Fox News Goes After Pope

  On 12/16/2013 at 11:22 PM, disparaissant said:

 

  On 12/16/2013 at 11:17 PM, sheatheman said:

When you become a professor at UCLA you could teach a course on how ad hominem is a cool thing and how it has and will continue to do a lot for the feminist agenda.

fuckin lol at the irony right hurr

 

"wah you called me a name therefore i'm going to suggest that you are harming feminism by calling me a name in a conversation that had fuckall to do with feminism because i am a whinny babby wah"

 

 

For feminists, feminism is the primary lens through which life is glimpsed. What color would that be? Probably the same color as HPV vaccine campaign ribbons.

flol i uh

i actually own this shirt:

my ex got it for me

  On 12/16/2013 at 11:40 PM, sheatheman said:

For feminists, feminism is the primary lens through which life is glimpsed. What color would that be? Probably the same color as HPV vaccine campaign ribbons.

wah wah wah how dare u ad hominem me *vacuously throws out red straw herringmans and goes on the offensive*

  On 12/16/2013 at 11:30 PM, luke viia said:

 

  On 12/16/2013 at 11:17 PM, sheatheman said:

I also appreciate how this whole thread has ignored my reference to Francis Collins. It's because that fact just does not fit into your Saganist worldview. It does not compute.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/collins.html

 

I directly commented on your Francis Collins bit, come on now. This is a pretty cool interview though, thanks for the link duder.

 

"As I began to ask a few questions of those people (dying patients), I realized something very fundamental: I had made a decision to reject any faith view of the world without ever really knowing what it was that I had rejected. And that worried me. As a scientist, you're not supposed to make decisions without the data. It was pretty clear I hadn't done any data collecting here about what these faiths stood for.

 

"Now, I was still pretty sure that faith traditions were all superstition and something that would not apply to me, and something that I wouldn't be interested in. But I did feel compelled to find out a bit more about what it was that I had rejected. So with an intention of shooting this all down, I went to speak to a Methodist minister in Chapel Hill, which is where I was at the time. I sat in his office and made all sorts of accusations, and probably said blasphemous things about the faith that he stood for, but sincerely asked him to help me find out what it was all about. And he was very tolerant and patient and listened and suggested that, for starters, it might be good if I read a little bit more about what these faiths stood for....""

 

a good scientist meets a good pastor

 

also lol @ saganist. hail sagan my dark lord and master.

 

 

Well, now you have addressed it. Glad you appreciate Saganist.

Just out of curiosity shea, are you a creationist?

 

This may open a can of worms. I apologize in advance if it does, for I will be leaving.

Edited December 16, 2013 by luke viia

I don't concern myself with that, but you know I am not quick to interpret the bible metaphorically.

Watch out limpy, you're coming dangerously close to disgracing IDM with that nonsense.

  On 12/16/2013 at 11:52 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

"God gave us an opportunity through science to understand the natural world, but there will never be a scientific proof of God's existence." -Francis Collins

If there will never be scientific proof of God's existence then there will never be a good reason to believe in God.

"To my surprise, I found myself fairly easily compelled by his arguments about the existence of some sort of a God, because even as a scientist, I had to admit that we had no idea how the universe got started." -Francis Collins

Did someone call him a good scientist? Lol. This is called God Of The Gaps. It used to be "We don't know where lightning comes from, so it must be God." And so on and so on throughout history. Not knowing the cause of something is not a reason to believe in God. Fucking lol. Disgrace to science, this man.

 

 

Good detective work Limpy. The Human Genome Project has been a complete waste of time too. You should write him a letter of complaint, and write Obama a letter too for making him the director of the National Institutes of Health.

 

I like how for your first quote you used that quote on the right side that was already quoted for you. Efficiently done.

Edited December 17, 2013 by sheatheman

  On 12/16/2013 at 11:58 PM, disparaissant said:

Watch out limpy, you're coming dangerously close to disgracing IDM with that nonsense.

 

I know, right. And my rejection of of unfounded claims just betrays my dogmatism.

some people are on a "there's a god" trip

some people are on a "there's no god" trip

i'd say all trips are equally groovy but that's only because i'm on an all trips are equally groovy trip

  On 12/16/2013 at 11:59 PM, sheatheman said:

 

  On 12/16/2013 at 11:52 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

"God gave us an opportunity through science to understand the natural world, but there will never be a scientific proof of God's existence." -Francis Collins

If there will never be scientific proof of God's existence then there will never be a good reason to believe in God.

"To my surprise, I found myself fairly easily compelled by his arguments about the existence of some sort of a God, because even as a scientist, I had to admit that we had no idea how the universe got started." -Francis Collins

Did someone call him a good scientist? Lol. This is called God Of The Gaps. It used to be "We don't know where lightning comes from, so it must be God." And so on and so on throughout history. Not knowing the cause of something is not a reason to believe in God. Fucking lol. Disgrace to science, this man.

