|
I just got baptized - Yea! |
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
relay01 said: The "you've since been corrupted" was a rather poor counter-argument but one that's generally accepted by theists and non-theists alike. I can't speak for anyone else, but the word I take issue with is "corrupted", which implies some sort of degeneration. Quote: As for praying, can you reason how praying correlates with ignorance? I think an argument could be constructed. Not going to bother though, since that discussion is really pointless and a waste of everybody's time. Jesse Lenney said: Show me a study that undeniably proves the absolute effectiveness of prayers, and I will convert from atheism right now.
Apparently people who are very ill and are told that they're being prayed for have lower recovery rates because they experience stress by thinking that they have to "perform better" (recover sooner), which hampers the healing process. There is also some anecdotal evidence that says that it takes about 18 years for a prayer to be fulfilled. Don't know what one could potentially learn from that. Probably either that prayers tend to fulfill themselves through people's actions, but it takes 18 years, or God lives on a spaceship that is 9 lightyears distant (assuming prayer and divine action both travel at the speed of light). That, or there's just too much paper work to get through before a prayer gets reviewed, passed and acted upon. Matthew Leverton said: You'd be better off with an example that doesn't cross religions. Same God though. Quote: You would find fault with any conclusive study because your mind is already made up.
The blade cuts both ways. And for anyone who wants to raise that tired old argument that rejecting religion just means you're being close minded: wrong. It's perfectly possible to consider religious believes, find them wanting, and reject them. |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
Neil Walker said: I'm going to check if there is a church of atheism so I can get baptised. You need to stand outside the Ed Sullivan Theater when the Dave Letterman show is doing the Hose Cam thing They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Jesse Lenney said: I mean, as in, having evidence in which the only possible explanation was the intervention of a super natural being (God); i.e. if prayers actually worked. Again, natural evidence of something supernatural. Anyone demanding this would just deny that it happened, or the evidence was cooked, or there was some other explanation yet to be determined, or any other random rationalization. This is why I won't argue with bambam in the other thread; some things are impossible or just not worth the time. -- |
relay01
Member #6,988
March 2006
|
Evert said: I can't speak for anyone else, but the word I take issue with is "corrupted", which implies some sort of degeneration.
Agreed. @23yrold3yrold: Thank you. Couldn't have put it better myself and I'm sure we both came to that realization at some point in our lives. _____________________________________ |
blargmob
Member #8,356
February 2007
|
hmph. To each his own. --- |
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
relay01 said: If I hadn't already apologized for my poor choice of words with a poor argument, here it is: I'm Sorry.
Oh, that's fine, I'm sure. |
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
Evert said: Same God though. Considering he is trying to prove a contradiction to the religious person, it's quite irrelevant what you believe. And even if the Christian were to say that the Muslim is praying to the same God, they would still say the Muslim prayer is ineffective because they are not believers of a divine Christ. I'm sure there would be a similar argument in the other direction. |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
23yrold3yrold said: Again, natural evidence of something supernatural. Please define natural vs. supernatural. If God is supernatural (unnatural?) then how does he make "natural" stuff? Is natural stuff the mundane events that don't raise eyebrows? It seems to me to be a contradiction in terms, as in talking about "what's outside the universe". If we can't possibly get to it, see it, or interact with it, it doesn't exist (for us at least). They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Neil Walker
Member #210
April 2000
|
Hurrah. I'm now an official minister of the church of atheism. So I've baptised myself. Just got to wait for my name to appear on the list then I can reap the average $300 charge However, if anyone wants to be baptised over the web for free, just ask. Neil. wii:0356-1384-6687-2022, kart:3308-4806-6002. XBOX:chucklepie |
blargmob
Member #8,356
February 2007
|
Neil Walker said: Hurrah. I'm now an official minister of the church of atheism. So I've baptised myself. Just got to wait for my name to appear on the list then I can reap the average $300 charge However, if anyone wants to be baptised over the web for free, just ask. Holy crap. --- |
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Arthur Kalliokoski said: Please define natural vs. supernatural. I'm just using Mr. Lenney's own words. Quote: If God is supernatural (unnatural?) then how does he make "natural" stuff? Who knows? I'm reminded of the joke about the human-making contest where God tells man "get your own dirt". Quote: It seems to me to be a contradiction in terms, as in talking about "what's outside the universe". Assuming the existence of Heaven, Hell, or any other afterlife destination of choice, I assume they would have to exist "outside the universe" as we understand it. Would you expect them to have a street address? -- |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Neil Walker said: However, if anyone wants to be baptised over the web for free, just ask.
