|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
red_devil
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Location: Korea
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
ED209, red devil, mindmetoo, Justin Hale, etc.
In fact I meant the sort of atheists one finds working on a college newspaper, the sort too common to be individually named. They typically admire Dawkins and the "new atheists". I haven't read any of that so I can't comment. |
I admire Dawkins. What sweeping generalizations can you then make about my beliefs? |
Yeah, i don't really understand what you're saying here Koveras. You haven't read Dawkins yet you seem to belittle those that admire him. Seems ignorant.
| warmachinenkorea wrote: |
| Are there any atheists here that belive in any thing that many Christians do? For example what about abortion? How is it viewed by atheists? |
Being a good person, treating those the way you wish to be treated, condemning acts of violence, hate, discrimination, prejudice, treating people with respect, helping those in need, living a life of modesty...since when are these exclusive to Christians? Ridiculous! These are not Christian or religious values at all...they're HUMAN values.
As far as abortion goes, Carl Sagan puts it nicely in a chapter in his book "Science as a Candle in the Dark". Where he talks about what it means for a fetus to be actually sentient versus living. He basically says that the development of a developed nervous system for which to carry electrical signals would indicate the start of "sentient" life. A clump of cells are technically living, but not sentient and those an early term abortion would not be considered "murder". On the other hand late term abortions where the fetus has clearly developed a nervous system and electrical/brain activity is present would be. That's basically how i view it. The reason why we call killing a human "murder" is due to the level of self aware sentience we have. We do not call killing that pesky weed "murder" even though it's considered a living thing.
| warmachinenkorea wrote: |
Where does the Bible tell anyone to take away free will? Laws where around before Jesus and the Bible. Christians didn't make the laws governements did.
Where do you live that you can't shop on Sunday? I am from West Tennessee, part of the Bible Belt, I would say 80% of stuff was open. Do live in some kinda religious sect and are unaware? |
First of all discussions about "free will" are very very complex and there are many different opinions from a variety of different areas spanning theology, philosophy, Protestant (and even within these), and Catholicism.
Where in the Bible is FREE WILL mentioned? Christianity believes the Bible is either the WORD of God, or the word of God as divinely inspired by God, basically words written by man but their hand moved by God. If so, do you take the Bible literally? Most would say that's absurd but even if it is, is the Bible (word of God) written so that flawed humans should somehow be able to accurately interpret this eternally, powerful, omnipotent, omniscient being? I'm often told by Christians to "just have faith because we humans can't comprehend God's power." If that's so, why would God have humans write a Bible, leave it open to our interpretation, yet ultimately we can't understand Him? Seems awfully confusing. This is apart from the numerous revisions, changes, translations, the Lost Scriptures and written religious works that were deliberately excluded from the Bible as we know it today, etc, that has been done to the Bible...
For the talk about the Biblical flood, i encourage you to read this topic.
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10675
Last edited by red_devil on Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:53 am; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| warmachinenkorea wrote: |
| I guess the biggest thing here is I see so many atheists saying they don't want to be controled by laws that Christians make are imply are a part of Christianinty. |
Laws against murder and theft are in the bible but they existed a long time before the bible. Surely, the Hindus had their own prohibitions against such acts? I, however, refer to laws Christians justify based on the bible.
I struggle to even understand your actual point here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red_devil
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
religion will be here for our life time so we might as well all get use to it..
probably be here for the next thousand years or more too..
so all you Atheists quit your crying already!
  |
Funny how this is also directly written by Dawkins in "The GOD Delusion". I shall type some of it here for everyone, and those that haven't read this amazing book!
| Quote: |
You are just as much of a fundamentalist as those you criticize.
No, please, it is all too easy to mistake passion that can change its mind for fundamentalism, which never will. Fundamentalist Christians are passionately opposed to evolution and I am passionately in favor of it. Passion for passion, we are evenly matched. And that, according to some, means we are equally fundamentalist. But, to borrow an aphorism whose source I am unable to pin down, when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal force, the truth does not necessarily lie midway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong. And that justifies passion on the other side.