 

 

Good detective work Limpy. The Human Genome Project has been a complete waste of time too. You should write him a letter of complaint, and write Obama a letter too for making him the director of the National Institutes of Health.

 

 

Did I say that? I'm sure there are many areas in which applies scientific rigor, just not when it comes to his religious beliefs.

  On 12/17/2013 at 12:02 AM, Cryptowen said:

some people are on a "there's a god" trip

some people are on a "there's no god" trip

i'd say all trips are equally groovy but that's only because i'm on an all trips are equally groovy trip

 

some of us are on a "there might be a god but atm there's no good reason to believe there is" trip

Edited December 17, 2013 by LimpyLoo

alls ahm sayin is, there's the "tao that can be spoken is not the true tao" angle to all of this. i mean if people dig having debates, then by all means, but i feel that words can only take one so far when it comes to the fundamentals of everything, regardless of whether your personal interpretation involves complex arrays of chemical/mathematical reactions, or a divine conundrum of infinite beauty, or a big stone head that flies around the irish countryside vomiting guns on people

Actually you did say that, but now you appear to be pedaling in reverse somewhat.

  On 12/17/2013 at 12:16 AM, sheatheman said:

Actually you did say that, but now you appear to be pedaling in reverse somewhat.

 

I said he's a disgrace to science. I didn't say everything he ever did or said was wrong.

 

Every delusional person on the planet has plenty of normal, well-founded beliefs.

  On 12/17/2013 at 12:16 AM, Cryptowen said:

alls ahm sayin is, there's the "tao that can be spoken is not the true tao" angle to all of this. i mean if people dig having debates, then by all means, but i feel that words can only take one so far when it comes to the fundamentals of everything, regardless of whether your personal interpretation involves complex arrays of chemical/mathematical reactions, or a divine conundrum of infinite beauty, or a big stone head that flies around the irish countryside vomiting guns on people

 

You are right. Words can have power, but probably not in digital anonymity where we lack the context of the manner in which the person saying the words lives her/his life. This is just a computer monitor after all.

a priest, a scientist and a hooker walk into a bar..... etc

 

hahahahahaha!

 

?

  On 12/17/2013 at 12:22 AM, sheatheman said:

 

  On 12/17/2013 at 12:16 AM, Cryptowen said:

alls ahm sayin is, there's the "tao that can be spoken is not the true tao" angle to all of this. i mean if people dig having debates, then by all means, but i feel that words can only take one so far when it comes to the fundamentals of everything, regardless of whether your personal interpretation involves complex arrays of chemical/mathematical reactions, or a divine conundrum of infinite beauty, or a big stone head that flies around the irish countryside vomiting guns on people

 

You are right. Words can have power, but probably not in digital anonymity where we lack the context of the manner in which the person saying the words lives her/his life. This is just a computer monitor after all.

 

 

Claims stand and fall by their own merit. It doesn't matter how anyone lives their life. Like I've said, if a rapist says "2 + 2 = 4" then it's true regardless of the fact that he's a rapist.

 

I think you are hinting at the idea that if you could see how us atheists live then you'd discover that we're all sinners and thus conclude that that is the reason we're atheists, so we don't have to follow God's command.

 

Either a claim about the universe is well-founded or it's not. Doesn't matter who said it.

  On 12/17/2013 at 12:22 AM, sheatheman said:

You are right. Words can have power, but probably not in digital anonymity where we lack the context of the manner in which the person saying the words lives her/his life. This is just a computer monitor after all.

with face to face conversations you have body language, vocal nuance, a ton of x factors that inform the experience. Mst of the times it still won't get a person anywhere (the much maligned polite small talk of the corporate/consumer environment), but once in a while you have moments where it all just clicks. Unplanned moments of genuine beauty where all affected go "oh wait, that's what this is all about", and the god/science debate becomes secondary to the actual experiencing of whatever the heck all this shimmery stuff around me actually is Edited December 17, 2013 by Cryptowen

@ limpy

 

Not at all what I'm saying. Most of my friends are athiests or agnostics. I know how they live.

 

It's my concern that I'm a sinner first and foremost. I believe all have and will sin.

 

My point was that words here are digital packages that do little to represent the people behind them. It was a point of mutual love and understanding. If anything, I wasn't saying that it would be easier for me to dismiss you, it would be harder for you to dismiss me, because my claim as a Christian is one of love.

 

@owen

 

If you really know someone honestly, you can see their actions which gives something to their words.

