Why aren't atheists agnostic?
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
That's totally okay. The point I'm making is that people who believe both in the Bible and the laws of logic, logically cannot believe that anything that contradicts the Bible is true. Before you say "But...", tell me if that sentence is cogent.
if I did believe in the laws of logic, I'd also believe in the Bible ...
as an historical treasure
That's mean. To get my hopes up that you're going to Heaven, and then dash them.
Ragtime wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
That's totally okay. The point I'm making is that people who believe both in the Bible and the laws of logic, logically cannot believe that anything that contradicts the Bible is true. Before you say "But...", tell me if that sentence is cogent.
if I did believe in the laws of logic, I'd also believe in the Bible ...
as an historical treasure
That's mean. To get my hopes up that you're going to Heaven, and then dash them.
sorry
What about gay hopes?
Last edited by greenblue on 28 May 2007, 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ragtime wrote:
sigholdaccountlost wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Gays are 1 in 10. That's hardly an equal split of tax dollars. There's a higher percentage of Christians in my country than in yours. And, as a solution to the taxes-going-to-the-wrong-causes dilemma, I invite all gays to find a big island somewhere and start their own country -- it's not that hard -- which would be 100% gay-supportive. Then they wouldn't have to keep whining at us to change our faith, and we wouldn't keep having to ask them to kindly back off.
What? I'm not whining at your to change your faith. I don't give a sh** about your faith, all I want is for you to keep it out of MY life. If gays are 1 in 10 then gay marriages would be around 1 in 10 as well. So the tax argument doesn't work. Why should my taxes only go to straight marriages, yet I can't marry a woman?
It wouldn't actually be that easy for me to find my own island full of gay people actually either. I shouldn't have to leave my family anyway just because some weird Christians don't want me to have equal rights.
I'll keep out of anyone's life who doesn't interfere with the practice of my faith. The Christian faith is a way of living, permeating every interaction with others -- it's not simply praise-n-worship time on Sundays, or somesuch thing that can be "kept to oneself". When I was little, my friend's mom told me that I should keep my Christianity to myself -- an exhortation we often hear today. Only problem with it is it's the definition of a biblical Christian to share his or her faith. It's not a selfish religion, where we say, "Good for us; let everyone else burn", or, "Live and let damn." Not sharing the vitally necessary truth of Christ with the rest of the world would be an act of pure hatred on our parts! One Greek word for the Christian faith is "scandalon", from where we get "scandal", originally meaning "offense". Christ said that His message always offends initially, by its very nature, because it points out the truth that we are all in the wrong. No one wants to hear that, but in the end, that truth sets them free after they accept it and its solution.
You should not have the right to legally and politically inflict your beliefs on me though. I think Christianity is weird and pointless, it irritates me. Yet I do not try and prevent you from going to church, praying to your 'god,' believing whaterv you want to believe. What if my religion dictated that it was wrong to be straight, and only gay people get into heaven? Should I then campaign to ban heterosexual marriage? Try and see this from my point of view. If the majority of society was gay, how would you feel if we stopped you having the same rights on the basis that we believed it was wrong?
But that's just it: It's not a matter of how I'd "feel", it's a matter of what the truth is. I take it you don't believe in absolute truth, so that the phrase "the truth" would be a contradiction in terms. I accept that, but I do believe in absolute truth. I don't believe in making my own truth. So you see, I am thereby inflexible when confronted with a plurality of "truths", each of which contradicting the others.
Oh my... I just remembered something. Would you say you're logical? If so, then I have a surprise for you: You believe in absolute truth! The First Law of Logic is the Law of Non-contradiction. It means that, whatever this may be, there is precisely one truth binding everything. Therefore, it is impossible to use logic without accepting absolute truth.
Logic is one of the most important tools, perhaps the most important tool but it is not the only one.
An uber-logical person said that.
But that's not the point:
Who said your truth was the absolute truth, other than you?
Please, please try to stay on topic. I'm not going to claim that my absolute truth is true. That's not necessary for me to do. What is necessary is for us to determine whether we believe in 1) relative truth, or 2)absolute truth. Please state which one you subscribe to, and please everyone else as well. I've picked option 2. I've gone first, now it's your turn.
Well...it depends on the cirumstances.
For example, truth of morals is def. 1.
Is it wrong to steal, for the heck of it? Yes.
Is it wrong to steal in order to avoid a murder? No.