Fundamentalists know what they believe and they know that nothing will change their minds...The true scientist, however passionately he may 'believe' in evolution, knows exactly what it would take to change his mind. Evidence. As J. B. S. Haldane said when asked what evidence might contradict evolution, 'Fossile rabbits in the Precambrian.' Let me coin my own opposite version of Kurt Wise's manifesto: 'If all the evidence in the universe turned in favor of creationism, I would be the first to admit it, and I would immediately change my mind. As things stand, however, all available evidence (and there is a vast amount of it) favors evolution. It is for this reason and this reason alone that I argue for evolution with a passion that matches the passion of those who argue against it. My passion is based on evidence. Theirs, flying in the face of evidence as it does, is truly fundamentalist.' - p.18-19; The GOD Delusion, by Richard Dawkins
I'm an atheist myself, but religion is here to stay. Live with it.
'You want to get rid of religion? Good luck to you! You think you can get rid of religion? What planet are you living on? Religion is a fixture. Get over it!'
I could bear any of these downers, if they were uttered in something approaching a tone of regret or concern. On the contrary. The tone of voice is sometimes downright gleeful. I don't think it's masochism. More probably, we can put it down to 'belief in belief' again. These people may not be religious themselves, but they love the idea that other people are religious. This brings me to my final category of naysayers.
I'm an atheist myself, but people need religion.
'What are you going to put in its place? How are you going to comfort the bereaved? How are you going to fill the need?'
What patronizing condescension! 'You and I, of course, are much too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, the Orwellian proles, the Huxleian Deltas and Epsilon semi-morons, need religion.' ...
Returning to humanity's need for comfort, it is, of course, real, but isn't there something childish in the belief that the universe owes us comfort, as of right? Isaac Assimov's remark about the infantilism of pseudoscience is just as applicable to religion: 'Inspect every piece of pseudoscience and you will find a security blanket, a thumb to suck, a skirt to hold.' It is astonishing, moreover, how many people are unable to understand that 'X is comforting' does not imply that 'X is true'.
...but I must repeat, yet again, that the consolation-content of a belief does not raise its truth-value. Of course I cannot deny the need for emotional comfort, and I cannot claim the the world-view adopted in this book offers any more than moderate comfort to, for example, the bereaved. But if the comfort that religion seems to offer is founded on the neurologically highly implausible premise that we survive the death of our brains, do you really want to defend it?
...I suspect that for many people the main reason they cling to religion is not that it is consoling, but that they have been let down by our educational system and don't realize that non-belief is even an option. This is certainly true of most people who think they are creationists. They have simply not been properly taught Darwin's astounding alternative. Probably the same is true of the belittling myth that people 'need' religion...I prefer to say that I believe in people, and people, when given the right encouragement to think for themselves about all the information now available, very often turn out not to believe in God and to lead fulfilled and satisfied - indeed, liberated - lives. - p. 19-22; The GOD Delusion, by Richard Dawkins |
I also encourage those interested to visit Richard Dawkins site where many great discussions are taking place on the forums.
http://www.richarddawkins.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IncognitoHFX wrote: |
| warmachinenkorea wrote: |
How come no other civilization has record of a big flood? Well according to what the Bible says they were all wiped out. So no one would have record of it right? |
Religion loses credibility with me when I imagine Noah sitting on the ark, poking a couple of ants with a stick and screaming "DO IT!!!" at them... |
You're not doing it right.
It's called allegory. No doubt modern man will devolve into such literalism that anthropologists will come back, discover the legend of Santa Claus, and think we were all morons for believing in such a fantastical entity.
Except, of course, we're in on the premise.
You're not in on the premise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red_devil wrote: |
I also encourage those interested to visit Richard Dawkins site where many great discussions are taking place on the forums.
http://www.richarddawkins.net |
I like dawkins he is entertaining, he certainly has passion.
But he is just milking the machine and getting paid...
He is fighting an impossible fight. Nothing will come of his views...
