 |
That's a personal weakness on your part that has nothing to do with religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
The people who don't do any good at all are evenly distributed amongst the religious and non-religious, you may be too blind to see it. Since they are many gods that you do not believe in then you are also a non-believer, remember that.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
So, you don't mind debating after all.
The weakness has nothing to do with religion, I'd have to agree.. But for me, religion was the remedy to that weakness. That's the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
That sounds like a subjective assertion. Please provide quantitative data to substantiate your claim, otherwise I'll have to chalk it up to wishful thinking.Quote:
The people who don't do any good at all are evenly distributed amongst the religious and non-religious,
No, I think my eyes are wide open to distinguish between an opinion and a statement of fact. That statement shows all the qualities of an opinion.Quote:
you may be too blind to see it.
?? If there was a point there it went over my head. But as they say on the playground, what's good for the gander is good for the goose. I'll play along.Quote:
Since they are many gods that you do not believe in then you are also a non-believer, remember that.
And since there are many things in which you believe, you are also a believer. Remember that.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Oh, you mean like you did here:Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Please provide quantitative data to substantiate your claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Absolutely! I believe in a lot of things, just not an unseen being in the clouds.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Didn't get it, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You kind of have to read the entire message NK. Don't just read little snippets here and there. Read what both parties have said.
As for my response which you've quoted, its called "irony".
# sarcasm: witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a ...
# incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs; "the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated"
# a trope that involves incongruity between what is expected and what occurs
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Credendovidis had said, and I quote:
Since he literally pommels everyone with this idea that only he is objective:Quote:
With that I agree. But note that the believer seems to need religion to do good, while the non-believer does that automatically without any incentive.
I thought I'd give him a taste of the same type of evidence he actually produces.Quote:
At least I do not believe in what someone else claims to be true, claims that always lack any objective support.
?? Oh well, I guess you thought you made some kind of point there.Quote:
Absolutely! I believe in a lot of things, just not an unseen being in the clouds.
For the record, I don't believe in any unseen being in the clouds either. I believe in God.
Here's a question for you. Why do you feel it necessary to debate when you apparently have nothing relevant to add to the discussion? Do you feel some sort of loyalty to the unbelievers or something?
Sincerely, if you ever want to have a friendly discussion about what you believe vs what I believe, just ask me. We can do better than whatever this is.
De Maria
I'm the ying to yor yang. :) Why do you feel the need to debate everyone on this site? What relevancy do you bring? An unbeliever such as yourself can't seem to grasp that people are individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Does that mean you just like to debate with me? If so, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I thought I answered that. I like to debate. Simple as that.Quote:
Why do you feel the need to debate everyone on this site?
Quite a bit. I've been studying my faith for approximately 20 years, so I'm fairly knowledgeable. As I said, I came on this forum to share my knowledge of Christianity and especially Catholicism with everyone here.Quote:
What relevancy do you bring?
As far as debate, well I just joined in the prevailing culture of this forum. However, in those 20 years of study, I have accumulated about 10 years of experience in debate, so I was well equipped to defend my beliefs when you first challenged me.
If you notice, I normally answer the OP. Then people who disagree, respond to me in objection to my opinion. I then respond to them. If you remember our first encounter that was the precise sequence of events.
I have at times reserved the right to respond to people who didn't address me but to whose messages I objected however. Especially since it seems to be part of the culture on this site.
I don't know where you get that impression. A believer like yourself can't seem to grasp that people have different opinions and that they might just disagree with you.Quote:
An unbeliever such as yourself can't seem to grasp that people are individuals.
Sincerely,
De Maria
For De Maria
Actually I'm getting a little bit tired of your aggressive and disrespectful posts.
If it is your intention to be here an example of a "good" Christian, beware that you are actually supporting the Secular Humanist position a lot !
Your favoutite response : a wild claim. Without any support. And as usual totally lacking any respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
===
I asked you : Quote : "Why do you not react to the points I made in my previous post?"
NOT TRUE !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I never ask anyone to defend his belief. I always state that you may believe whatever suits you. But if you insist that what you believe is the one and only truth (i.e. that what you believe is the reality), yes than I ask for objective supporting evidence. Which you can not provide, because all what you seem to believe are religious claims.
