I believe there's no rhinoceros in my coat closet

Homepage Forums Theism I believe there's no rhinoceros in my coat closet

This topic contains 169 replies, has 15 voices, and was last updated by  . 2 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 170 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #4732

    Strega
    Moderator

    Linus’s blanket also provides him with a plan for living – Schultz is an expert on that.

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Strega. Reason: typo
    #4734

    Dang Martin
    Participant

    I had someone ask me if I “believed in Evolution.” I said, “No, I do not believe in Evolution, for it does not require my belief. It is scientific fact, regardless of what I might or might not believe. I do accept it as scientific fact. This has no impact on what I will be doing today.”

    #4735

    Strega
    Moderator

    @dang. Simons atheism sort of includes Jesus.  Not sure anyone except Simon understands that.

    #4737

    Dang Martin
    Participant

    Interesting. That kinda goes against the definition of “Atheist.” I’ll keep that in mind.

    I’m the Vegan Grill Master who is making some prime rib tonight, so who am I to judge?

    #4738

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @regthefronkeyfarmer – because Belle is religious.

    #4739

    Strega
    Moderator

    @Simonpayton you mean because Belle now feels she has a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe, she can ask him?  She has stated on more than one occasion that she doesn’t subscribe to the normal earthly religions.

    #4740

    Dang Martin
    Participant

    What surprised me the most, at first, when I paid close attention to the Christians in my little Midwest town, was that they had a very limited understanding of the contents of the bible. I would later read in a Pew Research study that fewer than 7% of American Christians have bothered to read the bible.

    Considering that this knowledge is tied to eternal salvation or damnation, that number seemed low. But reading the book is a rather difficult thing to do. When you do read it, you understand why the powers-that-be wanted to keep it in other languages, such as Latin. They don’t want the unwashed masses knowing what’s in this book.

    This made discussing the contents of the bible a difficult and pointless thing to do. When I’d bring up something that wasn’t a feel-good passage that they’re used to having repeated every week, they’d get angry and ask, “Where did you read THAT? Where in the bible is THAT?” Some would ask if I got it from “the dark bible,” whatever that means. In the end, they yell, “Are YOU a bible scholar? Hmmm?” They weren’t bible scholars, either, so that was a bit humorous.

    For this, reason, I would never assume that an American who wears the label of “Christian” is an expert on the subject. Many in America cal themselves Christians, go to church maybe twice per year, if that, don’t read the bible, and have no understanding of any of it. This is evidenced in the Christian support of the Conservative Republican party, which is about as far away from the philosophy of their baby Jesus as humanly possible.

    But, as one good Christian once told me, after I called them out for not reading the bible, “I don’t need to READ it, when I BELIEVE it.”

    Yea, no holes in THAT.

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Dang Martin.
    #4742

    Unseen
    Participant

    God as normally understood (and I’m doing plain language philosophy here) is a spirit with magical powers such as creating stuff (universes, burning bushes, etc.) ex nihilo (excuse me for the latin: “out of nothing”). A spirit, as normally understood, is a noncorporeal consciousness able to interact with the material world without the need of invoking the physical laws. I view that as impossible, and if not impossible, a meaningless and useless idea based on Occam’s Razor. In other words, we don’t need it and it doesn’t really explain anything or contribute to our knowledge.

    I don’t think God/gods are so difficult to define. I go back to:

    God as normally understood (and I’m doing plain language philosophy here) is a spirit with magical powers such as creating stuff (universes, burning bushes, etc.) ex nihilo (excuse me for the latin: “out of nothing”).

    A spirit, as normally understood, is a noncorporeal consciousness able to interact with the material world without the need of invoking the physical laws. I view that as impossible, and if not impossible, a meaningless and useless idea based on Occam’s Razor. In other words, we don’t need it and it doesn’t really explain anything or contribute to our knowledge.

    Do you or anyone or anyone else here disagree with these definitions?

    #4743

    Unseen
    Participant

    Now, do you think a noncorporeal spirit acts in the world in contravention of physical laws? Or do you simply have no opinion about such a ridiculous idea?

    #4744

    Dang Martin
    Participant

    I’d first need proof that spirits exist, or that anything in the supernatural world exists. All I have to go on at this point is the natural world. Everything else, as they say, just ain’t natural.

    #4745

    .
    Spectator

    @regthefronkeyfarmer

    I never claimed to be an expert. I’m just contributing to the conversation.

    #4746

    Dang Martin
    Participant

    The word “believe” is a problem, because it’s part of a loaded language that Christians use. For example, they might refer to a man as their “brother.” When they do this, they’re referring to him as being a fellow Christian. When I reference my “brother,” it’s that one guy who has the same parents as me.

    “Believe” can be an expression of uncertainty. For example, I could say that, “I believe my car is parked over there.” This means that I think it’s parked over there, but I could be wrong.

    It can also be based on historical evidence. For example, I parked my car in the garage last night. I believe that it is still there, based on the fact that it has historically been there. It could be stolen, but there are features in place [electric door, alarm, etc.] that lower the probability of theft. This example does not have the uncertainty of the previous example, and is more about a higher probability.

    It can be an acceptance of something as truth. This is more in line with the Christian use of the word.

    Since the word can be either an “acceptance of truth” or an “opinion,” the word will get used dishonestly in debate or discussion, in a way that best supports a person’s argument.

    The word “faith” also gets abused in a similar fashion, as is evidenced in this video. Utilizing words in this fashion amounts to “bearing false witness,” which is a nice way of calling someone a liar. I think there’s a Top Ten rule about that.

    “What do you mean by ‘believe'” would be a fair question. But it’s better to leave those words out of the discussion, beyond citing whether or not a person has “religious belief.”

    #4747

    Strega
    Moderator

    When I find out where Unseen is hidden, I’m going to put an inflatable rhino in his closet.

    Youd better believe I’m serious!

    #4748

    I know Belle, but Simon thinks that because you are religious your have expertise in these matters. Personally I think that I should learn to treat it as an ecumenical matter like the best priests try to do.

    #4749

    .
    Spectator

    I know Belle, but Simon thinks that because you are religious your have expertise in these matters

    I’m religious? Nah. I’m not religious.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 170 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.