With his new sense of fundamentalism and anti God movement he is just wasting his time...you see HOPE can never be defeated!
And Atheism offers no hope! So how the hell do you expect the world to embrace that???
He is wasting his time! But financially he is working hard and getting millions! And that�s all he really cares about now...
He has been on TV for 20 years now, in the beginning he was preaching science! And trying to educate the world on evolution...
No money in that!!!
Once he turned his agenda towards Anti religion and staunch Atheism he found a niche and started to get book deals, TV deals and guest appearances where he makes the bulk of his money...
How many times do you need to say "there is no god� how many books do you need to write to try and persuade people to stop believing in god?
How many more books on theories and possible scenarios??
The very man who preaches to the world "where is your evidence" has none of his own! It�s amazing he even has a market!!
Then again Atheists are some of the stupidest people in the world so it doesn�t surprise me people buy his books! And eats up the garbage he dishes out! Oh well... the world has a niche for everything!
I heard that Granny gangbangs were the best selling xrated DVD last year!
That just goes to show you what people like! Atheism has its small niche
if religious people are allowed to believe in make believe Atheist should be given their rights too.. Let them have their little fun!
Last edited by itaewonguy on Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IncognitoHFX
Joined: 06 May 2007
Location: Yeongtong, Suwon
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| IncognitoHFX wrote: |
| warmachinenkorea wrote: |
How come no other civilization has record of a big flood? Well according to what the Bible says they were all wiped out. So no one would have record of it right? |
Religion loses credibility with me when I imagine Noah sitting on the ark, poking a couple of ants with a stick and screaming "DO IT!!!" at them... |
You're not doing it right.
It's called allegory. |
Many religious sects do, in fact, take the Bible literally. As in, the Universe was created in six days, people did come from dust and Eve did come from Adam's rib. I know quite a few Christians who do take the story literally.
The question I ask anyone who claims to take the Bible as an allegory in some places, and as a literal account in others; is how do you know when to do which? Does the Bible instruct this kind of behaviour? It certainly isn't obvious.
Which means, interpretation of the Bible is entirely subjective.
That is additionally scary when you see how many concrete things people claim to get from the Bible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red_devil
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="itaewonguy"]
| red_devil wrote: |
I also encourage those interested to visit Richard Dawkins site where many great discussions are taking place on the forums.
http://www.richarddawkins.net |
| Quote: |
I like dawkins he is entertaining, he certainly has passion.
But he is just milking the machine and getting paid...
He is fighting an impossible fight. Nothing will come of his views... |
Not everyone shares your defeatist attitude thankfully. Wow imagine if people just gave up because something was deemed "impossible". The world would be in a standstill. Flight? Space? Technology? All were deemed impossible before.
| Quote: |
| With his new sense of fundamentalism and anti God movement he is just wasting his time...you see HOPE can never be defeated! |
Read the part where he addresses those that claim he's "fundamentalist". If hope comes in the form of a bearded man sitting up in the clouds that watches everything we do, knows everything, and is all-good, yet does nothing...please spare me. I'd prefer the harsh reality to the comforting delusion.
| Quote: |
| And Atheism offers no hope! So how the hell do you expect the world to embrace that??? |
How do you know that Atheism offers no hope? Read the passage i quoted above talking about "people need religion."
Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense. - Chapman Cohen
| Quote: |
He is wasting his time! But financially he is working hard and getting millions! And that�s all he really cares about now...
He has been on TV for 20 years now, in the beginning he was preaching science! And trying to educate the world on evolution...
No money in that!!!