23yrold3yrold said: Assuming the existence of Heaven, Hell, or any other afterlife destination of choice, I assume they would have to exist "outside the universe" as we understand it. Would you expect them to have a street address? assuming we find god, that would (to me) imply he/she/it isn't outside of the known universe. Just our idea of the universe has expanded. -- |
relay01
Member #6,988
March 2006
|
Arthur Kalliokoski said: Please define natural vs. supernatural. If God is supernatural (unnatural?) then how does he make "natural" stuff? The best way I've heard this defended is using the dimensional approach. Say for instance your are a being that exists in 2 dimensions (perhaps 3 including time). If some other being that exists in the 3rd ( or 4th w/ time ) dimension were to somehow interfere with your 2D world, you would have no way of perceiving how this change came to be because it violates everything you can test within your 2D parameters. You would be aware of the change as it has effected your 2D world but what caused the change would be supernatural. _____________________________________ |
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Thomas Fjellstrom said: assuming we find god, that would (to me) imply he/she/it isn't outside of the known universe. Just our idea of the universe has expanded. Our idea of the universe expanding would mean an unknown part of the universe had become known, wouldn't it? -- |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Thomas Fjellstrom said: assuming we find god, that would (to me) imply he/she/it isn't outside of the known universe. Just our idea of the universe has expanded. Basically what I mean is science would adapt. 23yrold3yrold said: Our idea of the universe expanding would mean an unknown part of the universe had become known, wouldn't it? Which happens all the time! Tis what science is all about. -- |
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
Matthew Leverton said: And even if the Christian were to say that the Muslim is praying to the same God, they would still say the Muslim prayer is ineffective because they are not believers of a divine Christ. I'm sure there would be a similar argument in the other direction.
Ah. Now. That is an interesting question. |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
relay01 said: you would have no way of perceiving how this change came to be Yes, that's the usual way of explaining the unknown, from "a monster eating the sun" (solar eclipses), "here be dragons" (superstitious sailors reluctant to sail west indefinitely) or even "why evil people succeed" (they'll get theirs in Hell later, right?) They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
relay01
Member #6,988
March 2006
|
Arthur Kalliokoski said: "why evil people succeed" (they'll get theirs in Hell later, right?) Not really familiar with The Gospel are you? _____________________________________ |
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Thomas Fjellstrom said: Which happens all the time! Tis what science is all about. Metaphorically, sure. -- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
The growth of scientific knowledge is far more than metaphor, unlike other trains of thought. http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/teachers/guide/age_size.html relay01 said: Not really familiar with The Gospel are you? I haven't memorized it chapter and verse. Please enlighten me as to evil people getting into heaven. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Quote: Metaphorically, sure. I'm not so sure about that. There could be lots more out there we can't see right now just because we aren't currently capable of seeing it. Just like back before the telescope, or before hubble, or before the new WMAP and other new telescopes. Here's one for the religious folks out there: Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That said, it doesn't mean it isn't scientifically explainable either. -- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
Thomas Fjellstrom said: Here's one for the religious folks out there: Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. When Galileo tried to show the moons of Jupiter to some religious leader, the leader said something to the effect (paraphrased) "I don't have to look. The Bible doesn't mention them so they cannot exist". They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
Sure it does: Quote: And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker. Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. Oh, sorry, You said the moons. |
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Arthur Kalliokoski said: The growth of scientific knowledge is far more than metaphor, unlike other trains of thought. Amusingly, you then link to a page covering the progression of a topic of study over a century. The same topic. A topic (the age of the universe) which is probably hundreds of years old. If the context were different, you wouldn't be making my case for me. This is assuming you're responding to me, of course. -- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
23yrold3yrold said: A topic (the age of the universe) which is probably hundreds of years old. There's not a lot of room to show the advancement of knowledge for something that was just discovered. Well, there is, but they try to get the small stuff out of the way before they publish. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
|