[analogbear]

Originally Posted by Italgirl1971

Some places you can't shoot a firearm within a certain number of feet of a residence. Just depends on the state.

Thank you, counselor...

[ratchetman]

Originally Posted by Italgirl1971

Atheists deny the existence of a god or gods. This is not a faith because there is no leap to be made - concluding that god doesn't exist is based on information, not on faith.

Atheists draw their conclusions based on information that they believe to be true. They believe this information because they have chosen to place their faith in this information. That is the essence of their "faith" choosing to believe that the information they have chosen to put their faith in is correct and that the process used to obtain that information was not flawed. I cannot bring myself to put such confidence in human methods and thinking.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by ratchetman

Atheists draw their conclusions based on information that they believe to be true. They believe this information because they have chosen to place their faith in this information. That is the essence of their "faith" choosing to believe that the information they have chosen to put their faith in is correct and that the process used to obtain that information was not flawed. I cannot bring myself to put such confidence in human methods and thinking.

Actually, that is completely wrong...
"Putting faith" in information as you use it presumes two things: that we are evaluating positive evidence for the non-belief in god/gods without science or reason, and that human methods are flawed.

To give a quick counter-perspective to a lager question, if human methods are not worthy of confidence, but the existence and word of god is relayed to us by human methods, then how can we know that god exists at all, let alone what he wants for us?

However, there are 2 major branches of athiest:

1- Those find the idea of god/gods meaningful, but who reject the idea of god/gods because of either a lack of evidence FOR god, or because of too much evidence for NO god.

2- Those who reject the idea out of hand as not meaningful, because it is either nonesense, or literally without meaning.

Perhaps the first one might be considered as a corollary to believers IN god, a sort of tomayto-tomahto thing, but there is a quality of evidence problem. Not having faith in something that can't be proven to exist is not a "faith" issue, it is a cosmological issue or, if we want to ignore the natural world and just do "knowledge" it is a quality of evidence issue in epistemology, not an emotional state of being. People keep trying to place "faith" into some intellectual/epistemological parity with truth, reason, and facts that it just can't reach because of how faith and facts, faith and knowledge, and faith and reason all relate to eachother. A person may hold his or her faith up as the "gold standard," but it is insufficient to declare something that can only be believed in, never tested, or proven, or repeated the "truth" or a fact. Not believing then, in something that can't be proven to exist is not having faith in its "lack of existence," it is in point of fact, relating the real world and its lack of positive evidence for the thing that can't be proven to exist.

The second group of athiests reject the idea of god or gods out of hand, and this is even less of a belief issue, because they don't even grant it enough meaning to really conduct any analysis...So, for them, there is even less of a risk of being confused with people of faith.

[ratchetman]

Just because some people chose to live in denial doesn't mean I'm wrong. Human methods are inherently flawed. At one time the most learned and respectable men in the world believed that the earth was flat. Today there are a bunch of scholars running around saying that high explosives brought down the World Trade center and that man evolved from something else rather than being made in the image if God. We are usually wrong about most things because what we believe to be true keeps changing.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by ratchetman

We are usually wrong about most things because what we believe to be true keeps changing.

Thanks for not really responding to my post, but for helping to establish my point...You are wrong, there is no god as you worship, define, or believe.

[ratchetman]

Although you would not agree, the bible does not change. And God does not change. Therefore I can put my faith, trust, confidence, hope and belief in him. He has never let me down and he never will.
You say there is no positive proof that is not true, there is no proof that you will accept. I would not matter what proof you were presented with you still would not believe , because you don't want to. The opposite argument can be made to what you said. How can you prove that God does not exist? There is plenty of evidence that he exists, and all of the rational that some would consider evidence that he does not I find extremely weak.

[Italgirl1971]

Originally Posted by ratchetman

Atheists draw their conclusions based on information that they believe to be true. They believe this information because they have chosen to place their faith in this information. That is the essence of their "faith" choosing to believe that the information they have chosen to put their faith in is correct and that the process used to obtain that information was not flawed. I cannot bring myself to put such confidence in human methods and thinking.