Edited December 17, 2013 by sheatheman

  On 12/17/2013 at 12:37 AM, sheatheman said:

Not at all what I'm saying. Most of my friends are athiests or agnostics. I know how they live.

 

It's my concern that I'm a sinner first and foremost. I believe all have and will sin.

 

My point was that words here are digital packages that do little to represent the people behind them. It was a point of mutual love and understanding. If anything, I wasn't saying that it would be easier for me to dismiss you, it would be harder for you to dismiss me, because my claim as a Christian is one of love.

 

That's all good and well, I'm sure you're a decent person. You could be the nicest person on the planet, but that wouldn't lend any credence to the factual claims of the Bible.

@ owen

 

I was thinking about that though, about small talk. I think it is much worse than it used to be, because people talk to each other on the model of how digitally accelerated culture says we should talk, not how they actually want to. We are so entrenched in the model that it becomes the easiest form to realize in the day-to-day, and thus communication as discovery is usurped by communication as ritual. That's why most of us are on this forum, because we are not sufficiently sustained by our social lives in real life. We want more.

  On 12/17/2013 at 12:40 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 12/17/2013 at 12:37 AM, sheatheman said:

Not at all what I'm saying. Most of my friends are athiests or agnostics. I know how they live.

 

It's my concern that I'm a sinner first and foremost. I believe all have and will sin.

 

My point was that words here are digital packages that do little to represent the people behind them. It was a point of mutual love and understanding. If anything, I wasn't saying that it would be easier for me to dismiss you, it would be harder for you to dismiss me, because my claim as a Christian is one of love.

 

That's all good and well, I'm sure you're a decent person. You could be the nicest person on the planet, but that wouldn't lend any credence to the factual claims of the Bible.

 

 

You say that in theory, but in practice...

  On 12/17/2013 at 12:43 AM, sheatheman said:

@ owen

 

I was thinking about that though, about small talk. I think it is much worse than it used to be, because people talk to each other on the model of how digitally accelerated culture says we should talk, not how they actually want to. We are so entrenched in the model that it becomes the easiest form to realize in the day-to-day, and thus communication as discovery is usurped by communication as ritual. That's why most of us are on this forum, because we are not sufficiently sustained by our social lives in real life. We want more.

 

Not that you were addressing me but I wanna jump in...

 

 

Yeah I think the internet has wreaked a little bit of havoc on interpersonal skills and habits. But I think face-to-face interactions have been problematic since we stopped living in a small, community-like groups. We routinely meet and interact with people that we know we'll never see again, and so that imo is the source of much of the superficiality of face-to-face interactions.

  On 12/17/2013 at 12:47 AM, sheatheman said:

 

  On 12/17/2013 at 12:40 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 12/17/2013 at 12:37 AM, sheatheman said:

Not at all what I'm saying. Most of my friends are athiests or agnostics. I know how they live.

 

It's my concern that I'm a sinner first and foremost. I believe all have and will sin.

 

My point was that words here are digital packages that do little to represent the people behind them. It was a point of mutual love and understanding. If anything, I wasn't saying that it would be easier for me to dismiss you, it would be harder for you to dismiss me, because my claim as a Christian is one of love.

 

That's all good and well, I'm sure you're a decent person. You could be the nicest person on the planet, but that wouldn't lend any credence to the factual claims of the Bible.

 

 

You say that in theory, but in practice...

 

 

If you meet a really nice Muslim, does that make the factual claims of the Koran true?

  On 12/16/2013 at 6:52 PM, sheatheman said:

 

  On 12/16/2013 at 9:43 AM, LimpyLoo said:

The immorality of God doesn't render Christianity false, the lack of evidence supporting its claims does. The only real difference between the God of the Bible and Zeus is that the God of the Bible happens to be more popular at the moment.

 

And Jesus isn't the answer to anything. Jesus said "slaves, obey your masters" when he could have said "slaves, gain your freedom" or "slavemasters, free your slaves." Of course the very obvious reason for this is that the Bible was written by people with stone-age morals and so the Bible also has stone-age morals. It's not a coincidence, and it's not because God is mysterious and we can't understand his ways.

 

Jesus said for slaves to obey their masters because doing so would honor God and be a witness to their masters. Existence here is a flash.

  On 12/16/2013 at 10:44 AM, SR4 said:

wow epic post gmanyo!

 

i dont have time to break it all down right now, but if this thread is still around ill try to come up with something in response.

 

No need to respond as it was a pretty sound explanation.

 

 

for a Christian mystic, you sure are a right cunt.

@Limpy

 

I have never been witnessed to by a muslim, since they don't really do that, but if I had a muslim friend who earnestly brought up my salvation in the eyes of Allah, it would cause me to think quite a bit.

Edited December 17, 2013 by sheatheman