Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 112 of 112

Thread: is christianity intolerant?

  1. #101  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Well, Scifor, I think your position is hilarious, too.

    First of all, there is this book which purports to have been "written" by a spiritual being who claims to have created the universe. You do not believe such a spiritual being exists.

    In this book, there is a word used which you claim says that this spiritual being, which you don't believe in, ordered (or permitted) some of his minions to rape young children which you find offensive, apparently because you believe if He did exist, He would not order such a thing. (Or not?)

    Meanwhile, you chide those who do believe in that spiritual being because you think they believe in a spiritual being who ordered such acts, even though they do not agree with your interpretation of that incident which you don't agree with yourself.

    So let's pause for a moment for some simplistic analysis. First of all, either the book in question is what it purports to be or it is not. The spiritual being it represents exists or does not exist.

    If He does not exist, your argument is completely moot and totally senseless because He could not have issued such an order. So in this case, you don't believe He issued such and order and the people who think He exists don't believe He issue such an order. So why do you continue to insist that the God you don't believe in issued an order you don't think He would have issued? It makes no sense.

    But then you seem to go on to use this incident as a part of your justification for not believing in the spiritual being because you believe he would not have issued such and order which, in turn, those who believe in Him agree He did not issue.

    If God does exist, then the incident you are discussing either involved the issuing of the order as you claim it was issued or the order did not mean what you are claiming it meant.

    If the latter is the case, that your understanding of the incident is inaccurate, then your objection is misplaced and any other conclusions based on that inaccuracy are equally misplaced.

    On the other hand, if that spirit being exists and your portrayal of this incident is accurate, I should think it would give you pause to think. This would be especially true when linked to all the other things the first half of the book in question says this spirit being ordered his minions to accomplish against those who did not believe in Him or openly rejected Him. In that case, I should think you would not want to be on the wrong side of such a God. But, since you don't believe this God exists and that He did not give such orders, you feel safe.

    Now then, I think I have ever directly ruled out that the verse could not possibly mean exactly what you seem to think it means. It could possibly be that God ordered the raping of young girls. But I don't believe He did and it does not seem to be keeping with the general character of a God who consistently and vociferously objects to sexual sins far less objectionable than child molestation. However, the Old Testament does include some directives which would not go over well in 21st Century civilization as we can see by some of the things which are happening in the world today.

    To be sure, I remember only fragments of the previous discussion as I have come to a point where my memory banks are so crowded that sometimes stuff must be erased in order to make room for more. If I am to learn a new thing each day, it seems to also require that I forget two old things -- modern information being so much more complex than what I have stored in the past. I came to this reality this morning as my laptop kept complaining about limited virtual memory and I had to go in and remove a bunch of crap that is no longer in use.

    So I must take your word for it that I said words have implicit meanings. Actually, that sounds like something I would have said keeping in mind that they also have explicit meanings. They also have connotations and meanings which have nothing to do with their defined meanings. Their context often changes their meanings from usage to usage.

    The verb in "shake a leg" for example has absolutely nothing to do with shaking anything. Maybe some 4,000 years from now, some poor sap will read that phrase and try to insist that it actually means "shake."

    I have no idea how that "shake a leg" idiom came into being or why whoever coined the phrase chose "shake" rather that some other word such as "jiggle a leg." But the one things I do know is that "shake" used in that idiom does not mean anything you will find in the long definition of shake (unless they happen to include the idiomatic usages).

    I cannot tell you why the Hebrew word "bazaz" is used in the verse in question. And, since you don't believe it was an actual directive from God, I am not sure why you are so concerned about it. What I can say is that I don't think it means rape and despoil in that context any more than shake means shake in shake a leg.

    So I think we actually agree that this was not a directive from God -- you because you don't believe in God and me because I don't His directive meant what you want it to mean in an effort to justify your non-belief.