The information they compile which they then believe to be true is (a) gathered with a slant toward both the existence and non-existence of a god and thusly weighed, (b) it is gathered from multiple sources (i.e. more than one document). Whereas the belief in God comes out of the belief in one document and only one document - no other views are allowed into the argument... unless of course they can be slanted in such a way as to "prove" the truth of the one document.

Originally Posted by ratchetman

Just because some people chose to live in denial doesn't mean I'm wrong. Human methods are inherently flawed. At one time the most learned and respectable men in the world believed that the earth was flat. Today there are a bunch of scholars running around saying that high explosives brought down the World Trade center and that man evolved from something else rather than being made in the image if God. We are usually wrong about most things because what we believe to be true keeps changing.

Believing the earth was flat was due solely to limited technology - they saw the horizon and well damn if it didn't LOOK flat! saying high explosives brought down the WTC is a conspiracy theory. Why? Because there is actual video footage of airplanes crashing into these buildings. As for evolution - while the arguments for it are many and complex, it would be a stretch to say it amounts to a conspiracy theory.

[ratchetman]

While we have the ability to see the spherical nature of the earth, our technology is still limited and therefore we have no clue of the things we don't know. BTW there is still a flat earth society.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by ratchetman

While we have the ability to see the spherical nature of the earth, our technology is still limited and therefore we have no clue of the things we don't know. BTW there is still a flat earth society.

You are linking together here two distinct branches of understanding.

Limited technology, and the effect that has on scientific discovery has more to do with facts and the nature of the physical universe, rather than the "knowledge" of things that (may transcend the physical world or) are things known, but not necessarily represented in a physically-knowable sense in the tangible world without establishing the connection through reason/logic/etc.

In this sense, because establishing the existence of god is by definition beyond ALL scientific ability and technology, and because even knowledge requires reason for a justification, if we are to use those things discoverable by technology as the bechmark for "proof in fact," there is no god; and those things justifiable through reason as the benchmark for things known, there is no real knowledge of god. What that really boils down to is exactly what I have been saying:
There is neither proof of, nor faith in god by people.
What there is, is a fear-inspired historical and emotional identified-need to believe in something greater than the individual (which might be what defines real sentience, not merely being self aware, but that is another issue), and a solution has been developed by each culture on the planet, that evolved as the culture evoled, and then absorbed the heterogeneous aspects of other solutions from other cultures until we have reached today; today, with the mish-mash of sects, paths, churches, temples, mosques, etc. the emotion of "faith" among the faithful has the force of truth or belief, rather than its actual emotional status.
There is a "momentum of belief," that allows people to defy proof, to defy reason, and to defy truth; this is the danger of faith, and represents why people who say they believe should do in-depth research about ALL religions, to glean from them the common threads. If they then choose a particular path, sect, church, or dogma that provides comfortable ritual, then cool. But to not read EVERYTHING one possibly can about the various ways humans have tried to explain the nature of god, is to remain ignorant. Without this rational approach, reading tons of text about god, and allowing the historical facts surrounding the development and evolution of religions and religious documents, people of supposed "faith" will always be seen as somewhat crazy to people who don't believe "their way" or don't believe at all.

However, I suspect that was not what you wanted to say.

You say the bible and god does not change, and yet these ideas can only be known through humanity, by text or oral history; and, because THOSE media change nearly constantly over time, any understanding we have from the evolving interpretation of the document or deity can be understood as a change in the "perceived nature" of the document and deity...

You can't make an argument that withstands the giggle-test positing that the bible of nearly 2000 years ago is the exact same document as today...We have a Good News Bible, and all sorts of translations; we have lost gospells, dead sea scrolls, text lost in the Fire at Alexandria, etc...What we have, then, is two issues: one about quality of evidence, because the bible itself has a questionable credibility -when viewed without bias for or against, merely as a text-document; and the other about sufficiency of the evidence...The "single-source" issue is difficult to overcome, because there is no independant confirmation of all parts of the text in dispute.

