In the case against religious theism, what is so damning... - Page 5

Duke · #41 10-23-2007, 08:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Splendour has me pissed. If he's a troll, he's good at it. But he's one of a kind. Even Sharkey didn't have me this much on tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Walk up to a homeless person sometime that you see having a confrontational argument with a chain link fence. Try to have a discussion with them.

You'll get precisely as far as you will with any theist, but the homeless person won't have that trained smug attitude about their side of things that is so frustrating.

If I came on here and started saying that electricity were a myth, and that it were really gremlins that caused those effects, I'd be shot down. If I then started quoting 300 year old documents from "scientists," I'd still be shot down and laughed at.

If every single time I were smug about it, and appealed to some high-brow "how do you really know?" sort of argument, mixed in with some poetic quotes from various sources, it would do little but to annoy people. People would eventually start ignoring me.

If what I said were attached to some established religion, then the arguments would continue forever. Kind of like this forum.

No_Foolin'? · #42 10-23-2007, 09:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Almost to a person, this is one area of their lives where theists think it's ok to suspend logic. They may be logical when it comes to most everything else, but when it comes to sky gods and religion, they put that in a seperate category.

[/ QUOTE ]

Splendour, Brad1970: Any response?

No_Foolin'? · #43 10-23-2007, 09:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Splendour has me pissed. If he's a troll, he's good at it. But he's one of a kind. Even Sharkey didn't have me this much on tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Walk up to a homeless person sometime that you see having a confrontational argument with a chain link fence. Try to have a discussion with them.

You'll get precisely as far as you will with any theist, but the homeless person won't have that trained smug attitude about their side of things that is so frustrating.

If I came on here and started saying that electricity were a myth, and that it were really gremlins that caused those effects, I'd be shot down. If I then started quoting 300 year old documents from "scientists," I'd still be shot down and laughed at.

If every single time I were smug about it, and appealed to some high-brow "how do you really know?" sort of argument, mixed in with some poetic quotes from various sources, it would do little but to annoy people. People would eventually start ignoring me.

If what I said were attached to some established religion, then the arguments would continue forever. Kind of like this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Splendour, Brad1970: Any response?

Duke · #44 10-23-2007, 09:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Splendour has me pissed. If he's a troll, he's good at it. But he's one of a kind. Even Sharkey didn't have me this much on tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Walk up to a homeless person sometime that you see having a confrontational argument with a chain link fence. Try to have a discussion with them.

You'll get precisely as far as you will with any theist, but the homeless person won't have that trained smug attitude about their side of things that is so frustrating.

If I came on here and started saying that electricity were a myth, and that it were really gremlins that caused those effects, I'd be shot down. If I then started quoting 300 year old documents from "scientists," I'd still be shot down and laughed at.

If every single time I were smug about it, and appealed to some high-brow "how do you really know?" sort of argument, mixed in with some poetic quotes from various sources, it would do little but to annoy people. People would eventually start ignoring me.

If what I said were attached to some established religion, then the arguments would continue forever. Kind of like this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Splendour, Brad1970: Any response?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't respond to them so they have no obligation to respond to me.

RJT · #45 10-23-2007, 09:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no longer a "case against religious theism", it is over. The people believing in religion/god are either choosing to ignore the arguments against it…

[/ QUOTE ]
There is not argument against it, because there is no argument for it. Faith is not logic based any more than beauty or love are logic based.

Duke · #46 10-23-2007, 09:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no longer a "case against religious theism", it is over. The people believing in religion/god are either choosing to ignore the arguments against it…

[/ QUOTE ]
There is not argument against it, because there is no argument for it. Faith is not logic based any more than beauty or love are logic based.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be a good thread. I think I'll start it. I think you're at least partially wrong about love and beauty.

luckyme · #47 10-23-2007, 09:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no longer a "case against religious theism", it is over. The people believing in religion/god are either choosing to ignore the arguments against it…

[/ QUOTE ]
There is not argument against it, because there is no argument for it. Faith is not logic based any more than beauty or love are logic based.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religious Faith, love, beauty and horniness are things are states we experience built on emotional upwellings. All can be studied and explained/understood rationally. None are mysterious.
We can argue against each of those, with ourselves in the final stages. The fact they manifest themselves from a non-rational base does not mean they can't be argued against rationally.

luckyme

RJT · #48 10-23-2007, 10:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no longer a "case against religious theism", it is over. The people believing in religion/god are either choosing to ignore the arguments against it…

[/ QUOTE ]
There is not argument against it, because there is no argument for it. Faith is not logic based any more than beauty or love are logic based.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be a good thread. I think I'll start it. I think you're at least partially wrong about love and beauty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ll post this here, because I don’t want to muddy your new thread with religious stuff.

If I am wrong about Beauty and Love (and I am not saying I am not), then Faith should be biologically based as you suggest B & L are. If this is the case then the atheists are really arguing against Biology when they argue with theists. Ironic.

If you want to carry this to your new thread that is your call.

Brad1970 · #49 10-23-2007, 10:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So many problems...

(1) Though I can't pull scripture out of thin air, I'm fairly certain that Jesus didn't negate the Old Testament.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called the New Covenant. Look it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also- Brad... since you seem to think Splendour is on to something, are you suggesting that the New Covenant is saying everything in the Old Testament is wrong? For instance, if you read the Old Testament and by reading came to the logical conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old, are you suggesting that the New Covenant says this is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't read this whole thread, so I really don't know who said what but.........

In the OT, man had sin offerings to God for the attonement of sins. Usually this consisted of sacrificing a cow, goat, sheep, etc. from their herds....usually one of the best of the herd not some old dying, crippled bull or something. This was the Old Covenant. When Christ was crucified, he took the place of the animal sacrifices. You've probably heard the phrase "sacrificial lamb" or "by the blood of the lamb"...that's Jesus....metaphorically stated I guess. This is the New Covenant. That's why we don't observe Passover.

The New Covenant doesn't replace the OT, it replaces the Old Covenant. Christians do not believe that the OT is negated. It's still good. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] But since our faith hinges on Jesus, we tend to spend the bulk of our time in the NT.

bunny · #50 10-23-2007, 11:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Almost to a person, this is one area of their lives where theists think it's ok to suspend logic. They may be logical when it comes to most everything else, but when it comes to sky gods and religion, they put that in a seperate category.

[/ QUOTE ]

Splendour, Brad1970: Any response?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont accept it is impossible to maintain a rational belief in God, although I concede it is more effort and often not one actually undertaken. I dont suspend logic in this area of my life - I've discovered I believe in something and am examining the consequences of that. If I find the concept of god to be logically untenable, I highly doubt the belief will endure.