Once he turned his agenda towards Anti religion and staunch Atheism he found a niche and started to get book deals, TV deals and guest appearances where he makes the bulk of his money... |
Gee whiz, and religion makes no money? What Dawkins can make in his entire lifetime is so so tiny compared to the TRILLIONS of money Christian churches pull in per DAY. Go back to your history.
| Quote: |
| How many times do you need to say "there is no god� how many books do you need to write to try and persuade people to stop believing in god? |
As many as it takes for ignorant people like you to wake up and stop believing in a prefabricated figment of the imagination.
| Quote: |
| How many more books on theories and possible scenarios?? |
The Bible is the Grandfather of fantasy books, Harry Potter is nothing compared to the Bible. The Science books that talk about gravity are simply a fantastical theory? Are you going to jump off a 70 floor building with your Bible in hand praying for God to save you, or will you read a science book explaining gravity? If you have cancer will you be going to a church or a hospital? Funny how religious fanatics like you laugh at atheism, science, and anything contradicting your sorry mess of fantasy - yet when you're in trouble, when you have a REAL need what do you turn to? Technology, Science, Math...you people are the biggest hypocrites around. At least people like the Amish live their faith instead of wearing it like a pin on their shirt that they can take off and put on whenever convenient.
| Quote: |
| The very man who preaches to the world "where is your evidence" has none of his own! It�s amazing he even has a market!! |
No evidence? I call Science pretty good evidence. It proved the Bible wrong.
| Quote: |
| Then again Atheists are some of the stupidest people in the world so it doesn�t surprise me people buy his books! And eats up the garbage he dishes out! Oh well... the world has a niche for everything! |
So says the one making an immature baseless insult on a forum. The irony is almost too much to handle.
| Quote: |
I heard that Granny gangbangs were the best selling xrated DVD last year!
That just goes to show you what people like! Atheism has its small niche
if religious people are allowed to believe in make believe Atheist should be given their rights too.. Let them have their little fun! |
This paragraph negates anything of worth you might have said. Do us a favor and stop posting in this thread. Let the educated adults carry on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| warmachinenkorea wrote: |
| What about an atheist, where does forgivness come from? |
Well...I agree with you that forgiveness is given a lot of importance in the Christian religion, the Christian worldview, and as a prescription for how one should treat others. But arguably, forgiveness is not a behavior that is unique to Christianity, when one compares its ethical prescriptions to other religions. In Judaism, Hillel said, "What is repugnant to thee, do not do onto thy fellow man."
In addition, from an evolutionary perspective, the capacity for forgiveness would provide a lot of benefits; the ability to 'forgive others's transgressions' would allow a small troop of hominids that are competing for scarce resources to cooperate better. Arguably forgiveness predates Christianity, even within the historical record. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
To varying degrees, practically all scientific "truths" in time become exposed as scientific falsehoods, and, at best, their purview is limited to the material world of relativity and duality.
Not accessible by empiric methods, the Absolute Truth (defined as the original source of everything) can be fully understood only by its own highest feature - the unlimitedly sentient Absolute Person (who can reveal Himself to sincere seekers on the devotional path).
Agnosticism is not much better than atheism if a person ultimately fails to take up a genuine devotional process.
Since I'm a rather low-class devotee myself, I put stock in the gambler's perspective articulated by 17th century philosopher Pascal ...
Pascal�s Wager
The seventeenth-century mathematician/philosopher Blaise Pascal formulated a pragmatic argument for justifying belief in God. Which is worth the risk of error, Pascal questioned, belief or non-belief? It is wise, he said, to �wager� on the existence of God, for the alternative, to put one�s faith in faithlessness, is an inferior bet. And, more, if one believes in God but is eventually proven wrong, one loses nothing. But if one believes and is proven right, one gains just about everything. And what if one disbelieves in God and is proven wrong? What if one lives an atheistic life and then finds out there is a God? That�s going to be trouble for sure.
Most philosophers think Pascal�s Wager is the weakest of all the traditional arguments for believing in the existence of God. But Pascal thought it was the strongest. After completing his construction of the full argument in his work Pensees, he wrote, �This is conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it.� This declaration was a rare moment of certainty for Pascal, one of the most skeptical thinkers of the modern era...
http://btg.krishna.com/main.php?id=911 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
I like dawkins he is entertaining, he certainly has passion.
But he is just milking the machine and getting paid...