[Italgirl1971]

ok since this particular strand of the discussion just seems to take us in circles - Bear and I repeating ourselves, Ratchetman saying we're wrong and repeating himself, and so on and so forth... I would like to posit a new subtopic.

I read a blog the other day written by a christian that I thought was pretty interesting. He said he had noticed that there seemed to be an upsurge in protestant christianity (presumably he's protestant, not sure) of anti-homosexual rhetoric from the leaders of the church - pastors, reverends, etc. He was astute enough to make the connection that the bible says homosexuality is a sin (presumably through the Sodom and Gommorah tales), but that all sin is equal and it is ALSO a sin to judge - that is a job for god alone. Therefore, he concluded, that the preachers, pastors, etc who were engaged in anti-homosexual rhetoric were just as sinful as the homosexuals they proclaimed were sinning.

He also suggested that the reason the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed was not because they were populated with homosexuals, but rather because the entire population (excepting 1 person) were murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and yes homosexuals. Had those cities been populated with loving, caring, decent people and those same few homosexuals, then the cities likely would have been spared destruction.

No real way to prove his theory either way but I thought it was interesting nonetheless as I had never really thought about it that way before. Ratchetman? Bear? Your thoughts?

[analogbear]

There are several isolated but oft-repeated lines from the bible that tell followers that a man is not to lie with a man as with women; and then in other passages it says that it is better to lay with a prostitute than to spill seed on the ground (presumably anti-masturbation), without classification of the depth of either of those sins, it's OK to bang a hooker, but not jerk-off or fall in love with/bang someone of the same sex? Some biblical scholars have posited that the anti-homosexual rhetoric referenced in the bible is a covert ad hominem circumstantial fallacy against the ancient greeks, to help discredit their philosophy or reason, logic, science, metaphysics, etc..
I don't know, I think all of it is fairly silly.

I do find it interesting that judgement has always supposedly been in the hands of god alone; and yet here in the US, every red-neck with a bible and a 3rd grade education passes more judgement in a day than god does in the whole darn bible...

I don't know about the not destroying the cities if they were just gay thing...As I understand the story, it is a stick to motivate people not to indulge in the bad behaviors, and homosexuality was one of those behaviors frowned upon by the 2nd generation of christianity-architects (after the priestesses were demoted). God also, like the Army, believes in mass-punishment, to force neighbors to spy on and help correct, neighbors...So, I guess the idea was to discourage gay-ness too.

(As a side note, I am certainly not a homophobe, nor am I gay, but I confess to a certain evolutionary bias against homosexuality. Being gay is cool, but doesn't naturally continue the species without either scientific intervention or social adjustments (surrogacy, willingness for a gay lady to receive some sausage with cream, etc), and as such, in a hunter-gatherer, survival of the species way, homosexuality is aberrant. However, if a guy wants to bang some guy, or a girl wants to bang some girl, I have no problem with the group of them forming an extended family unit, with 2 breeding pairs and two romantic pairs, the same 4 people with 2 different partners each. I draw the line at "gay marriage," as I view marriage not in the legal rights sense, but in the institutional sense. Any competent adult should be able to establish family rights analogous to marriage, without calling them "married." That seems like a label only, and as such, let us not change the label to spite the rights-won in many states now. Gay folks who want to be called married sound an awful lot like white dudes who want to be called the N-word, or black dudes who want to be called "cracker" or "whitey." Why call yourself something that, as an institution, excludes you?)

[ratchetman]

"Why call yourself something that, as an institution, excludes you?"

Good point.

Where in the bible does it say that it is better to have sex with a prostitute than to masturbate? That's news to me.

The bible says that all of the men both young and old from every part of the city wanted to have sex with Lot's guests.