    So rather than looking to the One who has the power of life and death and His son who defeated death as we commemorate on this resurrection day, you prefer to complain about the ambiguous use of a word? Not a very good trade if you ask me.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You say this:
    God said it-- for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

    you forget that 5 year olds can lie, cheat , steal, disobey and so on.
    In response to my outrage that you think it is ok to kill woman and children if your god tells you to do it. Then right after that you tell me that I am insane for claiming that you have said something that you have in fact said in that very post? Insane!

    we do not kill children because they sin--anyone who claims that God told them to do it would be lying and you ignore so much and are leaping to conclusions without all the facts.
    Then tell me how you reconcile the above two quotes from you.

    kalster's post shows that he is very intolerant and acts without proper investigation and uses a moral rod that is blind to the facts.
    Bet your ass I am intolerant towards potential child killers!!

    his irrationality shows that science and evolution really are not rational.
    What? Science is not rational? You are INSANE!
    he's a troll, kalster. just ban the little fuck.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    he's a troll, kalster. just ban the little fuck.
    As much as I would love to ban this guy for being an immense embarassment to Christianity and all religion in general, he represents a disgusting reality that we really should not ignore.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    he's a troll, kalster. just ban the little fuck.
    As mitch said, I would love to (not that I actually could :wink: ), but to be fair he's responses has not been as abrasive as some others (including mine ). I am sure that he actually believes what he says and as such does not qualify as a troll. At the very least the debate can serve an informative purpose to browsers.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    45% of Americans, according to the Gallup Poll, believe in young earth creationism. They believe the world is less than 10,000 years old and that magic created us. This is a very scary rwality and it shows a realisation that our education system really is falling short.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    45% of Americans, according to the Gallup Poll, believe in young earth creationism. They believe the world is less than 10,000 years old and that magic created us. This is a very scary rwality and it shows a realisation that our education system really is falling short.
    Nonsense. We must distinguish between education and re-education camps that try to brainwash people to believe whatever is told to them. It is not the job of education to do such things. IN FACT, any attempt to make the education system do this can only backfire in a big way. These people make their own schools and universities.

    The problem, as I said before, is the discouragement of rationality in religion, and there are two causes of this. The primary cause is, of course, the extremist cults themselves that do this. But a secondary cause is a hostile environment that only exacerbates the problem and makes such irrational religious groups thrive. A large part of the responsibility for this situation is this creation of a no-man's land between science and religion by aggressive atheist bullshit making this claim that evolution and science disproves God. The real question is whether people have viable alternatives. Given a choice between that which makes their life worthwhile and some intellectual theory, it is former that people are going to choose.

    However, if they can choose BOTH, rationality and something which makes life worthwhile then that choice will win out in the long run.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    verzen said:

    45% of Americans, according to the Gallup Poll, believe in young earth creationism. They believe the world is less than 10,000 years old and that magic created us. This is a very scary rwality and it shows a realisation that our education system really is falling short.
    A recent Pew Poll indicated that 21 per cent of atheists said believe in God!

    I think there is a tendency for people to cite polls when they show something with which they agree or when they show something that is really ridiculous.

    Polls are really difficult to decipher because the questioning process does not always directly deal with the ultimate findings.

    Polls used to show that 15 percent of the people in the United States do not believe in God. Well, a portion of those believed in God but answered "No" to a question about their religious affiliation and were counted as non-believers. When the question was posed a different way, the result was that 93 percent of people have some belief in some form of deity.

    I think what has happened is that the science oriented community has vociferously crammed evolution down the throats of school children. But when they begin to hear legitimate and reasonable information in rebuttal, if they have some belief in God they just turn off on any questionable information that attempts to discredit God.

    My feeling here is that the science oriented community is afraid to have both sides of the evolution issue presented in educations system because skeptics are able to cast significant doubt on several concepts in evolution.

