Your Vote, Your Reasons

[ElNono]

Close enough for me. There are more things in heaven and earth, MaryAnnKilledGinger, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Only if flights of angels sing me to my rest. I'm picky about angels that way.

Are you guys flirting?

[anakha]

Are you guys flirting?

Well, this thread has had a little bit of everything else...

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Are you guys flirting?

Nah, just a pair of geeky ex-English majors i suspect.

[LnGrrrR]

That's a good question and one that I've pondered myself. I am an atheist, but have nothing against religion. I've often wondered what kind of proof it would take to get me to believe in the Christian God. Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that outside of a guy with a flowing beard and robes descending from the sky and saying "That whole Bible-thing. Yeah, it's all true," I'd probably evaluate any other type of evidence with a great degree of skepticism and disbelief.

I say "sadly," because at times I've been critical of believers and I've thought to myself "Man, what's it going to take before they realize that the Christian God is man-made phenomena created to provide us with a sense of security and comfort in an unpredictable and uncaring world." I'm no better than they are and really have no more evidence for my beliefs than they do.

To be fair, I think the LACK of evidence for Jesus showing up is enough to not believe in him. Given his stated want for all of our souls to go to Heaven.

Of course, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti Monster DO exist... but you being a fellow atheist, I don't have to tell you about them, right? Hehe.

[TheMadHatter]

What does it mean to be a Christian?

That you fully believe in the miracles of Christ and you accept him as the one and ONLY savior?

If you found out all of the "miracles" Jesus performed in the Bible were completely fabricated by the Church how would it affect you as a Christian? Would it make you a non-believer, or would your belief remain strong?

[LnGrrrR]

why would a non christian follow the bible?

Most of the 'major' tenets that Jesus espouses (don't lie, don't steal, be good to your parents) are followed by most functioning societies. Honestly, I can't see many societies that DIDN'T follow some of these rules existing for very long.

That's why there's so many superhero groups and not many supervillain groups.

[PixelPusher]

But it's attributed to a Spurs fan. Eeewwww!!

Admit it...you're a little creeped out by this pic, aren't you?

[LnGrrrR]

By your estimate, do you think my question was a 'loaded' or 'tricky' question?

Uhm.. it's tricky. Tricky tricky tricky (here we go!)...

it's tricky
to rock a rhyme
to rock a rhyme
that's right on time
it's tricky

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

[Mr. Peabody]

To be fair, I think the LACK of evidence for Jesus showing up is enough to not believe in him. Given his stated want for all of our souls to go to Heaven.

Yeah, but my greater point was that even if there was "evidence" I probably wouldn't be open to believing it. And that's why I made the comment that I am no better than those that I have criticized.

Also, your point goes back to the query posed by the others on the thread - what evidence WOULD convince you?

[CuckingFunt]

Admit it...you're a little creeped out by this pic, aren't you?

Yes. But only because of the y hipster facial hair. The t-shirt is adorable.

[Tully365]

Are you guys flirting?

Ha. Just think of it as being happy to release pent up favorite literary quotations that the guys at work wouldn't approve of. And stop spying on us, ya pervert.

[Mr. Peabody]

Most of the 'major' tenets that Jesus espouses (don't lie, don't steal, be good to your parents) are followed by most functioning societies. Honestly, I can't see many societies that DIDN'T follow some of these rules existing for very long.

Well, society is not really possible without these rules. That's why I believe that we can and should be moral without any external promises of salvation or threats of damnation.

[Tully365]

Uhm.. it's tricky. Tricky tricky tricky (here we go!)...

it's tricky
to rock a rhyme
to rock a rhyme
that's right on time
it's tricky

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

You never have to apologize for greatness. Loved that song from Day 1.

[CuckingFunt]

You never have to apologize for greatness. Loved that song from Day 1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C2b8XWJnfE

[PixelPusher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C2b8XWJnfE

Wow, Penn and Teller where a team even way back then?

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah, but my greater point was that even if there was "evidence" I probably wouldn't be open to believing it. And that's why I made the comment that I am no better than those that I have criticized.