For me it's and issue of right and wrong. It seems that it's getting harder today to call something wrong. People think that they should be able to do whatever they please and heaven help you if you disagree. Homosexuality is wrong and I have the right to say so. Same as anything else that I feel is wrong. That said it's not my place to lobby government for laws to curb homosexual activity. They have the right to do as they please in the bedroom, as long as there are not kids involved. If the gays don't have a problem with their sexuality then why would I try to stop them. I do have a problem when some of them think that they need to have special rights beyond what the rest of us have. Or if they think that I have to approve of what they do. I don't approve and I never will.
I can understand the temptation for pastors to engage in anti gay rhetoric. But I don't think that it is useful. The idea is that in a healthy church environment people would feel conviction for their sin and repent. Not because someone beat them about the head with a book but independently from that. That is why I would not tell someone living in a common law relationship that they are living in sin. If they don't believe like I do then what they are doing makes sense to them. If however they decide to become Christians they are going to come to the conclusion that what they are doing is wrong and change it. I have seen this many times in church. We don't get on their case about it. I don't know what our pastor would do if some gays started attending. For all I know some already do.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by ratchetman

People think that they should be able to do whatever they please and heaven help you if you disagree.

Homosexuality is wrong and I have the right to say so.

I do have a problem when some of them think that they need to have special rights beyond what the rest of us have. .

People should be able to do what they want, if what they want to do is believe in your god your way, right? Unless they are nonbelievers, right? Then don't you think they are going to burn in hell?

Correction:

You do not have the right to say that homosexuality, or anything not universally bad is "wrong;" you do have the absolute right to say things are wrong for you, and that you won't do them; that you don't agree with certain things and so forth...To proclaim that things are "wrong" implies a certain authority and ethical position of power that, as a human, you just can't claim about something that doesn't obviously injure other people...
Raping, killing, torturing, etc. are all "objectively wrong" because they tangibly hurt those not willingly engaged in the activity...Gay sex, even if distasteful to some, offends nobody else, unless they are nosy, or maybe god--but I am pretty sure that god could open a can of whoop-ass if he really wanted to, so no human need be judgemental about who has a dick in their mouth when...

Homosexuals in a committed romantic loving relationship don't want MORE rights, they just want the same rights...That's cool with me...

[slorider18]

ok, i'm still with ratchetman all the way. anyway, it seems to me most people get so offended when a "christian" says they are doing something "wrong". Why is the possible punishment so offensive. is it really such an awful idea that people may have to account for their actions here on earth at some time, and if they are found wanting to be punished, or vice versa. i don't understand why every one is so angered by the thought of judgement. please enlighten.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by slorider18

ok, i'm still with ratchetman all the way. anyway, it seems to me most people get so offended when a "christian" says they are doing something "wrong". Why is the possible punishment so offensive. is it really such an awful idea that people may have to account for their actions here on earth at some time, and if they are found wanting to be punished, or vice versa. i don't understand why every one is so angered by the thought of judgement. please enlighten.

Of course you are with him, the bible has taken the place of rational thought...

Nobody has the right to tell another the are doing something "wrong" unless that thing is objectively wrong...

Because the real danger comes from people who wilfully choose not to be thinkers/ people of reason, and then try to pass judgemeny, folks get pissed...

But, dude, how do you react to some of my other posts?

[slorider18]

not sure what you what you would like me to respond. we still disagree with each other. i don't know how you can be so sure of yourself but you don't think i should be so sure of myself. just know the lord loves you and i'm praying for you.

[Atreyu]

no one's trying to force anything down someone else's throat, everybody's just giving their opinions and giving reasons why they believe what they do...this is why I don't get into many convo's that have to do with religion cause people get their panties in a twist and can't get over the fact I disagree with alot of what the chrisitian religion says

[Italgirl1971]

Originally Posted by slorider18

ok, i'm still with ratchetman all the way. anyway, it seems to me most people get so offended when a "christian" says they are doing something "wrong". Why is the possible punishment so offensive. is it really such an awful idea that people may have to account for their actions here on earth at some time, and if they are found wanting to be punished, or vice versa. i don't understand why every one is so angered by the thought of judgement. please enlighten.

Why not simply have a conscience and account for your actions now, in this lifetime? A guilty conscience, IMHO, is your better self telling you that what you did was wrong. You can choose to punish yourself for it however you see fit - feel remorse, beat yourself up over it, or simply apologize for judging someone else. I can't give you a citation, but it was said somewhere: "judge not lest you be judged."