As for going off topic: the original question was to do with atheists and agnostics. Then we drifted into gay marriage...and we're now here on logic. I don't think I've stayed on topic any more or any less than you have.
_________________
<a href="http://www.kia-tickers.com><img src="http://www.kia-tickers.com/bday/ticker/19901105/+0/4/1/name/r55/s37/bday.png" border="0"> </a>
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
So what's the "missing piece" in liking them in every way, I wonder?)
And I just thought I should add: There is no "missing piece". I have nothing wrong with me, being gay is not an illness, it is simply a difference, much like AS. The way I like women is exactly the same way that a straight man likes women.
But... you're full of estrogen. How does someone whose main sex hormone is estrogen be attracted to someone else whose main hormone is estrogen EXACTLY the same way as someone whose main hormone is testosterone is attracted to someone whose main hormone is estrogen? That would be a different chemistry.
Also, something equally pertinent to your quote post is the fact that you have no idea what heterosexual attraction feels like. So, you could not possibly compare the two feelings as identical. Unless, as you once claimed, you are god.
And greenblue, the fact that I ask question shows my willingness to admit my ignorance on subjects I have little experience with. Data on Star Trek: TNG said (no doubt quoting some philosopher), something like "The first step to knowledge is to say, 'I do not know'."
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
So what's the "missing piece" in liking them in every way, I wonder?)
And I just thought I should add: There is no "missing piece". I have nothing wrong with me, being gay is not an illness, it is simply a difference, much like AS. The way I like women is exactly the same way that a straight man likes women.
But... you're full of estrogen. How does someone whose main sex hormone is estrogen be attracted to someone else whose main hormone is estrogen EXACTLY the same way as someone whose main hormone is testosterone is attracted to someone whose main hormone is estrogen? That would be a different chemistry.
Also, something equally pertinent to your quote post is the fact that you have no idea what heterosexual attraction feels like. So, you could not possibly compare the two feelings as identical. Unless, as you once claimed, you are god.
And greenblue, the fact that I ask question shows my willingness to admit my ignorance on subjects I have little experience with. Data on Star Trek: TNG said (no doubt quoting some philosopher), something like "The first step to knowledge is to say, 'I do not know'."
Perhaps we should find a bisexual wrongplanteer. Ask them.
_________________
<a href="http://www.kia-tickers.com><img src="http://www.kia-tickers.com/bday/ticker/19901105/+0/4/1/name/r55/s37/bday.png" border="0"> </a>
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
But that's just it: It's not a matter of how I'd "feel", it's a matter of what the truth is. I take it you don't believe in absolute truth, so that the phrase "the truth" would be a contradiction in terms. I accept that, but I do believe in absolute truth. I don't believe in making my own truth. So you see, I am thereby inflexible when confronted with a plurality of "truths", each of which contradicting the others.
Oh my... I just remembered something. Would you say you're logical? If so, then I have a surprise for you: You believe in absolute truth! The First Law of Logic is the Law of Non-contradiction. It means that, whatever this may be, there is precisely one truth binding everything. Therefore, it is impossible to use logic without accepting absolute truth.
Oh my... I just remembered something. Would you say you're logical? If so, then I have a surprise for you: You believe in absolute truth! The First Law of Logic is the Law of Non-contradiction. It means that, whatever this may be, there is precisely one truth binding everything. Therefore, it is impossible to use logic without accepting absolute truth.
I've never said I don't believe in 'truth.'
I don't believe in what you think is 'truth' though.
That's totally okay. The point I'm making is that people who believe both in the Bible and the laws of logic, logically cannot believe that anything that contradicts the Bible is true. Before you say "But...", tell me if that sentence is cogent.
I understand that that is what you believe.
Coy.
Ragtime wrote:
And greenblue, the fact that I ask question shows my willingness to admit my ignorance on subjects I have little experience with. Data on Star Trek: TNG said (no doubt quoting some philosopher), something like "The first step to knowledge is to say, 'I do not know'."
There are a lot of things that we don't know, I recognize there are things that I really don't know.
I honestly don't know if there is a God or not. I say 60/40 the chance God may exist. But not the god mentioned in the Bible, Definitly not.