Also, your point goes back to the query posed by the others on the thread - what evidence WOULD convince you?

I responded earlier upthread, but in short... Jesus stopping by Times Square, a bunch of people do enting it in a variety of ways, him performing some miracles, and then doing it every weekend or so for a month. That'd probably be enough.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Well, society is not really possible without these rules. That's why I believe that we can and should be moral without any external promises of salvation or threats of damnation.

That's probably why every successful society in history came to adopt them regardless of mythology.

[Mr. Peabody]

I responded earlier upthread, but in short... Jesus stopping by Times Square, a bunch of people do enting it in a variety of ways, him performing some miracles, and then doing it every weekend or so for a month. That'd probably be enough.

Does David Blaine hanging upside down for 30 days qualify?

[ElNono]

I never said ambiguity was in the original question, i said it occured when you yourself as you say provided information that fingers weren't the only possible variables.

^^^^^

I'll agree that the trick doesn't make it invalid like you did right there. It makes it a loaded question which is what i said it was.

How could I ever introduce any tricks or ambiguity when the question never EVER changed since I posted it. Did I change the question at ANY time?
How could it be, all of a sudden, ambiguous, loaded or tricky when the question never changed?

Also i never said science was stupid. I said science was like religion, so i guess since you think religions are stupid you equated the two.

You said many things, including:

I'm not calling out science I like science and science has already proven through science that it can't prove everything. My argument is in that original quote that he argues that we believe in something that we have no proof exists, when it's existence has yet to be disproven. So instead of believing in something they take the easy way out and play the "we don't know" card and then hate on the people that feel that they do.

First of all, I'd like to see where you got that 'science has already proven through science that it can't prove everything'. Do you have a link to this, or any kind of evidence?

Second, if there's anybody that has no intention ever to find out whether god truly exists or not is religion, the complete opposite of science. On this very topic I would ask you: If science were to prove irrefutably that god does not exist, would you still believe in him?

Third, how could you claim that 'believing in something' is the 'easy way out'? It's entirely the opposite way. In order to not believe, you have to work hard to scientifically prove what you propose. Believing in the supernatural is the easy way out. You chalk up anything you don't understand to god, and move along.

Fourth, please show me a quote of where I said that religion is stupid? I can show you a quote where I stated that I respect religious people and I think religion is what works for some people.

Fifth, the goals of science and religion have absolutely nothing in common. Please explain how you ended up with your conclusion that they're both the same thing?

[Drachen]

Answer me this then - since no one around here has attempted to answer the question in the three years that I've been a member of this forum. What differentiates a recently deceased corpse from a living person? I mean, the corpse has every necessary biological component and element required to live. Why then is it dead? The DNA is still there, no? Shouldn't life be there too then? We all know this is not the case, as corpses just wither away.

IMO life is not a physical attribute. It is a gift from the spiritual realm. So until that realm is physically defined, I will continue to believe that life itself is by very definition 'supernatural'.

Even though I know exactly where this will go the difference is that the DNA and therefore cells, etc. stop replicating.

[ElNono]

Uhm.. it's tricky. Tricky tricky tricky (here we go!)...

it's tricky
to rock a rhyme
to rock a rhyme
that's right on time
it's tricky

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

I see. It's like a tricky ricky kind of thing...

[LnGrrrR]

Does David Blaine hanging upside down for 30 days qualify?

Uhm... big miracles. Not dumb, boring ones.

[LnGrrrR]

Even though I know exactly where this will go the difference is that the DNA and therefore cells, etc. stop replicating.

He would've been more effective if he had posed the mind/body duality problem... well, maybe more effective.

[anakha]

Uhm... big miracles. Not dumb, boring ones.

So how would you define a 'big miracle'? Keeping in mind the physical limitations of Times Square, of course.

[Tully365]

Does David Blaine hanging upside down for 30 days qualify?

Blaine's best magic trick would be showing up with a personality that isn't creepy. That would be the equivalent of God creating a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift, or Michael Bolton writing a really good song... or what we mortals call impossible.