You fail to realize that in this situation you may of course claim as much as you want, but that I in return may ask for objective supporting evidence for each of your unsupported claims.
And I always do that with respect for your personal views. Something you fail to maintain time and time again !
===
As your selection of my previous points was extremely selective and frequently disrespectfull, I don't waste any further time on responses. I just repeat the first lines of this response :
If it is your intention here to be an example of a "good" Christian, beware that you are actually supporting the Secular Humanist position a lot !
What a coincidence, the reason I've been responding to your posts lately is because I'm tired of your aggressive and disrespectful posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I hope so. But I don't think I can give much of an example via the internet. Mostly I just hoped to pass on accurate information about Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.Quote:
If it is your intention to be here an example of a "good" Christian,
Although there are many differences, there are also many ways in which many philosphical positions meet and agree with religious beliefs. Unless you are specific I can't tell you which Secular Humanistic ideas I agree with. But there is one with which I vehemently disagree. The idea that God doesn't exist.Quote:
beware that you are actually supporting the Secular Humanist position a lot !
If you are saying that my responses are wild claims without any support, I have already debunked that accusation which you make of everyone Christian. And I have proven it is you making the wild claims without any support.Quote:
Your favoutite response : a wild claim. Without any support. And as usual totally lacking any respect.
And I said, wait a sec, I'm getting to it and I added my response to your previous post to that message.Quote:
I asked you : Quote : "Why do you not react to the points I made in my previous post?"
Perhaps. But by attacking and belittling their beliefs, you put everyone in the position of having to defend their beliefs.Quote:
NOT TRUE !!! I never ask anyone to defend his belief.
Again, your bias has clouded your mind so completely that you can't even think logically, you don't recognize objective supporting evidence when it is presented to you.Quote:
I always state that you may believe whatever suits you. But if you insist that what you believe is the one and only truth (i.e. that what you believe is the reality), yes than I ask for objective supporting evidence. Which you can not provide, because all what you seem to believe are religious claims.
And because your bias is so great, you don't realize that you haven't provided any objective supporting evidence to support your wild claims.
And because you are overzealous bordering on fanatical concerning your beliefs, you assume that your definition of simple English words, such as "belief" are the only definition in the world. You are so overzealous in that matter that I assume you haven't even looked at a dictionary to verify that your definition is correct.
Which I have provided. And I have asked you for objective evidence to support your unsupported claims and you have provided nothing. Your entire argument consists of denials of the evidence provided to you.Quote:
You fail to realize that in this situation you may of course claim as much as you want, but that I in return may ask for objective supporting evidence for each of your unsupported claims.
As I said, I show you as much respect as you show me.Quote:
And I always do that with respect for your personal views. Something you fail to maintain time and time again !
What did you expect me to do? I selected that which was objectionable, which was most of the post and I addressed those portions.Quote:
As your selection of my previous points was extremely selective
As I said, my response is as respectful to you as you are to me.Quote:
and frequently disrespectfull,
Ok.Quote:
I don't waste any further time on responses.
See my response above as well.Quote:
I just repeat the first lines of this response :
Sincerely,
De Maria
Nowhere have I been disrespectfull to your world viewsQuote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
As stated before : I do not attack religious views. I allow everyone to believe whatever he/she believes, without any demands.
But that is : till the moment that a believer starts claiming that what he/she believes is the "one and only truth", i.e. that his/her religious views are factual.
At that moment I feel entitled to ask for objective supporting evidence for the religious claims. And if I do , I always do that in a respectful way - unlike you .
Enough said !
Yeah, you have. Lets see, you claim Christians are brainwashed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
You continually deny that a believer has examined the evidence:Quote:
If you during your youth have been brainwashed into Christianity
You continually portray yourself as superior to believers:Quote:
as I have never seen any religious claim or `one and only truth´ to be supported by objective evidence.
Quote:
Actually I doubt if one needs religion to do good. If "doing good" is not part of your standard lifestyle, religion won't help neither, as at best any improved results will be based on wrong reasoning.
Yes you do. But you use a passive aggressive style. By continually stating that you don't attack religious views from one side of your mouth and then continually characterizing religious views as unsupported wild claims.Quote:
As stated before : I do not attack religious views.
