If you squint, you can see JCanon in those clouds!
funkyderek
JoinedPosts by funkyderek
-
8
2012: LONDON OLYMPIC GAMES AND THE MAYAN CALENDAR
by Eyes Open ininterestingly, the olympic games are being held in 2012, in great britain.
what significance may this have for our spritual outlook of the future?
we may glean some insight from taking the time to study the 'our plans' page of the official london 2012 website.
-
-
-
28
Do You Consider Yourself a "Bright?"
by XJW4EVR ini have recently been exposed to this term, and i am currently doing research for a paper on this movement.
i am wondering if there are any on this board that would affirm this label for themselves.
-
-
funkyderek
I like the idea but am ambivalent about the name. It's not that it sounds superior (I've no objection to that), it's just a little cringeworthy somehow. One thing to note is that the opposite of "Bright" in this context is not "Dim" but "Super" (as in one who holds to supernatural beliefs). This is similar to how the opposite of "gay" (as in homosexual, not happy) is not "glum" but "straight".
"Brights" and "Supers" - it makes everyone sound just brilliant, doesn't it?
-
13
"Believe me, it's torture" by Christopher Hitchens
by BurnTheShips inthe hitch submits to, and writes about, waterboarding and the fine line between interrogation and torture as well as the "ticking bomb" quandary.. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808.
no atheists in torture chambers?
bts.
-
-
funkyderek
BurnTheShips:
No atheists in torture chambers?
No neo-cons in torture chambers, perhaps.
-
-
-
-
60
How important is alcohol to you?
by Peppermint ini feel i drink too much and it concerns me sometimes.
i'm not an alcoholic (isn't that what an alcoholic would say?
) and i never drink in large quantities but if i don't have a glass of wine or a good real ale in my hand of an evening i feel disappointed.
-
-
funkyderek
Not that important. I'd place it somewhere between oxygen and food!
(I'm not an alcoholic, just Irish.)
-
97
Convictions or Reasons - which come first?
by nicolaou init's obvious right?
your convictions are supported by and dependant upon your reasoning and evidence.
what kind of person would choose a conviction first and then hunt around for evidence to support it, all the time ignoring any sound refutation and evidence which countered their cherished belief?.
-
-
funkyderek
snowbird:
For the record, I'm not delusional, intellectually dishonest, or unintelligent.
Yes you are. You are definitely at least one of those things. It's simply not possible to hold the beliefs you claim to hold without so being.
(I would post my IQ, but since so-called intelligent tests have been stacked so egregiously against African-Americans, I'll pass).
What must it be like to live in your world!
I've said before that I believe the Bible is only as inerrant as the men who wrote it, but I accept it - warts and all - as God's revelation of Himself to His human creatures. I don't know how I can possibly make that any clearer.
You could make it clearer simply by formulating it in a way that is not inherently contradictory. Unfortunately it is impossible to hold the beliefs you do without embracing such contradiction, which is clearly why you seem to revel in it.
It was men (literally) who wrote the Bible; it is men (generically) who write scientific textbooks. We believe one group, why not the other?
We don't just believe men, no matter what they say. We listen to what they say and then we compare it to reality. If it corresponds, then and only then do we believe them. Why is that so hard to understand? You must realise that you do not believe the men who wrote the Bhagavad Gita. Why do you not believe them? This is a perfect example of why you get accused of stupidity and intellectual dishonesty. You are happy to take the claims of the Bible as fact for no reason, but do not do so for any other claim.
I haven't seen any such incontrovertible evidence.
Sure you have. You have just not understood it or chosen to ignore it. (Probably a little of both.)
When, and if I do, I will gladly remove my shield.
I don't believe that will ever happen. That shield is all you have.
-
150
Name the fictional character
by John Doe inthe poster preceding you reminds you of.
inspired by fhn.
-
-
funkyderek
The devil!
-
97
Convictions or Reasons - which come first?
by nicolaou init's obvious right?
your convictions are supported by and dependant upon your reasoning and evidence.
what kind of person would choose a conviction first and then hunt around for evidence to support it, all the time ignoring any sound refutation and evidence which countered their cherished belief?.
-
-
funkyderek
Slappy:
Welcome to the board!
Wow, that was civil in word usage only. Very good use of euphemisms by the way. I'm pretty sure that you called her (and anybody else that believes in such) insane, among other not-so-flattering terms...just in a lot more words.
