Well, for years I've had the conviction that BE is so bad to not bother with it.
-
ZAROVE — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 07:28 AM)
Now again.
Since you chose to drag this out into a lengthy debate, I reread your post and decided to give it a proper response this time.
Not really. Your still going to just argue blindly for the Atheist talking points. Heaven forbid you give me any credit.
Your definition for Atheism is wrong. It is not a lack of beleif in a god or gods. Sure, its popular to say it is, but its also impossible to actually lack belief in something you have a cpncept of. Once an idea is introduced, you can either accept it or reject it, but you cant lack it. Atheism is the belief that there is no god, it is not a lack of belief in a god.
Wrong. There is a difference between firmly believing that there is no God and merely doubting the existence of one.
Not really. In the end they are just shades of the same thing; Different levels of conviction. In the end, its still belief that there is no God, or belief that there is.
You're looking at this as having two sides when it is really has three. You have those that are absolutely sure that there is no God (Strong Atheism), you have those that are absolutely sure that there is a God (Theism), then you have those who are undecided and therefore lack a belief in a God, but are open to the possibility (Weak Atheism).
Weak and Strgn Atheism are semantics created by the Atheist Community, and proof of a shared language that you deny. The distinction isnt real.
There is no such thing as a Strong or Weak Atheist. Again, the only difference is the level fo conviction in ones belief, but the terms Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism are in the end meaningless twaddle.
Just erecting terms to back up a self referential belief system is not good enough.
Two of those camps both fall under the banner of Atheism, because much like Theism there are many facets. You have many, many types of theism. They are not all one and the same, and the same goes for Atheism. There is no one specific group of Atheists. They're all different.
And, I did mention differing Atheist groups, so your point is meaningless. You act like I lump all Atheists into a single category when, in fact, I didnt.
I never said it [Atheism] was [a religion].
Yes, you did.
No, I didnt. If you want to say I did then quote me.
However, my actual stance is that Atheists have Religious beliefs and that everyone has a Religion. I never once said Atheism is a Religion. Just because you are incapable of following what Ive actually said because your busy following the Atheist apologetics responses to Atheism is a Religion doesnt mean I actually said this.
But its good to see how shallow and unthinking you are.
Everyone is Religious, and thuis includes Atheists. Religion is just what you beleive about the world we liv ein, its a Philosophy about who and what we are. Secular Humanism, Objectivism, both billed as Nonreligiosu Philosophies yet both do the same thign as religion in the same way, so whats the difference there?
Then, you turned around and said it AGAIN right after you said that you never said that.
S what your saying is, you lack reading comprehension.
I still didnt say Atheism is a Religion here. I did say that everyone has a Religion, and this includes Atheists. But this is not saying Atheism is itself a Religion.
Just like Theism is not a Religion, Atheism is not a Religion. However, all Atheists have a set of beleifs hat define how they understand the world, and that set of beliefs is their Religion. So rather than saying Atheism is a Religion, what Im actually saying is that Atheistic Non-Religious Philosophy is actually Religion.
However, being an Atheist doesnt make you Non-Religious. What I said was that everyone has a Religion, and this includes Atheists. This is because Religion is a Philosophical understanding about the nature of the world we live in. Religion is not another word for Theism and doesnt require Theism.
If you are a Secular Humanist, you are Religious and Secular Humanism is your Religion. This isnt saying Atheism is a Religion, its saying that Secular Humanism is a Religion. Secular Humanism is Atheistic, but theres more to it than this.
Secular Humanism is not the same thing as Atheism.
Christianity is not the same thing as Theism.
However, Christianity is Theistic, and Secular Humanism is Atheistic.
It is also not a religion. It is a philosophy.
Secular Humanism covers all the same ground Religion covers and fills the same role in an individuals life as Religion would. He only distinction between this Philosophy and a Religion is that its Atheistic. But given that Theism is not a prerequisite to Religion, I have to wonder why this Philosophy shouldnt be counted as a Religion in its own Right? Because it fits the definition of Religion.
Thats the point. Secular Humanists insist that their belief is a Philosophy and not a Religion, but there is no discernable distinction you can make between their beliefs and Religion. Their beliefs are, in fact, Religious.