Only because there is nothing you can do about it. But you continually get into discussions which are besides the point of the OP. And it is always the same fanatical refrain, believe what you want but it is all unsupported wild claims:Quote:
I allow everyone to believe whatever he/she believes, without any demands.
Are believers motivated to do good? Your response, "it is all unsupported wild claims".
Another persons asks, what happened to Jesus body? Your response, "it is all unsupported wild claims."
And on and on. A person asked what is the definition of a fanatic and another posted this response:
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Winston Churchill
That describes you.
And that right there contradicts your previous statement that you permit people to believe the evidence as they see fit. If they don't believe as you do, you harangue them constantly.Quote:
But that is : till the moment that a believer starts claiming that what he/she believes is the "one and only truth", i.e. that his/her religious views are factual.
I've yet to see it.Quote:
At that moment I feel entitled to ask for objective supporting evidence for the religious claims. And if I do , I always do that in a respectful way - unlike you .
If that were only true.Quote:
Enough said !
Sincerely,
De Maria
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
What is the"secular humanist" position?
On abortion
On origins of life
On eternal life
On good and evil
What is right, what is wrong?
What is your "bible"
Is it that there is no God? That position is disrespectful to the religious.
My PERSONAL Secular Humanist position is :Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
- on abortion : in general I am against abortion (except in cases of abuse and special situation in which the mother's life is at stake when the pregnancy is continued. But I leave it to every individual to come to his/her own conclusion. It's a moral question, not a religious one.
- on origins of life : all we know is that life started on earth. We do not know how, we do not know why. Seems that the conditions for first primitive life to form were some 4 billion years ago.
- on eternal life : We are born, we live, we die. That is it. Eternal life is a religious claim for which there is not one single iota of objective supporting evidence.
- on good and evil : there are good, and there are evil people. There is no supporting evidence that the percentages of good and evil are in general different in theist against non-theists.
- what is right, what is wrong : use the golden rule : do not do to others what you do not like to be done to yourself. Simple and clear. No need for any religious guidance there.
- I have no "bible". I do not need a "bible". The Christian Bible is just a book on the cultural and historical data - and religious views - of the jews (OT) and later of the early christians (NT).
- Nobody can provide objective supporting evience for the existence of a God or Gods.
To question and/or reject god/gods is not disrespectful to religious people.
Once more my standard point of view in all these matters : believe whatever you like to believe : no problemo! But do not claim that what you believe the "one and only truth".
Anything else?
;)
Many are indeed. Not only Christians : all believers in deity/deities.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
People are born without any religious references. During their youth children are in some way indeed brainwashed into believing that God/Gods exist.
Nonsense ! A strict believer can only make religious claims as he/she can not provide even a single iota of objective supporting evidence for what he/she believes. There simply is only belief. No evidence for any religious claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I do not. But are you now blaming me for your own inferiority complex?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
.. //..
So? That is 100 % true ! Whatever you believe, it are claims, nothing else. That is : till YOU prove your claims to be true. So far you have never done that. No problem with me, but than do not claim that whatever you believe is "the one and only truth!"Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Cred
[QUOTE=Credendovidis]My PERSONAL
[QUOTE]Credo, scientists Do not KNOW with 100% certain that life began on earth and also scientist do not KNOW that the World is 4 billion years old. That figure is based on the assumptions that the methods used for dating the earth (like carbon dating) are accurate. There is no way to prove that the assumptions used in such methods are accurate. So if that is your belief, it is based on faith not Facts.Quote:
- on origins of life : all we know is that life started on earth.
We do not know how, we do not know why. Seems that the conditions for first primitive life to form were some 4 billion years ago.
That is your belief. LIkewise, you do not have an iota of objective evidence to support your claim that there is no life after death.Quote:
- on eternal life : We are born, we live, we die. That is it. Eternal life is a religious claim for which there is not one single iota of objective supporting evidence.
It seems your "golden rule conflicts with your beliefs on abortion. That small life growing in the womb of a mother who has been raped. If she terminates the pregnancy and ends the life of that baby, is she doing unto others what she wants done unto her?Quote:
- what is right, what is wrong : use the golden rule : do not do to others what you do not like to be done to yourself. Simple and clear. No need for any religious guidance there.
Again your beliefs..Quote:
- I have no "bible". I do not need a "bible". The Christian Bible is just a book on the cultural and historical data - and religious views - of the jews (OT) and later of the early christians (NT).
