argument gets you nowhere? William Lane Craig's argument that the universe is finite and thus must have been created is subject to the same problems as the big bang theory.


Neither.. because you worded even the second one incorrectly.

The first one is wrong because you can't get something out of nothing. For example, even if our universe was a cosmological accident that may have been instigated by a multiverse (no shred of evidence but whatever), then what caused the multiverse to exist? Given infinite regression, what was the absolute first thing to exist? It undermines the laws of physics to have something from nothing. It also undermines physics for something to be eternal. All the observable science shows that. It's empirical evidence at this point. To ignore this fact is almost like being yourself what you claim most Christians to be.. ignorant!

The second one.. No, a God did not just sprang forth. He does not spring forth. He is there. Eternal. With him, there is no time. I would instead use these words. God exist. Eternally. When no time exist. By his command, he created time, and everything observable.

Oh, that's convenient.

No need explaining it, as long as you just blindly believe in it, right?


Which statement is more logical?

1. God exists but we can't fully explain him

2. God doesn't exist because we can't fully explain him
  • 0
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#290 dajusta

dajusta

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 03

Posted 14 September 2012 - 11:15 AM

Listen to John Lennox explain why it's moot to find the creator of God.


Edited by dajusta, 14 September 2012 - 11:19 AM.

  • 0
I'm Christian
I won't judge you
No one is perfect
Only through Jesus
Will we find Truth

#291 VICanucksfan5551

VICanucksfan5551

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,853 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 14 September 2012 - 02:03 PM

I think the argument is that if everything must have a beginning, then how can God be exempt from that? It's special pleading.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#292 Fathoms

Fathoms

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,549 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 03

Posted 14 September 2012 - 02:22 PM

there is no argument to address , and you are not demonstrating anything .

prove to me that , there is a god , or prove to me that there is not a god , simple as that .


What you have failed to do is explain why as an agnostic you have an attitude of deferential preference to one unfalsifiable delusion to the exclusion of all others. All unfalsifiable claims necessarily have an identical amount of explanatory value. Zilch. Therefore as a rational person you should naturally treat all unfalsifiable claims equally. Yet I have never once been accused by an agnostic of being as close minded and faith based as people who believe in Santa Clause because I am able to say "there is no santa clause" with a straight face and without qualification.

This how your attitude appears to me...

I do not know how to make it any simpler , if you believe in santa clause or you do not believe in santa clause you are making an assupmtion , because you cannot prove one way or another that there is a santa clause out there .
as science has taught me if you cannot find evidence of somethings existence or non existence then it is wise to keep an open mind on the subject , and hope that futher information may become available to you , though this is something i doubt will happen


You will probably say that this is not a fair comparison. But my whole point is that all delusions are created equal under the eyes of a rational observer. A dedicated person could come up with a million excuses as to why evidence for the existence of santa clause eludes science. That is the beauty of being able to appeal to the existence of supernatural powers. You can make anything up. Yes, a healthy skepticism to our avowed beliefs or non-beliefs is of course preferable. And yes, a healthy acknowledgment that wecan be proven wrong is of course preferable. But so long as god is defined in a non-sensical fashion and in such a way that the appeal to his existence explains nothing, I will continue to treat the delusion with exactly as much credulity as I treat the claims of six year olds about santa clause.

What I see you doing here is pretending that hard-line atheists are as faith-based as believers is engaging in an insufferable amount of pedantry and selective reasoning.

Edited by Fathoms, 14 September 2012 - 02:23 PM.

  • 0
wordings...

#293 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,042 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 14 September 2012 - 02:32 PM

What you have failed to do is explain why as an agnostic you have an attitude of deferential preference to one unfalsifiable delusion to the exclusion of all others. All unfalsifiable claims necessarily have an identical amount of explanatory value. Zilch. Therefore as a rational person you should naturally treat all unfalsifiable claims equally. Yet I have never once been accused by an agnostic of being as close minded and faith based as people who believe in Santa Clause because I am able to say "there is no santa clause" with a straight face and without qualification.

This how your attitude appears to me...



You will probably say that this is not a fair comparison. But my whole point is that all delusions are created equal under the eyes of a rational observer. A dedicated person could come up with a million excuses as to why evidence for the existence of santa clause eludes science. That is the beauty of being able to appeal to the existence of supernatural powers. You can make anything up. Yes, a healthy skepticism to our avowed beliefs or non-beliefs is of course preferable. And yes, a healthy acknowledgment that wecan be proven wrong is of course preferable. But so long as god is defined in a non-sensical fashion and in such a way that the appeal to his existence explains nothing, I will continue to treat the delusion with exactly as much credulity as I treat the claims of six year olds about santa clause.

What I see you doing here is pretending that hard-line atheists are as faith-based as believers is engaging in an insufferable amount of pedantry and selective reasoning.