He is fighting an impossible fight. Nothing will come of his views... |
| devil wrote: |
| Not everyone shares your defeatist attitude thankfully. Wow imagine if people just gave up because something was deemed "impossible". The world would be in a standstill. Flight? Space? Technology? All were deemed impossible before. |
Impossible? no! that was hope they were believing in! science, flight, space
all HOPE! humans love positive hope!
| Itaewonguy wrote: |
| With his new sense of fundamentalism and anti God movement he is just wasting his time...you see HOPE can never be defeated! |
| Devil wrote: |
| Read the part where he addresses those that claim he's "fundamentalist". If hope comes in the form of a bearded man sitting up in the clouds that watches everything we do, knows everything, and is all-good, yet does nothing...please spare me. I'd prefer the harsh reality to the comforting delusion. |
you need to look up the word HOPE in the dictionary!
bearded man sitting in the clouds??? huh
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| ]And Atheism offers no hope! So how the hell do you expect the world to embrace that??? |
| devil wrote: |
| How do you know that Atheism offers no hope? Read the passage i quoted above talking about "people need religion." |
That's an atheists idea of an ideal world without religion! that's called FALSE HOPE! humans don't want false hope! they want HOPE! regardless if it's real or not! they want Positive HOPE!
you just preach ANTI GOD FUNDAMENTALISM!
| itaewonguy wrote: |
He is wasting his time! But financially he is working hard and getting millions! And that�s all he really cares about now...
He has been on TV for 20 years now, in the beginning he was preaching science! And trying to educate the world on evolution...
No money in that!!!
Once he turned his agenda towards Anti religion and staunch Atheism he found a niche and started to get book deals, TV deals and guest appearances where he makes the bulk of his money... |
| devil wrote: |
| Gee whiz, and religion makes no money? What Dawkins can make in his entire lifetime is so so tiny compared to the TRILLIONS of money Christian churches pull in per DAY. Go back to your history. |
I never said churches dont make money! I said what Dawkins agenda is!
and I dont see how comparing every churches income in the world to
one mans income! At least Churches help people with their money!
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| How many times do you need to say "there is no god� how many books do you need to write to try and persuade people to stop believing in god? |
| devil wrote: |
| As many as it takes for ignorant people like you to wake up and stop believing in a prefabricated figment of the imagination. |
guess you are new here! I am not a christian! but nice try..
I am the intelligent choice AGNOSTIC!
and you seem so sure of yourself! that just shows how ignorant you are!
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| The very man who preaches to the world "where is your evidence" has none of his own! It�s amazing he even has a market!! |
| devil wrote: |
| No evidence? I call Science pretty good evidence. It proved the Bible wrong. |
1st: science didnt prove the bible wrong!
2nd: science is not evidence of no god! Its actually more in favor of design! ( not evolution)
3rd: science is an endless contradiction
4th: science will end Atheism!
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| Then again Atheists are some of the stupidest people in the world so it doesn�t surprise me people buy his books! And eats up the garbage he dishes out! Oh well... the world has a niche for everything! |
| devil wrote: |
| So says the one making an immature baseless insult on a forum. The irony is almost too much to handle. |
Baseless??? why don't you look in the mirror and ask yourself what you think of christians!!
Athiests are just as worthy of your name calling then! becuase you too have no answers and no proof or scientific provable evidence of your theory!
| IG wrote: |
I heard that Granny gangbangs were the best selling xrated DVD last year!
That just goes to show you what people like! Atheism has its small niche
if religious people are allowed to believe in make believe Atheist should be given their rights too.. Let them have their little fun! |
| devil wrote: |
| This paragraph negates anything of worth you might have said. Do us a favor and stop posting in this thread. Let the educated adults carry on. |
educated like christians you mean? educated like Atheists arguing with them you mean??
ohh right yes so educated!
you both seem confused! maybe a couple more hundred years of arguing to try and convince yourselves! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Itaewonguy wrote: |
I am the intelligent choice AGNOSTIC!
and you seem so sure of yourself! that just shows how ignorant you are!