    If evolution enthusiasts would acknowledge the legitimate problems pointed out by skeptics instead of trying to pooh-pooh them or explain them away by even less plausible ideas, perhaps more people would acknowledge the aspects evolution which are verifiable rather than just tuning out on and rejecting the whole idea.

    When the obnoxiously boisterous anti-God minority of the scientific community quits trying to use science to bash God, maybe believers would be more receptive to those things of science which shed more light on a subject than the Bible does.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I think what has happened is that the science oriented community has vociferously crammed evolution down the throats of school children.
    I seriously doubt that. But if they are going to teach science then it has to be science and not some religiously motivated deception.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    But when they begin to hear legitimate and reasonable information in rebuttal, if they have some belief in God they just turn off on any questionable information that attempts to discredit God.
    Sorry but that just doesn't wash. 1+1=3 isn't arithmetic and creationism just isn't science, and any teacher who does not make that clear isn't doing his/her job. However I am willing to bet that MOST teachers will say something like, "whatever you may believe actually happened, this is the scientific theory."


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    My feeling here is that the science oriented community is afraid to have both sides of the evolution issue presented in educations system because skeptics are able to cast significant doubt on several concepts in evolution.
    That is just crap. Are the mathematicians afraid to have the different sides of the issue of whether 1+1=3 or not? Are the physicists afraid to listen to the arguments of the Trekies that ftl space travel is possible? No they just have to do their job and teach the subject properly without the interference of some religiously or politically motivated inquisition.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    If evolution enthusiasts would acknowledge the legitimate problems pointed out by skeptics instead of trying to pooh-pooh them or explain them away by even less plausible ideas, perhaps more people would acknowledge the aspects evolution which are verifiable rather than just tuning out on and rejecting the whole idea.
    Theological problems are not valid in science and there ARE NO legitimate scientific problems with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is the ONLY scientific theory for the origin of the species and the wishful thinking of relgious nuts that there be no such scientific theory should have no more impact on the science classroom than the wishful thinking of the Trekkies.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    When the obnoxiously boisterous anti-God minority of the scientific community quits trying to use science to bash God, maybe believers would be more receptive to those things of science which shed more light on a subject than the Bible does.
    Well as far as this is true, I would certainly agree.

    However I think it quite often tends to be like the muslims over-reacting to some cartoon and blowing things out of proportion.

    As far as the public schools are concerned, what I think is really happening is a bunch of insecure religious nuts that are having trouble forcing their children to believe their crap (and I mean that in the nicest way) when the public schools given them the opportunity to make up their own minds. I am a Christian and I believe what he gospel teaches but I do not believe in the magical version that is crammed down the throats of children.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Mitchell:

    The tone of your entire post is based on the erroneous assumption that the only questions relating to evolution are somehow linked to creationism rather than to evolution itself.

    There are, for example, questions relating to missing links. There are questions relating to time necessary for evolution to take place and the amount of evolution which has (allegedly) taken place. There are questions relating to the idea that if evolution is a continuing process, why are we seeing only the losses of life forms rather than an increase in life forms? How does evolution adequately explain the proliferation of life forms in the Cambrian layer without coming up with some extravagant cockamamie punctuated equilibrium idea that is no more plausible than the problem (and which is, for some reason, called science because the perpetrator is labeled a scientist)?

    Those are just few things I can think of off the top of my head which have nothing to do creationism. They have to do with things which form the backbone of evolution. But if you asked a person with only a high school education and even many even with college educations, they could not discuss these issues because they are not even discussed or exposed to them in high school and probably not even in biology 101 classes.

    And it is because they are told, "Oh, don't pay any attention to that stuff; it is not science." They seem to contend that it is only science if it supports evolution, otherwise it is creationism. If they say missing links are not a problem, it is because they are not a problem. If skeptics say missing links are a problem, it is because they are creationists.

    The evolution community looks at any questions and objections to evolution as someone advocating creationism and thus attempts to dismiss those questions and objections as the railings of uneducated creationists despite the fact that many of the questions were originally raised by scientists.