I don't think anyone referred to snowbird as insane. Intellectually dishonest certainly and perhaps delusional, maybe even unintelligent (although I personally think her refusal to use reason is a deliberate choice as she herself claims it to be rather than lack of sufficient intelligence) but not insane.
We who believe, base our belief on the Word of God, the Bible, as I'm sure you all know.
Immediately, that labels you as intellectually dishonest. Why would you not base your beliefs on the evidence instead of whatever happens to be written in whatever holy book you're most attached to?
Many people however, find it difficult to believe that those things written are true. Why? We read about Columbus, the rise and fall of Rome, and many other happenings in the past that historians have recorded. We weren't there to witness it first-hand, yet we believe that these things actually happened. Why? What is different about the history recorded in the Bible and every other bit of history? One point is that some of the things in the Bible are difficult for us to grasp (miracles and whatnot) because we don't see these things happening today.
Another point is that the documents that comprise the bible cannot really be considered reliable. In any case, this is not the place to start. It's ludicrous to pick a book, decide it's true and then challenge anyone who disagrees to prove that all parts of it are definitely false. Why pick the bible for this exercise in mental masturbation? Why not the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, or the Harry Potter series?
As a result, we rationalize that since there is not way that those things could happen (it's beyond our comprehension) we assume, and rightly so, that if one part of the Bible is false, then all of it is false.
That would be an incredibly stupid thing to assume. It is possible for a book - especially one that is a haphazardly collected anthology - to contain some information that is true, and some that is false. For example, a lot of the geographical information in the Bible is demonstrably true, while a lot of the historical and scientific information is demonstrably false.
For if God can't lie, and there is a lie in the Bible, then the Bible cannot be truly God's Word. However, we must be careful to properly distinguish between a lie, and an honest mistake.
So God can make honest mistakes?
Sorry to bring up the faith argument again, since it is viewed as a cop-out by those who don't understand it, but what is the definition of faith? Faith is "belief that is not based on proof" according to www.dictionary.com (sorry, didn't have a websters handy).
Now at least you're being honest. Many people try to pretend that faith means something other than that but at least you have the gumption to come right out and admit what it really means.
If we have proof, then faith no longer exists;
That's only true of intellectually honest people. Many people hold on to their faith (belief without proof) even in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. (See snowbird's posts above for several examples). Once we know the facts of a matter, there's no need for idle speculation, conjecture, fantasy and certainly not for faith.
why do you think that Christ said that the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than the greatest prophets of old? (sorry for no references, I didn't feel like looking them up, but He is speaking in reference to John the Baptist). That is because all those that believe on Christ, and therefore God, believe without seeing, whereas those that believed in God pre-Christ, did so because God was a very real aspect in their life. Oh, sorry, I'm referencing the Bible again, which doesn't work since you don't believe in it. Bummer, what to do.
What you could do is provide evidence rather than just rambling nonsense. The above paragraph doesn't make much sense, no matter what you believe. It's certainly not true that people before Jesus had seen God, whereas those who met Jesus had not. If you believe the Bible, isn't the exact opposite true?
"And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words...Rooted and built up in him [Christ], and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:4, 7&8 (sorry, I lied, I did feel like looking up some references).
No problem. Believers lie all the time.
Logic is all good and well, I'm a huge fan of it myself.
Good. Feel free to use it sometime.
But as snowbird said, logic can only take you so far.
Yes, if you want to go further, sometimes you will have to make things up. Of course, where that takes you is completely independent of reality. This can easily be seen by comparing the difference between science and religion worldwide. Scientists (who use logic) all over the world come to essentially the same conclusions about issues, whereas religious people (who use faith) come to completely different conclusions largely dependent on where they happened to be born.
I think it would be a fair assessment that this is a case of the tool not fitting the job. It's been known to happen, so why not now? Oh, wait, is that another cop-out? So I should just keep hammering away at the nail with a pair of needle-nose pliers just so I can prove that it's not a nail because it's not behaving the way it's supposed to? (that was a hasty analogy, but I think it gets my point across).
Doesn't even come close. Let's try to get it as a working analogy. The tools are logic and faith, right? So how do we decide whether something is a nail? Columbus's voyage to the Americas is a nail, we can use logic and evidence to find out pretty much everything there is to know about it, right? And the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, another nail, right? And the life of Shakespeare? Do tell me if any of these things need different tools to learn about them. The conquest of Mecca by Mohammed, same category of thing, isn't it? And the life of Jesus of Nazareth? No? Why is the last one different? Why should we apply different tools to that one event? Why does that one need a different tool?