|
God hates liars. Stop lying. You're a Christian and you don't believe in evolution and you absolutely hate atheists. Why don't you have the balls to admit it? Being dishonest - pretending you're an agnostic when you're clearly a raving Christian nut - makes you look silly
| Itaewonguy wrote: |
1st: science didnt prove the bible wrong!
|
Yes, it did. Genesis and Exodus are both fundamentally incorrent. Jesus - what a fucking jerkwad he was - said the stars will come crashing down when it's Armageddon time. If Jesus knew about light years, he prolly wouldn't have said that. Hence....he's not a god-person, because a god-person would never say anything so fucking stupid.
| Itaewonguy wrote: |
2nd: science is not evidence of no god! Its actually more in favor of design! ( not evolution)
|
There isn't any scientific evidence in favor of design. There is a lot of scientific evidence in favor of evolution.
Anyway, why claim you're an agnostic above, yet here claim scientific evidence points to design?
| Itaewonguy wrote: |
| 3rd: science is an endless contradiction |
How is it possible to live a 12-hour flight away from home and make the above statement?
I'll get on the phone to NASA right away and tell them they haven't got a clue. Mars Rover? Screw it, folks, it's all baloney, let's get back to the burning bush and the talking devil-snake!!
| Itaewonguy wrote: |
Athiests are just as worthy of your name calling then! becuase you too have no answers and no proof or scientific provable evidence of your theory!
|
You've been told this billions of times, and the fact that you STILL don't get it is, in my view, evidence that religious people, like yourself, are generally of low intelligence:
* people who believe in X are obliged to provide evidence of X
* people who don't believe in X are not obliged to provide evidence of X's nonexistence
We've already provided evidence of God's nonexistence - (a) argument from evil, (b) infinite regress argument, (c) no evidence, (d) all religions false - and even though it's logically impossible we've tried our best - and every time we do, you loons say "ah, but....(a) God gave us free will, (b) God always has been and always will be, (c) the evidence is just wrong god dammit, (d) the religious texts are metaphors, not literal, so even though they're false they're still true ".
That's why religion should be regarded as a severe mental illness. History shows that, gradually, people and societies become less and less religious until, presumably, one happy day in the future, there will be no religion. I can't wait. I'll prolly be dead, but it makes me happy knowing that one day Christians will not exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red_devil
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Firstly, thanks Justin for that. I've given up trying to discuss anything with itaewonguy who is beyond words.
| Rteacher wrote: |
To varying degrees, practically all scientific "truths" in time become exposed as scientific falsehoods, and, at best, their purview is limited to the material world of relativity and duality.
Yes, we call that progress, and we call it the Scientific Method. Use the available data and available means to exhaustively test until shown to be true beyond a doubt. In the future, if new data or new information, or new testing methods reveals the previous theory/law to be false. SCIENCE will rethink it and establish a new set of rules. That's what we call LEARNING. The difference is that Science and Scientists are flexible to do that. Religious people are not. Religious people will never change their views regardless of whatever data is presented to them. |
| Quote: |
| Not accessible by empiric methods, the Absolute Truth (defined as the original source of everything) can be fully understood only by its own highest feature - the unlimitedly sentient Absolute Person (who can reveal Himself to sincere seekers on the devotional path). |
"Unlimitedly sentient Absolute Person" is just another way to say GOD. Wrapping it in long words won't give it any more credibility, sorry to say...and looks like you need to brush up on your scripture...how embarrassing for an atheist to point out scripture but, the Bible clearly shows that God and Jesus both actively sought out the NON-BELIEVERS over the believers. Jesus himself said that he was more interested in the "the ones who have fallen from God's grace, the poor, the weak, the starved, the infidel, the non-believers, the criminals, the blind..."
| Quote: |
| Agnosticism is not much better than atheism if a person ultimately fails to take up a genuine devotional process. |
Probably the only thing we agree on...however there is a legitimate version of Agnosticism that Richard Dawkins lays out in his book, "The GOD Delusion", on page 69 in the chapter, The Poverty of Agnosticism,
| Quote: |
Since I'm a rather low-class devotee myself, I put stock in the gambler's perspective articulated by 17th century philosopher Pascal ...