Niether can you or anyone prove he does NOT exist.Quote:
- Nobody can provide objective supporting evience for the existence of a God or Gods.
To question and/or reject god/gods is not disrespectful to religious people.
There can only be one truth. At the end of the day one of us is right, and I think just based on rationality and common sense, that theist are right.Quote:
Once more my standard point of view in all these matters : believe whatever you like to believe : no problemo! But do not claim that what you believe the "one and only truth".
Yes they do. Life began on earth. At least the life we know. There may be billions of other life forms. But that is irrelevant. We live on earth. Life exists on earth. That life started here. No assumptions at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
And the entire solar system is around 4.3 Billion years old. There is ample objective supported evidence for that. But of course you may BELIEVE otherwise !
The burden of proof is on the (positive) claim that there is an afterlife. It is not on me to prove that your religiously based claim is incorrect. Do some classes in logical thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
That is a philosophical point of view. It has little to do with the general meaning of the golden rule. You are nittpicking out of pure frustration.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
The burden of proof is on the (positive) claim. Not on me. Do some classes in logical thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Theism based on rationality and common sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
You REALLY need that course in logical thinking...
Ciao!
I am hoping that this thread does end up being closed!
Are you always so negative ? WHY do you hope that ?Quote:
Originally Posted by firmbeliever
;)
I hope it doesn't close because I rather like having a thread I opened and keep it going for sometime so that I can post some more posts regarding believers in general.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I don't think I am always negative.
[QUOTE]Credo, I am have a bachelors degree in Biology and Chemistry and am currenty working on my masters in Biology so I am guessing I am probably more scientifically educated that you. Do you know what carbon dating is? If so do you know that the assuptions used in carbon dating? Do you know that the assumptions are unvarifiable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Therefore there is no certainty that the earth is 4.3 billion years old. This is only true, ONLY if you ASSUME that the assumptions used in dating the earth are accurate and there is no way to prove those assumptions are factual. So if you believe the earth is 4.3 billion years old, it is by Faith not because it is a fact.
How convenient for you. You have a possitive belief that there is no life after death therefore the burden of proof is also on you.Quote:
The burden of proof is on the (positive) claim that there is an afterlife. It is not on me to prove that your religiously based claim is incorrect. Do some classes in logical thinking.
No, actually it just points out the flaws and inconsitancies in your beliefs. You said "it is just that simple" and I am pointing out to you that it is NOT that simple. Your "golden rule" philosophy only applies to a very few of circumstances and situations.Quote:
That is a philosophical point of view. It has little to do with the general meaning of the golden rule. You are nittpicking out of pure frustration.
Yes, and I will explain why theism is more logical. An Athiests sees everything around them trees, flowers, animals, complex biological systems like the digesive system, reproductive system, immune system etc and an atheist comes to the smart conclusion that it just apeared from "no where" by "accident". If one uses common sense, a reasonable person would conclude that the complexity of design seen in our universe warrants an intelligent designer.Quote:
Theism based on rationality and common sense?
You REALLY need that course in logical thinking...
Let me give you an analogy... It would be like if I landed on Jupitor and found a complex functional machine that resembles a car and I come to the conclusion that ithe machine just a apeared on jupitor from no where by accident and evolved over time.
A reasonable sensible person would conclude after seeing the machine, its complexity of design and functionality, that there must be intelligent life on Jupitor capable of creating a designing the machine. However using this analogy an atheist would conclude that the machine has no intelligent creator or originator but rather appeared by accident from "no where". Logical? No
SASSSSSY ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Thank you for your reply.
I see this "golden rule" bandied about all the time.
Why do you adhere to this versus another philosophy,.
For example.
I should do whatever I dang well please, that is all that matters.
Or perhaps A Darwinian philosophy of,. by whatever means I'm am going to survive and make sure my genes are passed on, even if means eliminating "inferior" competittion.
How, in a world of no absolutes, is that any worse or better than the "golden rule"
As to origins of life, what proof do you have that "the conditions were right, " is there a lab somewhere that actually knows the exact conditions at the very beginning? Miller's experiments have been debunked. If you do not know for sure, no proof as your Creed goes, how do you know this is reality and not some figment of something's imagination?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:01 AM. |