Simply trying to remove Humanism from the Religion -
ZAROVE — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 07:30 AM)
[Continued From Above.
quote]
Not every single religious person on Earth is illogical and irrational, but many of them are and there is no denying that fact.
But by repeating an Atheistic Caricature about what Christians believe, youve proven that you are illogical and irrational, just like youve proven that Atheists do, in fact, have an organised community with shard beliefs.
but anyone whose bothered to look into Religion realises that Religious thought is actually rooted in observation and logic as much as anything else. The idea that its not is simply daft nonsense.
It was at one point. That was thousands of years ago, however.
Actually I can name contemporary Theologians who would very much disagree with you. Religion wasnt just about Logic and Reason thousands of Years Ago tis about that now, as anyone who has read Rowan Williams or Dallas Ward can tell you.
You know, back when we had just barely discovered fire and the wheel? Back when we had no concept of math and science and no idea of how the world worked, so we made up whatever explanations that we could come up with based on our observations? Back then is was reasonable and logical to assume that "god did it". In this day and age, its absurd.
This is another Time in which you repeat another part of your Faith Communities claims without thinking. The idea that Religion was invented to give us explanations about the world before we have Science.
The whole Science VS Religion Canard has, of course, been disproven ages ago but its a central tenet of your Religious Faith.
You need to pretend that Religion is made up stories we dont need now that we have Science, just like you need to pretend you are Scientific and Rational, and need to pretend you think for yourself and Atheist are all unique and different.
You wont admit of course that your presentation of Christian beliefs came form others, and that you mindlessly repeated it. And even if we buy into this rubbish explanation for origin of Religion, you have just made Science and Religion the same thing.
Not that you can admit that.
Actually plenty of Philosophers have dealt with the Supernatural, and plenty of Religion deals in the Natural. Indeed, the very idea of the Supernatural didnt even exist till about 200-300 years ago, so what your saying is that Religion didnt exist at all till 300 years ago. This is of course silly nonsense.
I don't know where you got your information, but I hope you didn't pay for it. Otherwise, you should demand your money back.
Given your Zombie Jesus crack, youd best be careful whom you disparage.
So what you're telling me is that Greek and Roman mythology isn't supernatural?
Its not. The gods were aspects of Nature and bound to its laws. They did not exist separately from, and superior to nature.
That Egyptian mythology isn't supernatural? That Norse mythology isn't supernatural?
None of the gods in any of those mythologies actually had the power to change the laws fo nature, and in many of them the gods were aspects of nature itself.
That Krishna having an epic battle with space aliens 12,000 years ago isn't supernatural?
Krishna didnt battle space aliens again, learn what your mocking before you speak.
That Moses receiving magical stone tablets from a talking bush isn't supernatural?
Moses didnt receive magical stone tablets, and your a moron if you think he did.
Even in the context of the story, nothing magical exists about the tablets.
That Jesus walking on water and raising the dead isn't supernatural?
Not necessarily. It depends on how you view god and his nature. The term Supernatural once applied only to God. Pagan gods were not supernatural, nor were Angels or Demons or Souls. The idea of a separate Supernatural Realm was unheard of in the Middle Ages.
See, the term Supernatural means you are above nature. Angels, even Satan, were not seen as above nature, but as part of it as they were part of the created order.
This is also why in the Middle Ages it was said that Satan could not perform genuine Miracles, only counterfeits,.
The term Supernatural was applied to God because some theologians believed that God was separate from and superior to nature. Still, others identified God as the source of all natural law and thus not separable from it.
Not that I expect you to understand tis, before you ridicule me for it.
At this point I don't even know if it's worth continuing this debate with you because, quite frankly, you just lost all credibility with that last statement.
As opposed to your vain repetition of the Caricature of Jesus as a Zombie? Or as a Magical half god and half man?
I dont think you have room to talking terms of credibility.
I'm starting to think that you're just talking out of your ass.
Well, your just cutting and pasting arguments from Atheist websites whilst pretending that Atheist all disagree with each other and are wonderfully diverse -
wel_da_war — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 08:13 AM)
Well, your just cutting and pasting arguments from Atheist websites
That is absurd! I haven't copied and pasted a damned thing except for one lone url and the quotes from your posts, of course.
After all the time I spent typing those long replies, this is what I get in return? An accusation of copying and pasting?