    Or is it that some people have not (ala (Q) style) been mesmerized by the indoctrination of a school of thought which refuses to admit that it is not settled knowledge, but a hodge-podge of conjectures and speculations attempting to bridge gaps in knowledge as though they don't exist?

    It is impossible to discuss these issues with evolution enthusiasts because they refuse to accept that there are legitimate questions relating to evolution that are in no way directly supportive of creationism. They are just inadequately answered or unanswered questions.

    My position is not exactly creationist. I believe God did it but science has not yet quite figured out the process.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The tone of your entire post is based on the erroneous assumption that the only questions relating to evolution are somehow linked to creationism rather than to evolution itself.

    There are, for example, questions relating to missing links. There are questions relating to time necessary for evolution to take place and the amount of evolution which has (allegedly) taken place. There are questions relating to the idea that if evolution is a continuing process, why are we seeing only the losses of life forms rather than an increase in life forms? How does evolution adequately explain the proliferation of life forms in the Cambrian layer without coming up with some extravagant cockamamie punctuated equilibrium idea that is no more plausible than the problem (and which is, for some reason, called science because the perpetrator is labeled a scientist)?
    On the contrary these have everything to do with Creationists for it is their rhetoric that changes these wonderful opportunities for further scientific inquiry into "problems". It just shows again that the real objection is not the theory of evolution but that there can be ANY scietific theory for the origin of life and the species. There are many theories for the Cambrian explosion, I have my own in fact. But the difficulty is in finding evidence which can say which of these theories is the correct answer. The only think we can say for sure that the Creationist nonsense that there is no answer is the opposite of science.



    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    And it is because they are told, "Oh, don't pay any attention to that stuff; it is not science." They seem to contend that it is only science if it supports evolution, otherwise it is creationism. If they say missing links are not a problem, it is because they are not a problem. If skeptics say missing links are a problem, it is because they are creationists.
    Its not science until there is an alternative scientific theory for the orgin of the species. Until then it is just a bunch of Creationist whining. So they prefer theology, whoop te do! I like both theology and science and I resent their politics and rhetoric saying you have to choose one or the other.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The evolution community looks at any questions and objections to evolution as someone advocating creationism and thus attempts to dismiss those questions and objections as the railings of uneducated creationists despite the fact that many of the questions were originally raised by scientists.
    The scientific community NEVER abandons a theory just because there are skeptics and whiners. Its theories are the tools with which it pursues its inquiries. And these questions turned by whining rhetoric into "problems" is just noise if there is no proposal for an alternative scientific theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    My position is not exactly creationist. I believe God did it but science has not yet quite figured out the process.
    A creationist dodge if I have ever heard one. Scientific theories are always a matter of ongoing investigation. The main mechanisms of variation and natural selection have many other details added to them but this remains the undisputed scientific explanation for the origin of the species. Abiogenesis is still more of a question than a theory in the scientific community but there continues to be advances on that front and I personally think the big picture is pretty clear there too.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    OK, so if I disagree with your earlier example 1+1=3 --

    Is it because 1+1 is not three or is it because I agree with John Lennon and his character flattop who, after groovin' up slowly, say, "One and one and one is three?"

    I am not suggesting that evolution is 100 percent wrong as is the 1+1=3 equation, I am merely saying that it is incomplete as in the equation 1+x=y.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I am not suggesting that evolution is 100 percent wrong as is the 1+1=3 equation, I am merely saying that it is incomplete as in the equation 1+x=y.
    Well yeah, but my response is that we are talking about biology after all. This is not math or physics so what do you expect? The point is, that the theory of evolution is as good as it gets in this context. If we go to the science of psychology then it starts to look marvelous. It is difficult to do repeatable experiments on a process that takes millions of years, but experiments with microbes where we can do this in a reasonable amount of time, confirm the theory 100%.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •