Pat Robertson Confirms D&D destroys lives


Gamer Life General Discussion

251 to 300 of 450 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I must admit I find your use of the word 'fundamentalist' very confusing. Would you like to explain what you mean, because I don't think it means what you think it means (with apologies to Inigo Montoya).

That part is easy to explain. Take one of the more 'in your face' style of athiests, and take a close look at what they say. If I can swap the references 'against religion' with references to 'godlessness' and have a statement that looks like it came out of Pat Robertson's mouth instead then that is what people mean when they say 'Athiest Fundamentalist.'

The line of thinking is pretty much in the "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck" vein.

Silver Crusade

Er...okay. : /

Obnoxious people exist on both sides of this issue, and I can sympathise.

I was confused because, while you may have understood what he meant, 'fundamentalist' means something more specific than 'in-your-face'.

It means emphasising the parts of a religion that are believed (by the fundamentalist) to by crucial to that religion. For example, Protestant Christian fundamentalists believe:-

Inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this
Virgin birth of Christ
Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
Bodily resurrection of Christ
Historical reality of Christ's miracles

This is opposed to a more liberal or 'modern' Christianity.

What would be fundamental to an Atheist?

There are no gods
Er....that's it!

Not much of a fundamentalist/liberal divide going on there!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a difference between what the word means (currently)in the dictionary and how it is being used in spoken language. 'Fundamantalist' has become a synonym for someone who preaches intolerance (or worse) in the name of what they believe.


There is a beliefsystem that uses the name atheism or more specifically New Atheism for its purposes.

Thats a religion!!

Their followers spend their time and money to further the goals of some superordinated organizations, they have their prophets (Dawkins,Hitchens) that are revered like some sort of messiahs and they do have a dogma.

I don't have a religion but I'm weary of calling myself an atheist nowadays since that term has been hijacked by some fools that make the very same mistakes they accuse their religious counterparts of.

Silver Crusade

Smug Narcissist wrote:

There is a beliefsystem that uses the name atheism or more specifically New Atheism for its purposes.

Thats a religion!!

Their followers spend their time and money to further the goals of some superordinated organizations, they have their prophets (Dawkins,Hitchens) that are revered like some sort of messiahs and they do have a dogma.

I don't have a religion but I'm weary of calling myself an atheist nowadays since that term has been hijacked by some fools that make the very same mistakes they accuse their religious counterparts of.

Could you describe this 'New Atheist' belief system? What are it's tenets?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Smug Narcissist wrote:

There is a beliefsystem that uses the name atheism or more specifically New Atheism for its purposes.

Thats a religion!!

Their followers spend their time and money to further the goals of some superordinated organizations, they have their prophets (Dawkins,Hitchens) that are revered like some sort of messiahs and they do have a dogma.

I don't have a religion but I'm weary of calling myself an atheist nowadays since that term has been hijacked by some fools that make the very same mistakes they accuse their religious counterparts of.

Could you describe this 'New Atheist' belief system? What are it's tenets?

1) Make fun of others.

2) Break forum rules in real life.
3) Mock deities you don't believe exist.
4) Call all faith cancerous to society.
5) Feel better and smarter than everyone else.
6) Swear you are not a religion
7) Deny agnostic as a thing. Tell people who identify as such that they are agnostic atheist and should refer to themselves as atheist.
8) Ignore logic when backed into a corner, call the logic used against you stupid.
9) When someone points out non-religious people do bad things too respond by saying that those people were not doing bad things because of religion.
10) Completely ignore the fact that people in power can use anything as a scapegoat and blame all the world's problems on religion.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Found it!

Wikipedia wrote:
New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

What is distinctive about New Atheism (compared to the old kind) is that instead of choosing to ignore religion, they assert that religions make scientific claims (miracles, origin of the universe, virgin birth/resurrection, etc.) that can be tested.

And when tested, found wanting.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Found it!

Wikipedia wrote:
New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

What is distinctive about New Atheism (compared to the old kind) is that instead of choosing to ignore religion, they assert that religions make scientific claims (miracles, origin of the universe, virgin birth/resurrection, etc.) that can be tested.

And when tested, found wanting.

Oh do tell? Did I miss the experiment that tested for the presence of God in the universe?

You do know that you can't prove a negative right?
Also why would a miracle have to be explained with science to work?!?!?

Religion doesn't make scientific claims. Science makes scientific claims. Religion makes religious claims. Please try not to confuse the two.

There is also a difference between atheist and anti-theist. Anti-theist are hypocrites though. They can't prove they are right, yet they assert that others are wrong and that we should bow to their wisdom!

Silver Crusade

Marthkus wrote:

1) Make fun of others.

2) Break forum rules in real life.
3) Mock deities you don't believe exist.
4) Call all faith cancerous to society.
5) Feel better and smarter than everyone else.
6) Swear you are not a religion
7) Deny agnostic as a thing. Tell people who identify as such that they are agnostic atheist and should refer to themselves as atheist.
8) Ignore logic when backed into a corner, call the logic used against you stupid.
9) When someone points out non-religious people do bad things too respond by saying that those people were not doing bad things because of religion.
10) Completely ignore the fact that people in power can use anything as a scapegoat and blame all the world's problems on religion.

It didn't say that on Wikipedia!

There are some obnoxious Atheists around, sure, but being obnoxious is not connected to either religion or the lack of it.

For instance, the list you made could have been made by an atheist to ridicule the religious instead of being made by you to ridicule atheists.

I'll give it a go:-

1) Make fun of others.
2) Break forum rules in real life.
3) Mock rival deities you don't believe exist.
4) Call Atheists cancerous to society.
5) Feel better and smarter than everyone else.
6) Swear 'Atheism' is a religion
7) Deny agnostic as a thing. Tell people who identify as such that they are agnostic atheist and should refer to themselves as atheist.
8) Ignore logic when backed into a corner, call the logic used against you stupid.
9) When someone points out religious people do bad things in the name of religion (suicide bombers, for example), respond by saying that those people were not doing bad things because of religion, but because of a mis-understanding of that religion.
10) Completely ignore the fact that people in power can use anything as a scapegoat and blame all the world's problems on people not being religious enough. After all, if people prayed more then Oklahoma wouldn't have had that hurricane! Right, Mr. Robertson?

That was too easy! It doesn't mean that all religious people are obnoxious any more than your list means that all Atheists are.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Found it!

Wikipedia wrote:
New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

What is distinctive about New Atheism (compared to the old kind) is that instead of choosing to ignore religion, they assert that religions make scientific claims (miracles, origin of the universe, virgin birth/resurrection, etc.) that can be tested.

And when tested, found wanting.

That Wikipedia quote doesn't characterize this movement in the way I see it.

What I see is a bunch pseudo intellectual trend-sheeple that are on a mission to eradicate religion from society.They claim to know the full and unfiltered truth about the world,Life, the universe ,and all that stuff and anyone that disagrees with them is considered delusional.

That should ring all the alarm bells.

Invisible sky faries are stupid,but so are those among us that spend their days shaking their fists at them.

Silver Crusade

Marthkus wrote:

Oh do tell? Did I miss the experiment that tested for the presence of God in the universe?

You do know that you can't prove a negative right?

Yes. That is why the burden of proof is upon those that make a seemingly ridiculous claim.

If I claimed that the universe was created by my cat, whose current avatar is but a single aspect of his multi-dimensional awesomeness, the burden of proof would rightly be upon me! Just because you can't prove me wrong, it doesn't mean that this theory of the origin of the universe has any credibility, nor should it have equal time in our classrooms.

Sorry, kitty. : (

Quote:
Also why would a miracle have to be explained with science to work?!?!?

It's the other way round. If something happened it must be explainable by physics.

Quote:
Religion doesn't make scientific claims. Science makes scientific claims. Religion makes religious claims. Please try not to confuse the two.

You're out to lunch here! Christanity claims to know the origin of the universe, the Earth, humanity, animals. Some Christians claim the Earth is less than 10 000 years old (certainly testable!), claims that dead people come back to life....I don't have the time to write a comprehensive list!

Fundamentalist Christians (in the strict, non-perjoritive sense) believe that everything in the Bible, including Genesis, is literally true. This is a scientific claim because the origins of life, the Earth and the universe are in the realms of science.

Quote:
There is also a difference between atheist and anti-theist. Anti-theist are hypocrites though. They can't prove they are right, yet they assert that others are wrong and that we should bow to their wisdom!

If someone asserts that the Tooth Fairy is real, and tries to deny me access to modern dentistry on the strength of that assertion I most definately require proof!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
There are some obnoxious Atheists around, sure, but being obnoxious is not connected to either religion or the lack of it.

Correction: It's not mutually exclusive. There's a whole lotta folk who like to use religion-or-lack-thereof as their obnoxious bat.

In that respect, it sure as non-denominational-hell is connected.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

Oh do tell? Did I miss the experiment that tested for the presence of God in the universe?

You do know that you can't prove a negative right?

Yes. That is why the burden of proof is upon those that make a seemingly ridiculous claim.

If I claimed that the universe was created by my cat, whose current avatar is but a single aspect of his multi-dimensional awesomeness, the burden of proof would rightly be upon me! Just because you can't prove me wrong, it doesn't mean that this theory of the origin of the universe has any credibility, nor should it have equal time in our classrooms.

Sorry, kitty. : (

Quote:
Also why would a miracle have to be explained with science to work?!?!?

It's the other way round. If something happened it must be explainable by physics.

Quote:
Religion doesn't make scientific claims. Science makes scientific claims. Religion makes religious claims. Please try not to confuse the two.

You're out to lunch here! Christanity claims to know the origin of the universe, the Earth, humanity, animals. Some Christians claim the Earth is less than 10 000 years old (certainly testable!), claims that dead people come back to life....I don't have the time to write a comprehensive list!

Fundamentalist Christians (in the strict, non-perjoritive sense) believe that everything in the Bible, including Genesis, is literally true. This is a scientific claim because the origins of life, the Earth and the universe are in the realms of science.

Quote:
There is also a difference between atheist and anti-theist. Anti-theist are hypocrites though. They can't prove they are right, yet they assert that others are wrong and that we should bow to their wisdom!
If someone asserts that the Tooth Fairy is real, and tries to deny me access to modern dentistry on the strength of that assertion I most definately require proof!

Found a New Atheist.

Asserts that people of faith are wrong.
Has no proof of this.
Demands proof from people of faith.

Clearly doesn't understand what the word faith means...


I,m not sure why pat robertson is upset by it, gary gygax was as much Watchtower distributer as dungeonmaster. Gary gygax was a Jehovah,s Witness. He wrote about why christians are wrong to celebrate christmas and should be MORE religious avoiding its un-christian ways.
Feed the below link into your web browser:
http://boingboing.net/2012/12/24/gary-gygax-explains-why-christ.html

I wonder if pat ever examined himself more rigourously than he does others and worked on being as compassionate as Jesus was, unless you were a syrophonecian, then jesus seems a little racist. Oh yeah, and capitalists using religion to get money...Pat, why are you running away and whats that weighty jingle sound i hear as you run?....

Silver Crusade

Markthus wrote:
Found a New Atheist.

If you like...labels don't interest me, and I'll think whatever I like, whether 'New Atheists' adopt that position or not. If it were a religion they could excommunicate me. : )

Quote:
Asserts that people of faith are wrong.

True, but religious people assert that Atheists are wrong.

Quote:
Has no proof of this.

None needed. The burden of proof is on those with an outlandish claim.

Quote:
Demands proof from people of faith.

If they want to tell people who don't share their religion what they must do or must not do, based on nothing more than their own 'faith', then yes I damn well do require some proof!

Quote:
Clearly doesn't understand what the word faith means...

It is a belief that is not based on proof.

While I completely understand that an individual may come to a belief without proof, you do need proof in order to convince a skeptic.

Science functions by the mechanism of trying to prove a hypothesis wrong, and when you can't then the hypothesis must be right! How I wish religions were subject to the same rigour!

Scarab Sages

You don't "prove someone wrong": You find evidence to support a theory.

Theists typically argue that the machinations of the universe being what they are, and the sheer impossibility of our individual existence point to a divine will, whereas Atheists typically argue that the universe does not need a creator and can get along quite well without one.

I find that both camps tend to provide sound evidence for their conclusions, so long as careful reflection on the results has been given. I may be a Christian, but I tend to believe that people should be taught to make rational decisions. We won't necessarily be right all the time, but that doesn't mean a rational decision hasn't been made.

And on that, I mention again: One does not prove that something is false. One can provide evidence that something is true, and therefore rule out other possible explanations for previously unknown information, but the bottom line is that we must all, in approaching the mysteries of the universe, be willing to be wrong about that which we believe if any sort of truth is to be revealed.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:
Also why would a miracle have to be explained with science to work?!?!?

It's the other way round. If something happened it must be explainable by physics.

I love this! It's a miracle because it can't be explained or was extremely unlikely.

Saying miracles have to be explained by physics entirely misses the point of miracles. As an anti-theist you should be denying that they happened, not that they can't happen. Be definition a miracles is something that generally can't happen. By saying it couldn't happen without refuting that it did, you are just asserting that it was in fact a miracle.

You may wish to try to understand the concepts of religion before you try to criticize it.

Silver Crusade

Marthkus wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:
Also why would a miracle have to be explained with science to work?!?!?

It's the other way round. If something happened it must be explainable by physics.

I love this! It's a miracle because it can't be explained or was extremely unlikely.

Saying miracles have to be explained by physics entirely misses the point of miracles. As an anti-theist you should be denying that they happened, not that they can't happen. Be definition a miracles is something that generally can't happen. By saying it couldn't happen without refuting that it did, you are just asserting that it was in fact a miracle.

You may wish to try to understand the concepts of religion before you try to criticize it.

A miracle is a phenomenon not explained by known laws of nature.

Just because something is claimed to be a miracle, that doesn't mean that Atheists agree!

If these events (called miracles) actually happened, then it was an observable phenomenon, and science is the study of observable phenomena.

So, if the alleged 'miracle' happened, them it is explainable. The alternative is that the event did not happen and stories to the contrary are untrue.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Quote:
Has no proof of this.

None needed. The burden of proof is on those with an outlandish claim.

Quote:
Clearly doesn't understand what the word faith means...

It is a belief that is not based on proof.

While I completely understand that an individual may come to a belief without proof, you do need proof in order to convince a skeptic.

Science functions by the mechanism of trying to prove a hypothesis wrong, and when you can't then the hypothesis must be right! How I wish religions were subject to the same rigour!

And how do you know that your claim that their isn't a God is not equally outlandish? Scientific research shows that life began at some point and that the universe began at a single point in time. Whatever the starting point of everything is would be God. The only difference in perspectives is whether or not this determinant existence was sentient. Saying that there was no beginning or God contradicts our observations of the universe.

Faith is believing in something without a deductive proof. Such as believing what your see and hear are real. You have no proof that that is true, but you act under the assumption that it is.

Quote:
Science functions by the mechanism of trying to prove a hypothesis wrong, and when you can't then the hypothesis must be right!

By-the-way that is completely false. You are thinking of statistical analyses. Although, not being able to disprove a hypothesis does not make it right... As a researcher everything about that statement makes me ache. I find that most anti-theist actually understand very little about science.

Silver Crusade

Just to be clear, I don't believe in 'miracles'. However, when discussing something like 'the miracle of the fishes' I use the term 'miracle' simply as a name, not an acknowledgement of the supernatural.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

A miracle is a phenomenon not explained by known laws of nature.

Just because something is claimed to be a miracle, that doesn't mean that Atheists agree!

If these events (called miracles) actually happened, then it was an observable phenomenon, and science is the study of observable phenomena.

So, if the alleged 'miracle' happened, them it is explainable. The alternative is that the event did not happen and stories to the contrary are untrue.

Oh wow that is really busted logic. Nothing about an event happening means that it is explainable.

Silver Crusade

Marthkus wrote:
And how do you know that your claim that their isn't a God is not equally outlandish? Scientific research shows that life began at some point and that the universe began at a single point in time. Whatever the starting point of everything is would be God. The only difference in perspectives is whether or not this determinant existence was sentient. Saying that there was no beginning or God contradicts our observations of the universe.

But there is no need to insert a god, or name the cause 'God'. It is absurd to imagine that, when wondering how everything started, we should start with the assumption that something was already there,, and that 'something' was not simple but the most complex thing imaginable.

Quote:
Quote:
Science functions by the mechanism of trying to prove a hypothesis wrong, and when you can't then the hypothesis must be right!
By-the-way that is completely false. You are thinking of statistical analyses. Although, not being able to disprove a hypothesis does not make it right... As a researcher everything about that statement makes me ache. I find that most anti-theist actually understand very little about science.

Yeah, I was imprecise with my language there. My bad!

It was my (clumsy) attempt to say that, in order to be scientific, a theory must be falsifiable. If it isn't, it's (by definition) not science.

Therefore, the question of whether or not a god exists is not science as it is not testable/falsifiable. However, since religion claims some things about God, those things may very well be falsifiable.

For instance, it may be claimed that God created mankind before he made animals. This is falsifiable using genetics.

It may be claimed that God is omnipotent, and this is falsifiable using logic (God can't be wrong, can't make something more powerful than Him, etc.).

Silver Crusade

Marthkus wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

A miracle is a phenomenon not explained by known laws of nature.

Just because something is claimed to be a miracle, that doesn't mean that Atheists agree!

If these events (called miracles) actually happened, then it was an observable phenomenon, and science is the study of observable phenomena.

So, if the alleged 'miracle' happened, them it is explainable. The alternative is that the event did not happen and stories to the contrary are untrue.

Oh wow that is really busted logic. Nothing about an event happening means that it is explainable.

Then we really, really disagree!


Marthkus wrote:


Oh wow that is really busted logic. Nothing about an event happening means that it is explainable.

Says who?

If an event happened, obviously something caused it, which means it can be explained.

Whether that explanation is "X scientific phenomenon" or "An act of God" is irrelevant: If the event happened, it is explainable.


But (and this is just me throwing it out there) I think we can agree that it doesn't have to be immediately explainable.

To clarify simply because we cannot at a given point in time scientifically verify the why and or how of a phenomenon does not immediately cause such an event to be fictional or impossible. An omnipotent being creating a universe or turning water to wine is by current science impossible to explain that doesn't mean it can't have happened.

Project Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

They even re-wrote (ret-conned) their own religious texts to support this new idea. This revision wasn't perfect, of course. In Genesis, most English translations would say, 'In the beginning there was God.' Of course, English was not around when Genesis was first written. 'God' is the English translation. The original word was 'Elohim'.

But the word for 'god' (singular) was 'El'. 'Elohim' is plural: 'The gods'. (compare 'Seraph'-singular to 'Seraphim'-plural) 'In the beginning were the gods.' This is what the Israelites believed before the Babylonian captivity, and it was changed as a consequence of believing that the reason they were suffering was because they were somehow not worshipping their Covenented God well enough.

I'm not going to get into the debate as to how much of Israelite theology was "retconned," but your characterization of the grammar is incorrect. The -im suffix is a masculine plural, generally speaking, but the plural can also be used as an intensifier (as is indicated when elohim is used with a singular verb).

Silver Crusade

Jessica Price wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

They even re-wrote (ret-conned) their own religious texts to support this new idea. This revision wasn't perfect, of course. In Genesis, most English translations would say, 'In the beginning there was God.' Of course, English was not around when Genesis was first written. 'God' is the English translation. The original word was 'Elohim'.

But the word for 'god' (singular) was 'El'. 'Elohim' is plural: 'The gods'. (compare 'Seraph'-singular to 'Seraphim'-plural) 'In the beginning were the gods.' This is what the Israelites believed before the Babylonian captivity, and it was changed as a consequence of believing that the reason they were suffering was because they were somehow not worshipping their Covenented God well enough.

I'm not going to get into the debate as to how much of Israelite theology was "retconned," but your characterization of the grammar is incorrect. The -im suffix is a masculine plural, generally speaking, but the plural can also be used as an intensifier (as is indicated when elohim is used with a singular verb).

All part of the ret-con! If you're going around altering the texts to support your new version, it's easy enough to alter the verb form while leaving 'Elohim' intact, since it still works (as an intensifier) and is rather poetic and pleasing.

When the Bible was translated into English (King James version) similar style decisions were made. The words chosen sounded a little archaic even then; this gave the text a gravitas that a more modern sounding version would lack.

'Thou shalt not kill' sounds very dramatic, and that is why those words were chosen, instead of the more accurate 'Thou shalt not do murder'. If they had gone with the better translation there would have been fewer awkward questions about killing in war etc.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

A miracle is a phenomenon not explained by known laws of nature.

Just because something is claimed to be a miracle, that doesn't mean that Atheists agree!

If these events (called miracles) actually happened, then it was an observable phenomenon, and science is the study of observable phenomena.

So, if the alleged 'miracle' happened, them it is explainable. The alternative is that the event did not happen and stories to the contrary are untrue.

Oh wow that is really busted logic. Nothing about an event happening means that it is explainable.
Then we really, really disagree!

Oh? Do show with a deductive logical proof that the predicate quality of explainable is tied to event-that-happened.

Also Talonhawke made a good point.


Rynjin wrote:
Marthkus wrote:


Oh wow that is really busted logic. Nothing about an event happening means that it is explainable.

Says who?

If an event happened, obviously something caused it, which means it can be explained.

Whether that explanation is "X scientific phenomenon" or "An act of God" is irrelevant: If the event happened, it is explainable.

His definition of explainable is explainable through current science and technology.

He doesn't accept "An act of God" as an explanation.


If you can find it, Isaac Asimov did an article on the Bible called "Lost in the Non-Translation", where he addresses things where the words stay the same, but the meaning attached to them has changed in 2000+ years.

Nobody liked the Samaritans back in the day, yet now when we hear the word the mind automatically associates 'good' with it.

'An Eye For an Eye, a Tooth For a Tooth' was not about harsh justice, but about setting limits. You may only take as much as you have lost was a huge step forward back in the day, where a small theft could easily result in execution AND you kids being sold into slavery as punishment.

It was pretty neat stuff. I think the title of the book was Magic, basically a collection of essays about magic, myth, and fantasy. He does things like calculate the speed of seven-league-boots (escape velocity), notes that early fantasy is anti-science-fiction, and expresses admiration of Oddyseus as the best hero of ancient myth (becuase he actually has to think rather than just be stronger than his opponents).

And....to get back on topic, Pat Robertson is someone who should not be listened to by anybody.


Grey Lensman wrote:
And....to get back on topic, Pat Robertson is someone who should not be listened to by anybody.

I think we can all agree on that.


Way back a parent wrote to the headmaster of the school where I was running a very popular RPG club enclosing newspaper and magazine cuttings quoting Pat and the other moral mob.
This could have caused me a lot of problems as I was not exactly flavour of the month with him anyway - if they had not started with "You may not know what is happening in your school...."

Silver Crusade

Marthkus wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Marthkus wrote:


Oh wow that is really busted logic. Nothing about an event happening means that it is explainable.

Says who?

If an event happened, obviously something caused it, which means it can be explained.

Whether that explanation is "X scientific phenomenon" or "An act of God" is irrelevant: If the event happened, it is explainable.

His definition of explainable is explainable through current science and technology.

No it isn't! No-one thinks that current technology is as far as it can go!

Just because we haven't discovered the explanation yet, doesn't mean it's not explainable in theory, and if something happened then it is theoretically observable and explainable.

Just because we couldn't see germs before microscopes doesn't mean that germs could not be explained. They eventually were!

Quote:
He doesn't accept "An act of God" as an explanation.

It is if you can demonstrate it!

Earthquakes happen. Possible explanation: plate tectonics or wrath of an angry god.

Which is it? To be science it has to be falsifiable and testable. We have tested plate tectonics, and it explains earthquakes. Angry gods cannot be tested, even in theory, therefore it is not an adequate explanation.

The angry god theory of earthquakes has exactly the same merit as earthquakes being caused by Thor, my awesome cat, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Tooth Fairy, etc. All valueless as explanations.

Are you going to set up an early warning system for earthquakes based on predicting the wrath of God? Why not? If God is the explanation and God has certain attributes then we can make predictions.

But that's not what happens. What happens is that bad stuff happens and then Pat Robertson says it was God!

Any attempt (and there have been many) to predict that God will destroy the world on such-and-such a date (scientific, testable, falsifiable) has been tested and found wanting.

Although a conveniently invisible, intangible God cannot be tested, any claim that He has acted in the real world is a claim that can be tested, and found wanting, even if that explanation is beyond our current capability.


This is not meant to derail in any way, but i can't help myself.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Although a conveniently invisible, intangible God cannot be tested...

I'm intrigued by the word 'conveniently' in this part of your argument. I envision the believer saying, 'right... cause its God'. And Malachi rolling his eyes, "How convenient."

...sorry, carry on.


Sorry to sound cliched, but, um...

If we had undeniable, physical, testable proof, it would be easy to convert people.

To understand why we can't have proof, you must understand a bit of Christian doctrine. It's pretty simple, but: God is unknowable. If we were to know every detail about God, we would then have the means to divinity, possibly. Also, since God is infinite by nature, it is impossible to learn all about him. Thus, faith.

Religion was never and never will be about rational, but about experience. One cannot argue against experience. Now, one can argue about the source of the experience, but that's a different topic.

Silver Crusade

Eben TheQuiet wrote:

This is not meant to derail in any way, but i can't help myself.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Although a conveniently invisible, intangible God cannot be tested...

I'm intrigued by the word 'conveniently' in this part of your argument. I envision the believer saying, 'right... cause its God'. And Malachi rolling his eyes, "How convenient."

...sorry, carry on.

Spot on, Eben! That's exactly how I meant it!

When I was a young man I had the attitude common amongst young men: I've worked out what is right, therefore everyone else must be wrong, and it is my duty to tell all the wrong people how wrong they are!

Age has mellowed me, and it's been a long time since I had that attitude. Nowadays I'm content to let people live their lives unbothered by my uninvited wisdom.

However, in the arena of debate about this very subject, against (theoretically) equal opponents, I feel perfectly justified in putting and defending my case and criticising their case. I fully expect them to go to similar efforts.

Being religious won't mean I'll treat you badly, or think you are a fool. However, if you choose to debate me on the subject, you might not like the fact that I'm attempting to deconstruct your religious world view.

I mean 'you' in the general sense, rather then 'you', Eben. : )


_Cobalt_ wrote:

Sorry to sound cliched, but, um...

If we had undeniable, physical, testable proof, it would be easy to convert people.

To understand why we can't have proof, you must understand a bit of Christian doctrine. It's pretty simple, but: God is unknowable. If we were to know every detail about God, we would then have the means to divinity, possibly. Also, since God is infinite by nature, it is impossible to learn all about him. Thus, faith.

Religion was never and never will be about rational, but about experience. One cannot argue against experience. Now, one can argue about the source of the experience, but that's a different topic.

Except Christian doctrine also states that some people in the past were given that direct proof. Jesus walked on Earth doing miracles to convince the Jews of his day. The Old Testament is full of miracles. The tales of the early years of the Church are full of miracles.

Now there are no miracles.* We have to believe on faith and actual evidence, like people in the past got, would just demean religion. What changed? Why did the Israelites of Biblical times deserve miracles and we don't?

*Miracles are still claimed, but they tend to be much less dramatic than in the old days. Statistical outliers, not choirs of angels.


Marthkus wrote:

His definition of explainable is explainable through current science and technology.

He doesn't accept "An act of God" as an explanation.

Well, saying something is an "act of god" is a terrible explanation. It's pretty much a cop-out on trying to find an explanation and laying the responsibility at some divine scapegoat's feet. Is it really likely that there is literally no explanation for massive tornadoes that rip through cities like Moore, OK and Joplin, MO, destroying innocent lives, other than "god made it happen?" Or, worse, god is punishing random people because he's pissed off about something else (thanks to Pat Robertson and the Hillsboro Baptists for that explanation).

Science would say that there are thousands upon thousands of complex factors involved, not all of which we yet understand (though we hope to make progress on that someday).


(I really don't want to be "that guy," but I have strong feeling on this subject. I apologize if I seem abrasive.)

Also, regarding testing God, we are specifically told not to, as that would show a lack of faith.

Deuteronomy 6:16 states "Do not put the Lord your God to the test."

Additionally, while Jesus was walking the desert, Satan approached him and said something along the lines of "If your God is so great and powerful, throw yourself off the highest height of the temple! If he is true and good, he will cause no harm to come to you." Jesus basically responded, "No, that's a stupid idea. Satan, go away." Thus, testing God has no foundation in the New Testament.

Also, saying one cannot believe in God and science is offensive to me. I believe, to use your example,in plate tectonics. I also believe in God. The concept of an "angry god" causing earthquakes is equally offensive. As a God who created the earth and all of its contents, I would have to be an idiot to deny such simple facts as plate tectonics, the atmosphere, gravity, microbial life, and so on. There are deistic evolutionists, who believe God initiated evolution, but there isn't enough proof as a scientific theory for me, personally, to submit to such an odd system of belief.

Keep in mind, just as you don't understand how people can believe in a higher power, I can't understand how people can't believe in a higher power.

On the Israelites deserving signs and miracles, it was actually very practical. Without miracles, it would have been impossible to prove Christ's divinity. Also, you act like miracles were a daily event in old times. They were "statistical outliers' then, as now.


_Cobalt_ wrote:

(I really don't want to be "that guy," but I have strong feeling on this subject. I apologize if I seem abrasive.)

Also, regarding testing God, we are specifically told not to, as that would show a lack of faith.

Deuteronomy 6:16 states "Do not put the Lord your God to the test."

Additionally, while Jesus was walking the desert, Satan approached him and said something along the lines of "If your God is so great and powerful, throw yourself off the highest height of the temple! If he is true and good, he will cause no harm to come to you." Jesus basically responded, "No, that's a stupid idea. Satan, go away." Thus, testing God has no foundation in the New Testament.

Also, saying one cannot believe in God and science is offensive to me. I believe, to use your example,in plate tectonics. I also believe in God. The concept of an "angry god" causing earthquakes is equally offensive. As a God who created the earth and all of its contents, I would have to be an idiot to deny such simple facts as plate tectonics, the atmosphere, gravity, microbial life, and so on. There are deistic evolutionists, who believe God initiated evolution, but there isn't enough proof as a scientific theory for me, personally, to submit to such an odd system of belief.

Keep in mind, just as you don't understand how people can believe in a higher power, I can't understand how people can't believe in a higher power.

On the Israelites deserving signs and miracles, it was actually very practical. Without miracles, it would have been impossible to prove Christ's divinity. Also, you act like miracles were a daily event in old times. They were "statistical outliers' then, as now.

I like the way you include "No testing God" and "Without miracles, it would have been impossible to prove Christ's divinity" in the same post. You don't see the conflict there?

If the Israelites wouldn't accept it without proof, why should we?

By "statistical outliers" I don't mean rare. I mean things like "I prayed and my cancer went into remission. It's a miracle!" Things that happen normally but rarely are not miracles when they happen to Christians. The Red Sea opening is a miracle. Raising the dead is a miracle. Actually replicable faith healing, like Jesus is described as doing would be a miracle. The occasional unexplained cure is not, especially when so many others pray and do not recover and other do not and do.


thejeff wrote:

I like the way you include "No testing God" and "Without miracles, it would have been impossible to prove Christ's divinity" in the same post. You don't see the conflict there?

If the Israelites wouldn't accept it without proof, why should we?

By "statistical outliers" I don't mean rare. I mean things...

faith

/fāTH/
Noun
1) Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2) Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Synonyms
belief - trust - confidence - credence - credit

ap·pre·hen·sion
/ˌapriˈhenSHən/
Noun
1) Anxiety or fear that something bad or unpleasant will happen.
2) Understanding; grasp.
Synonyms
understanding - fear - arrest - comprehension


I see no conflict. It was necessary. He would have been called a madman at best and a heretic at worst (which he still was called). We were not testing him. He showed himself to us.

And, I know this sounds pretty bad, but we are told that the events in the Bible have been preserved perfectly by the hand of God, and thus should be taken as true. I know that won't convince you or anyone, so I won't pretend it will. :P

Ah, thanks. I though you simply meant rare.

Now, let's move on to that which science cannot explain or must be exaplained as a set of extrodinry coincidences: "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" - Sherlock Holmes. This is also, in theology, refereed to sometimes as Pascal's Wager. Basically, there are too many coincidences in nature and history for there to not be some sort of higher power to orchestrate events.

EDIT: I think I mentioned this, but I'll state it again just in case. I'm not in any way trying to convert anyone. You aren't receptive, thus I'm not trying to cram it down your throat. To do so would be foolish, vain, and illogical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most followed Jesus for his wisdom not his miracles. Up until he came back from the dead, most of his 12 disciples thought he was a wise teacher and a prophet.


There was a point where he said "Do any of you really know who I am?" They all kinda shrugged, except one who correctly thought he was the Son of God.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

_colbat_,
That's not Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is "The consequence of not believing are so terrible if you're wrong that you might as well believe." It's a b&!~+%$% argument that's been discredited repeatedly, mostly for two reasons:
1) Which God should we believe in? There are literally thousands and all of them really hate the people who don't believe in them. The Japanese hells have torments that put getting stabbed sith a red hot poker in the Christian Hell to shame, so why aren't you a Shinio worshiper?
2) It implies that people can choose what to believe amd if they can't it implies that god is just fine with lip service rather than belief. Neither seems credible to any believer I've ever known.

I would advise against Pascal's Wager. As mentioned, it's been debunked an awful lot and makes the people who use it look foolish or ignorant.

EDIT: Link to Wikipedia on Pascal's Wager


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Well, saying something is an "act of god" is a terrible explanation. It's pretty much a cop-out on trying to find an explanation and laying the responsibility at some divine scapegoat's feet. Is it really likely that there is literally no explanation for massive tornadoes that rip through cities like Moore, OK and Joplin, MO, destroying innocent lives, other than "god made it happen?" Or, worse, god is punishing random people because he's pissed off about something else (thanks to Pat Robertson and the Hillsboro Baptists for that explanation).

On a bit of a side note, I wonder how Pat would explain my gay, atheist friend living in Joplin, whose home was left entirely untouched by the tornadoes while all of the other houses around him were damaged or destroyed.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Well, saying something is an "act of god" is a terrible explanation. It's pretty much a cop-out on trying to find an explanation and laying the responsibility at some divine scapegoat's feet. Is it really likely that there is literally no explanation for massive tornadoes that rip through cities like Moore, OK and Joplin, MO, destroying innocent lives, other than "god made it happen?" Or, worse, god is punishing random people because he's pissed off about something else (thanks to Pat Robertson and the Hillsboro Baptists for that explanation).
On a bit of a side note, I wonder how Pat would explain my gay, atheist friend living in Joplin, whose home was left entirely untouched by the tornadoes while all of the other houses around him were damaged or destroyed.

Same way he explains anything else he doesn't like: Satan did it.


Yah, it seems to me that you have some people who have a world view of "If its not measurably repeatable, it's not real" and others with a world view of "there is more to life and this world than can be seen, measured or reproduced".

Trying to prove someone from the other camp wrong seems like an exercise in futility to me.

Calling someone who has a fundamentally different world view than you naive or stupid just seems disrespectful (and, taken to extremes, hateful).

As to the original topic... I can't get behind much of what i hear the guy says (I've never seen his show, so i don't really know) and i tend to be skeptical of men of faith who make a ridiculous living in a publicized role using my Bible... but that's just me.


Paul Watson wrote:

_colbat_,

That's not Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is "The consequence of not believing are so terrible if you're wrong that you might as well believe." It's a b!+%&$#@ argument that's been discredited repeatedly, mostly for two reasons:
1) Which God should we believe in? There are literally thousands and all of them really hate the people who don't believe in them. The Japanese hells have torments that put getting stabbed sith a red hot poker in the Christian Hell to shame, so why aren't you a Shinio worshiper?
2) It implies that people can choose what to believe amd if they can't it implies that god is just fine with lip service rather than belief. Neither seems credible to any believer I've ever known.

I would advise against Pascal's Wager. As mentioned, it's been debunked an awful lot and makes the people who use it look foolish or ignorant.

EDIT: Link to Wikipedia on Pascal's Wager

Ah, I could have sworn what I had said was Pascal's Wager.

And yes, the real Pascal's Wager is silly. Though Pascal isn't that bad of a theologian when it comes to the nature of man and such.

Well, thanks for correcting me. Now I know.


On the topic of not being able to recreate events...

If, say, virgin birth happened with some regularity, it would be "Oh, look, another virgin birth. Nothing remarkable there." Which would remove the divine aspect from it.

So saying it can't exist because it's divine and impossible even though the subject matter is divine and impossible and thus relies on it being divine and impossible is like saying that there is not enough proof that light is both a wave and a particle depending on the situation is impossible because it can't be proven.

251 to 300 of 450 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Pat Robertson Confirms D&D destroys lives All Messageboards