One last point. This is a question I commonly ask because it makes people think. "In 80 or so years, is what we're doing here on earth really going to matter?" If there is no God, then no, what we're doing here doesn't matter. But if what we do doesn't matter, then why are we here? To have a good time? Again, are you going to care whether or not you had a good time after you die? So what is our purpose?
Certainly, if you choose to believe that you are part of a plan and you will exist forever you may well derive some comfort from that. That does not at all make it true though. Obviously, that doesn't matter to you. If you cared about truth as much as we skeptics, you would reject faith. But for us, the issue of whether a given claim is true is more important to whether it is comforting (at least in the context of discussions like this).
I like to view our time here as a test, to see if we are worthy to be called the Sons/Daughters of God. Now, you can bring up the argument about God being Love, so a true God wouldn't "test" us. However, that is only half true, and many, many people make that mistake. They leave out that God is also Righteous and Holy. When you throw those two adjectives into the mix, things change drastically.
Anyway, don't take what I say at face value (not like you need any encouragement there), but why don't you go see for yourself? Leave your pride at the door (is it so important that you're right in regard to this?) and ask God, with a willing heart and the desire to learn the Truth, to guide you. Oh wait, my bad, you can't ask somebody for help if you don't believe He exists...that would be weird.
Yes, it would be weird. Why don't you ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster to touch you with his noodly appendage? Or (less facetiously) why not ask Lord Krishna to bless you? Don't be proud, just ask either one of those deities to guide you. If you don't get a response, that's your fault. Your heart isn't open enough, or you're using faulty human logic or some such similar pitiful excuse.
ps. can't wait to hear the backlash to this...
Actions have consequences. Posting poorly-thought out nonsense generally results in a critical response. I know it won't bother you too much though. You've got your invisible forcefield of faith to immunise you against any criticism.
-
97
Convictions or Reasons - which come first?
by nicolaou init's obvious right?
your convictions are supported by and dependant upon your reasoning and evidence.
what kind of person would choose a conviction first and then hunt around for evidence to support it, all the time ignoring any sound refutation and evidence which countered their cherished belief?.
-
-
funkyderek
snowbird:
The only reason I believe the loaves and fish story is that I'm convinced a Jewish rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth, God Incarnate, walked this earth, preached a gospel of love and reconciliation, wrought miracles, died in place of us, and promised to come again to rule His creation.
Yes, you believe one part of the story because you've already decided to believe the entire story. I'm glad you at least acknowledge that this is the only reason.
He turned the then-known world upside down. Nothing has ever been the same since. Whether you believe this is a myth or not, you'll have to admit He influenced the course of human events.
Christianity was little more than a sect of Judaism until, through various accidents of history it was adopted by the Roman Empire. The fact that it became very popular lends not a whit of support to its veracity.
-
97
Convictions or Reasons - which come first?
by nicolaou init's obvious right?
your convictions are supported by and dependant upon your reasoning and evidence.
what kind of person would choose a conviction first and then hunt around for evidence to support it, all the time ignoring any sound refutation and evidence which countered their cherished belief?.
-
-
funkyderek
snowbird:
The Bible doesn't say how long humans have been here, and neither should anyone else.
Yes it does, if you take it literally. If you genuinely believe that Adam and Eve existed and that Biblical chronology is accurate, then human creation can be dated to around 6,000 years ago. But then, you don't seem to feel the need to base your beliefs on anything at all; they apparently just pop into your head, fully formed and immutable.
However, civilization can only be traced back to around 6,000 years. Shouldn't that tell us something?
Civilisation has been around for 10,000 years or more. And what that tells us is that civilisation has been around for 10,000 years or more. Humans have been around a lot longer.
I certainly do because there is overwhelming evidence that we did not evolve from simians.
That's absolute nonsense. There's no such evidence, and anyway, since when did evidence start mattering to you? If it did, you would recognise the superabundance of evidence for the fact that we are closely related to other apes, our genetic and morphological similarities as well as the hundreds of hominid fossils.
Ever looked an ape in the eye?
Yes I have. Like most people, I was struck with just how human they look.
I believe Pangea was flooded thousands of years ago, yes.
That's so nonsensical and irrelevant that it's not even wrong.