I've no consideration,
Zero mutual respect
For billions who suffer from
Rational thought neglect
I don't wanna waste a sentence,
I don't want a convert-sation
That's gonna end in disdain,
Disbelief and aggravation

And I find it's getting harder to hang out
With grown adults who actually believe
In Santa Claus and Noah's Ark
And that their god is the best
My distaste has turned into detest

Who would read a 2000
Year old medical journal
Techniques for bloodletting,
Advice on Trichinosis
Would you navigate the globe
With a map of a flat earth
Without DNA testing,
Would you believe virgin birth

And I find it's getting painful to put up
With grown adults who actually believe
In Unicorns and Creation,
And God always takes their side
That's when my innocent jabbing turns snide

Thank God for the Grammy,
Thank God for the touchdown
Thank God for blowing up
The enemy's sacred ground

So how am I supposed to take
Anything you say seriously?
When you've swapped free will for faith,
How and pre-destiny

And it's getting agonizing to hang out
With grown adults who actually believe
Mythology and history
Trump physics and science
My aversion has turned to abhorrence

Mike burkett

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 14 September 2012 - 02:33 PM.

  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#294 Fathoms

Fathoms

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,549 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 03

Posted 14 September 2012 - 02:34 PM

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You've clearly identified agnosticism in this fashion to make yourself feel better about your decisions by misconstruing what agnosticism is, and in a straw man fashion, drop agnosticism down to the level of theism. Saying one doesn't know isn't saying one knows anything, it's not this conjured up, veiled, hopeful theism you continuously describe it as, it's none of this garbage you just made up out of your own subjective head's thin air, there's simply no conclusion made about the concept of a creator as it pertains to both logic and science that one shouldn't come to a conclusion they cannot falsify. I await the next hilarious fluff-laden axe-to-grind obfuscation of agnosticism, or at least some falsification of your part of the concept of the universe's creation by a creator. S*** or get off the pot.


For someone who is claiming for himself a rational and dispassionate middle ground you sure seem to be emotionally invested in this debate. You, like Rationcinator, continue to assert over and over again that I am wrong, without explaining how. As though it were self-evident. I mean, I don't know. Maybe I am wrong. I certainly have a long history of being wrong about things. The thing is though is that I cannot correct any errors in my thinking if you simply call my arguments a straw-man without explaining how they are a straw-man. I think you have attempted to do so here, but I still don't think you understand that my beef is not with your agnosticism to the god question as such, it has more to do with the fact that you appear to have no interest in treating all unfalsifiable claims with exactly the same attitude. You've zero in on this one thing, the god delusion, as having special merit, without ever really explaining why.
  • 0
wordings...

#295 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 14 September 2012 - 03:55 PM

I think the argument is that if everything must have a beginning, then how can God be exempt from that? It's special pleading.

I think it's slightly different because we know the universe had a beginning at some point in time (The Big Band). The universe can't cause it's self to exist if at one point in time it didn't exist. So something had to be eternal because something can't come from nothing. Either unconscious non living matter or a conscious living spirit/being (which people term god for whatever reason). So then it becomes a question of which one seems most likely to people.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#296 VICanucksfan5551

VICanucksfan5551

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,853 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 14 September 2012 - 04:04 PM

I think it's slightly different because we know the universe had a beginning at some point in time (The Big Band). The universe can't cause it's self to exist if at one point in time it didn't exist. So something had to be eternal because something can't come from nothing. Either unconscious non living matter or a conscious living spirit/being (which people term god for whatever reason). So then it becomes a question of which one seems most likely to people.

The Big Bang doesn't necessarily have to be the absolute beginning of everything, though. There very easily could have been an infinite amount of time before the rapid expansion of the singularity.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#297 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 14 September 2012 - 04:13 PM

The Big Bang doesn't necessarily have to be the absolute beginning of everything, though. There very easily could have been an infinite amount of time before the rapid expansion of the singularity.

Yeah that's what I said. Big bang theory was the beginning of this universe, so either matter or god either existed before. Just not nothing. :)
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#298 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 14 September 2012 - 04:15 PM

The Big Bang doesn't necessarily have to be the absolute beginning of everything, though. There very easily could have been an infinite amount of time before the rapid expansion of the singularity.


Time is a dimension which began when the universe began(Big 'Bang')....there was no 'time' before it.

And I don't think you can have an infinite 'before' something....because there's no 'after' infinity.....it's just infinity and that's it. You could have a very long period of time before something and then have that something, but you can't put infinity before that something and then have the something....infinity wouldn't stop to allow that something to occur following it.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#299 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,020 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 14 September 2012 - 04:30 PM

Time is a dimension which began when the universe began(Big 'Bang')....there was no 'time' before it.

And I don't think you can have an infinite 'before' something....because there's no 'after' infinity.....it's just infinity and that's it. You could have a very long period of time before something and then have that something, but you can't put infinity before that something and then have the something....infinity wouldn't stop to allow that something to occur following it.

Yeah I think it was William Lane Craig who talked about that in one of his books or on youtube...basically he said there is a difference between say God is eternal (having always existed) and saying He has been around for an infinite period of time.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#300 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 14 September 2012 - 04:49 PM

Yeah I think it was William Lane Craig who talked about that in one of his books or on youtube...basically he said there is a difference between say God is eternal (having always existed) and saying He has been around for an infinite period of time.


William Lane Craig consistently wins gold medals in mental gymnastics.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.