Pascal�s Wager
The seventeenth-century mathematician/philosopher Blaise Pascal formulated a pragmatic argument for justifying belief in God. Which is worth the risk of error, Pascal questioned, belief or non-belief? It is wise, he said, to �wager� on the existence of God, for the alternative, to put one�s faith in faithlessness, is an inferior bet. And, more, if one believes in God but is eventually proven wrong, one loses nothing. But if one believes and is proven right, one gains just about everything. And what if one disbelieves in God and is proven wrong? What if one lives an atheistic life and then finds out there is a God? That�s going to be trouble for sure.
Most philosophers think Pascal�s Wager is the weakest of all the traditional arguments for believing in the existence of God. But Pascal thought it was the strongest. After completing his construction of the full argument in his work Pensees, he wrote, �This is conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it.� This declaration was a rare moment of certainty for Pascal, one of the most skeptical thinkers of the modern era...
http://btg.krishna.com/main.php?id=911 |
Pascal's Wager is a joke, and few in the Academia take it seriously. It's ridiculous to have to "wager" on the side of God. There's absolutely no need to. Betting on the existence of God is not the same as betting on a hand in Blackjack. The way i see it, even if i live my life as an atheist but i live it as a good person and do good things and if it turns out there is a God; i would hope the act of living a good life as a morally sound person would be taken in account as indirectly living out His will. But all of this is pure fantisizing of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| To varying degrees, practically all scientific "truths" in time become exposed as scientific falsehoods, and, at best, their purview is limited to the material world of relativity and duality. |
Copernicus's concept of the earth going around the sun was exposed as a falsehood? Einstein exposed Newton as false? The discovery of viruses exposed germ theory as false?
Science builds on the past, sometimes discovering our ideas were over simplified, sometimes discovering they were wrong. Finding more complexity isn't exposing an earlier idea as a falsehood. You really need to read more about the history of science before you make sweeping claims and end up with egg all over your face.
| Quote: |
| Not accessible by empiric methods, the Absolute Truth (defined as the original source of everything) can be fully understood only by its own highest feature - the unlimitedly sentient Absolute Person (who can reveal Himself to sincere seekers on the devotional path). |
Yeah odd science bows out of circular arguments.
| Quote: |
| Since I'm a rather low-class devotee myself, I put stock in the gambler's perspective articulated by 17th century philosopher Pascal ... |
But according to Junior, your wager has still doomed you to hell. You've not accepted jesus as your personal savior. Sorry, no one told you after making the wager there are now a million other wagers to make. Which god? Which sect? Which church? Which interpretation of doctrine? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is only one Supreme God, but He's not limited to any one name, form, (or even sex...)
Material designations and limitations don't apply, and all sectarianism is subordinate to developing love of God.
As far as I know, Jesus never claimed to be identical to the Supreme Father of all living beings (and at least some Christian scholars concur.) I accept Jesus as the devotionally perfected Son of God and as a universal spiritual master - an external manifestation of the Supreme Lord's mercy.
About 3000 years earlier, Krishna revealed Himself to be the Supreme Personality by manifesting His gigantic Universal and four-armed Vishnu forms when He spoke Bhagavad-gita, and He instructed his fully surrendered devotee, Arjuna, to "abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender" unto Him (and to not worry about sinful reactions...)
http://www.asitis.com/18/66.html
In the final analysis, Love is superior to Reason - as explained by the great 19th century devotee, Bhaktivinoda Thakur (who predicted that Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada would spread Lord Chaitanya's sankirtan movement throughout the global village...)
http://www.krishna.com/en/node/1732 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
There is only one Supreme God, but He's not limited to any one name, form, (or even sex...)
Material designations and limitations don't apply, and all sectarianism is subordinate to developing love of God. |
Conveniently making the (non)existence of your god completely unprovable either way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