Originally Posted by ratchetman

I can understand the temptation for pastors to engage in anti gay rhetoric. But I don't think that it is useful. The idea is that in a healthy church environment people would feel conviction for their sin and repent. Not because someone beat them about the head with a book but independently from that. That is why I would not tell someone living in a common law relationship that they are living in sin. If they don't believe like I do then what they are doing makes sense to them. If however they decide to become Christians they are going to come to the conclusion that what they are doing is wrong and change it. I have seen this many times in church. We don't get on their case about it. I don't know what our pastor would do if some gays started attending. For all I know some already do.

Decide to become christians?!?! You presume that homosexuals have no religion (or a non-christian religion that allows for homosexual behavior). I know a gay man who is Catholic. For the life of me I don't know why he remains a Catholic, but he does. I can only assume its because that is what he believes. And he doesn't try to closet his sexuality because that is who he is. So I doubt I'm too far off the mark when I say that there are many homosexuals who were christians long before they even had a word in their vocabulary for being gay. Why? Because mom and dad were christians and took little Tommy to sunday school at the church every week and that's how he grew up - its what his parents believe and. well, he was indoctrinated to believe it too from a very young age. No gay man in his right mind would simply up and "decide" to become a catholic!! A quaker, perhaps, but a catholic.. no way. Maybe they just believe that they were born gay (don't argue with me, i'm not stating fact, just a premise) and if god truly does love all his children then god will love them exactly as they are.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by Italgirl1971

if god truly does love all his children then god will love them exactly as they are.

AMEN!

[ratchetman]

Originally Posted by Italgirl1971

Why not simply have a conscience and account for your actions now, in this lifetime? A guilty conscience, IMHO, is your better self telling you that what you did was wrong. You can choose to punish yourself for it however you see fit - feel remorse, beat yourself up over it, or simply apologize for judging someone else. I can't give you a citation, but it was said somewhere: "judge not lest you be judged."



Decide to become christians?!?! You presume that homosexuals have no religion (or a non-christian religion that allows for homosexual behavior). I know a gay man who is Catholic. For the life of me I don't know why he remains a Catholic, but he does. I can only assume its because that is what he believes. And he doesn't try to closet his sexuality because that is who he is. So I doubt I'm too far off the mark when I say that there are many homosexuals who were christians long before they even had a word in their vocabulary for being gay. Why? Because mom and dad were christians and took little Tommy to sunday school at the church every week and that's how he grew up - its what his parents believe and. well, he was indoctrinated to believe it too from a very young age. No gay man in his right mind would simply up and "decide" to become a catholic!! A quaker, perhaps, but a catholic.. no way. Maybe they just believe that they were born gay (don't argue with me, i'm not stating fact, just a premise) and if god truly does love all his children then god will love them exactly as they are.

What do you do if you keep doing something you believe is wrong and yet you keep doing it anyway. Self correction only goes so far. Smoking is wrong too and I think that I would take a lot less flack for saying that. It takes divine intervention to be free from some things.
The bible says "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion". So if they are given over to homosexuality by God because of idolatry then they don't have a choice do they. It really is who they are.
And yes God does love them as they are. Would Jesus have died on the cross if he did not love us in our sin? We don't need to be perfect to be saved. We need to repent and believe. Repentance does not mean instant perfection either. We walk in daily repentance with God's help.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by slorider18

i don't know how you can be so sure of yourself but you don't think i should be so sure of myself.

You assume something I have never said...

I don't think you should be sure about religion/god/the spiritual because there is no way for anybody to be sure about the supernatural. By adopting analysis and research, I am seeking to know what many people believe; by reading as many religious texts from differing religions I am hoping to see the essence of god in those details...I recognize my limitations: that there is no way for me to know, for sure, so I am increasing my chances of getting the important stuff right by getting a lrge sample of the idea...I find anyone who adopts a single path, with such a sense of surety and singleminded purpose to be exhibiting hubris, arrogance, and poor judgement.