Fine. No more lengthy replies for you. If you can't appreciate the effort that I've made to have an actual civil debate with you, then you can just politely sod off.
No questions. No answers.. You just accept it and move on. -
wel_da_war — 13 years ago(October 06, 2012 08:11 AM)
What part of
I AM NOT AN ATHEIST
do you not understand?
Yes, I find the zombie Jesus joke to be funny. In fact, I find it friggin' hilarious.
I actually know a lot more about the Bible than you give me credit for. I'm just making light of this entire situation because you obviously have problems comprehending even your own nonsense.
For the record, Moses did receive stone tablets, everything about classical mythologies is supernatural, and so was Jesus.
You're really starting to come off like a lunatic.
Jesus was fully man and fully God at the same time! Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Everything Jesus did can be logically explained! Sounds legit to me.
A talking bush that is on fire, but does not burn and gives a man named Moses 10 commandments to take back to his people - nothing odd about that.
Virgin births? Completely normal.
Faith isn't about belief in something even when there is no evidence to prove the existence of the thing that you believe in? Sure buddy, if you say so.
Come talk to this nice lady in the white lab coat. Don't pay any attention to the big guys in security uniforms. They're your friends! That straight-jacket? Don't worry about it. It's cold out and they thought that you could use a coat..
No questions. No answers.. You just accept it and move on. -
benmasta — 13 years ago(March 13, 2013 08:07 PM)
i gotta say that anyone who goes through that many posts argueing with someone (and at that length) is as crazy as the person they call crazy.
i have never once seen posts that huge. even if half of it is quoting the last.
just insane. -
TiminPhoenix — 16 years ago(September 10, 2009 12:37 PM)
I rather liked it as well.
Yes, it was so goofy and campy but if viewed in that context, you could somewhat get into it.
There are two types of people in the world, those who divide people into two types and .. -
Succinct_Saluki — 16 years ago(September 14, 2009 11:17 AM)
Im on your side. It wasn't a good movie, but it's not as bad as people say. I thought John Travolta did a good job. its not worse than Carnosaur thats for damn sure, but Carnosaur is rated higher.
"Give it your all, It's all you've got" -
aquascenes83 — 16 years ago(September 18, 2009 10:45 PM)
I rather enjoy it and look forward to viewing it anytime it is on. If you set aside harse criticism which picks this movie apart, sit back and enjoy it, its not soo bad!
"Man's reach exceeds his imagination" - Robert Angier
www.myspace.com/roadtorespect -
CapnKaos — 16 years ago(September 29, 2009 06:18 AM)
Yes it was.
I will admit I laughed my way through this movie just from the sheer badness of it and picked up a used copy of it when I had the chance. It had to be a used copy because giving these people any more money might be incentive for them to make another movie and that would just be wrong on so many levels.
But make no mistake, this was a terrible movie. -
Gandalf_is_cool — 16 years ago(December 08, 2009 02:14 AM)
It sucked ass, with plot holes I could drive a bus through. Dialogue and directing was crap, John Travolta looked like a moron. Anyone who says this movie was "not bad" is a scientoligist or has the worst taste in movies imaginable.
-
microbit — 16 years ago(September 29, 2009 06:24 PM)
Definitely alot worse out there.
Well, it's certainly good to see there's some other folk out there with some perspective and common sense.
Not counting the individual bashing within this thread, of course.
I tend to look for the positive, not go on and on about bad movies. Someone else, didn't like it ? Fine, that's your prerogative and opinion, but don't bully on and on and on (why is it that every other movie I look at on IMDB always has the irritaing troll "worst movie ever" thread ? Perhaps these folk only have watched 4-5 movies in their whole life
Kris -
Rick_Deckard_B26354 — 16 years ago(November 01, 2009 09:38 PM)
I agree - this is an average Sci-Fi action flick. Some massive plot-holes, some scenes very obviously 'borrowed' from earlier and much better films (such as The Matrix and Blade Runner) and several very silly moments. The production values and SFX were above average, IMO.
But, there are FAR FAR worse films around than this one.
I think the rating is so low, because of it's links to Scientology and all the controversy around that subject. I've no time for that, and so I watched it without (m)any preconceptions, as I would any other Sci-Fi film
All My Film Ratings :
http://www.deckard.worldonline.co.uk/my_film_ratings.html