Now that you mentioned TNG, you should watch the episode "Who watches the watchers"
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
That's totally okay. The point I'm making is that people who believe both in the Bible and the laws of logic, logically cannot believe that anything that contradicts the Bible is true. Before you say "But...", tell me if that sentence is cogent.
if I did believe in the laws of logic, I'd also believe in the Bible ...
as an historical treasure
That's mean. To get my hopes up that you're going to Heaven, and then dash them.
sorry
What about gay hopes?
Gay hopes are like any other hopes. If they've placed their hopes in something true, then things will turn out alright for them.
sigholdaccountlost wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
sigholdaccountlost wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Gays are 1 in 10. That's hardly an equal split of tax dollars. There's a higher percentage of Christians in my country than in yours. And, as a solution to the taxes-going-to-the-wrong-causes dilemma, I invite all gays to find a big island somewhere and start their own country -- it's not that hard -- which would be 100% gay-supportive. Then they wouldn't have to keep whining at us to change our faith, and we wouldn't keep having to ask them to kindly back off.
What? I'm not whining at your to change your faith. I don't give a sh** about your faith, all I want is for you to keep it out of MY life. If gays are 1 in 10 then gay marriages would be around 1 in 10 as well. So the tax argument doesn't work. Why should my taxes only go to straight marriages, yet I can't marry a woman?
It wouldn't actually be that easy for me to find my own island full of gay people actually either. I shouldn't have to leave my family anyway just because some weird Christians don't want me to have equal rights.
I'll keep out of anyone's life who doesn't interfere with the practice of my faith. The Christian faith is a way of living, permeating every interaction with others -- it's not simply praise-n-worship time on Sundays, or somesuch thing that can be "kept to oneself". When I was little, my friend's mom told me that I should keep my Christianity to myself -- an exhortation we often hear today. Only problem with it is it's the definition of a biblical Christian to share his or her faith. It's not a selfish religion, where we say, "Good for us; let everyone else burn", or, "Live and let damn." Not sharing the vitally necessary truth of Christ with the rest of the world would be an act of pure hatred on our parts! One Greek word for the Christian faith is "scandalon", from where we get "scandal", originally meaning "offense". Christ said that His message always offends initially, by its very nature, because it points out the truth that we are all in the wrong. No one wants to hear that, but in the end, that truth sets them free after they accept it and its solution.
You should not have the right to legally and politically inflict your beliefs on me though. I think Christianity is weird and pointless, it irritates me. Yet I do not try and prevent you from going to church, praying to your 'god,' believing whaterv you want to believe. What if my religion dictated that it was wrong to be straight, and only gay people get into heaven? Should I then campaign to ban heterosexual marriage? Try and see this from my point of view. If the majority of society was gay, how would you feel if we stopped you having the same rights on the basis that we believed it was wrong?
But that's just it: It's not a matter of how I'd "feel", it's a matter of what the truth is. I take it you don't believe in absolute truth, so that the phrase "the truth" would be a contradiction in terms. I accept that, but I do believe in absolute truth. I don't believe in making my own truth. So you see, I am thereby inflexible when confronted with a plurality of "truths", each of which contradicting the others.
Oh my... I just remembered something. Would you say you're logical? If so, then I have a surprise for you: You believe in absolute truth! The First Law of Logic is the Law of Non-contradiction. It means that, whatever this may be, there is precisely one truth binding everything. Therefore, it is impossible to use logic without accepting absolute truth.
Logic is one of the most important tools, perhaps the most important tool but it is not the only one.
An uber-logical person said that.
But that's not the point:
Who said your truth was the absolute truth, other than you?
Please, please try to stay on topic. I'm not going to claim that my absolute truth is true. That's not necessary for me to do. What is necessary is for us to determine whether we believe in 1) relative truth, or 2)absolute truth. Please state which one you subscribe to, and please everyone else as well. I've picked option 2. I've gone first, now it's your turn.
Well...it depends on the cirumstances.
For example, truth of morals is def. 1.
Is it wrong to steal, for the heck of it? Yes.
Is it wrong to steal in order to avoid a murder? No.
Oh, but greenblue, it's so much simpler than that! It only "depends on the circumstances" if you don't understand the question. (I should have made that option 3.)
sigholdaccountlost wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
So what's the "missing piece" in liking them in every way, I wonder?)
And I just thought I should add: There is no "missing piece". I have nothing wrong with me, being gay is not an illness, it is simply a difference, much like AS. The way I like women is exactly the same way that a straight man likes women.
But... you're full of estrogen. How does someone whose main sex hormone is estrogen be attracted to someone else whose main hormone is estrogen EXACTLY the same way as someone whose main hormone is testosterone is attracted to someone whose main hormone is estrogen? That would be a different chemistry.
Also, something equally pertinent to your quote post is the fact that you have no idea what heterosexual attraction feels like. So, you could not possibly compare the two feelings as identical. Unless, as you once claimed, you are god.
And greenblue, the fact that I ask question shows my willingness to admit my ignorance on subjects I have little experience with. Data on Star Trek: TNG said (no doubt quoting some philosopher), something like "The first step to knowledge is to say, 'I do not know'."
Perhaps we should find a bisexual wrongplanteer. Ask them.
Well, I've mentioned in another thread that I've "switched teams" before. The vast, vast majority of my life I've like only girls, but I experimented in trying to be attracted to guys so I could identify with what gays feel. And I can be attracted to guys when I decide to be, but, to answer our current discussion, my attraction toward men feels somewhat different than my attraction toward men. More intense -- TOO intense. That's probably because the main sex hormone in men is more forcefully-driving then estrogen is, so it's simply like a "sexual overload" when I go the guy route. Not always that way, though. But, yes, I'd go with your suggestion of asking a lifelong bisexual what the two attractions feel like.
I imagine bisexuals simply tap into the physical fact that both men and women are sexual creature, just manifested differently. So they probably just tap into that basic sexuality present in both genders somehow.
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
And greenblue, the fact that I ask question shows my willingness to admit my ignorance on subjects I have little experience with. Data on Star Trek: TNG said (no doubt quoting some philosopher), something like "The first step to knowledge is to say, 'I do not know'."
There are a lot of things that we don't know, I recognize there are things that I really don't know.
I honestly don't know if there is a God or not. I say 60/40 the chance God may exist. But not the god mentioned in the Bible, Definitly not.
Why so narrow-minded, gb? You can say Yahweh is an unlikely god, if you like, but "definitely not" existant? Guess you do believe in absolute truth after all!
Ragtime wrote:
That's mean. To get my hopes up that you're going to Heaven, and then dash them.
You just pointed out the reason you defend your belief.
Perhaps that is the main motive for all religious people for believing what they believe, dispite anything else, defending it, never changing their minds, ever.
It would be very shocking to realize that the Promised Land or Heaven could be just an invention. It is something many are not willing to accept, not even think about it. That is your reason of believing the Bible as the absolute truth. But nothing is perfect, not even the Bible.
I understand, I was christian before, and the thought of living in an utopian christian society is wonderful, it would be awsome to live in a land where there is no desease, no hunger, no wars, no death, no suffering, and also no gays <-- that's a price you have to pay I suppouse.
Ragtime wrote:
TheResistance wrote:
"It's not a perverted thing. I do love this dolphin. He's the love of my life," she said Saturday, upon her return to London. That is utterly disgusting! Yes it is a very! perverted thing. How morally demented can one get.
I agree, completely. But none of the other members in this discussion seem to, at least not openly. The discussion is simply not being taken seriously, and hasn't been for several pages, and I do feel further pursuit would be a waste.
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
That's mean. To get my hopes up that you're going to Heaven, and then dash them.
You just pointed out the reason you defend your belief.
Perhaps that is the main motive for all religious people for believing what they believe, dispite anything else, defending it, never changing their minds, ever.
It would be very shocking to realize that the Promised Land or Heaven could be just an invention. It is something many are not willing to accept, not even think about it. That is your reason of believing the Bible as the absolute truth. But nothing is perfect, not even the Bible.
I understand, I was christian before, and the thought of living in an utopian christian society is wonderful, it would be awsome to live in a land where there is no desease, no hunger, no wars, no death, no suffering, and also no gays <-- that's a price you have to pay I suppouse.
Heaven is a strong incentive -- how could it not be?? Eternity with the God I love, and all my spiritual family. But I might as well believe in Never Never Land if utopian life was all I was looking for. No, my personal, spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ is all the motivation I need to remain Christian. It's something you don't understand, along with many of those in this thread. I mean, if you miss THAT, then I must look like a crazy person to you! Because THAT, that relationship with God, is what it's all about my friend.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
How come some millennials are lucky and others aren't? |
22 Dec 2024, 7:13 pm |
Tories: Lunch is for wimps and sandwiches aren't real food |
14 Dec 2024, 1:15 pm |