This movie does cut hard and fast through religious garbage. I can understand why this movie rubbed some Christians the
-
ZAROVE — 11 years ago(November 20, 2014 12:12 PM)
Your playing games now.
Look mate, this is simple. Atheist is defined as a term to mean one who beleives thre isno God. It is also Ontologically impossinle to kack beleif in a conceot you already know about. This becomes even more evident when popel discuss God. Atheists don't just dismiss "My" God, they dismis them all. It is a beleif. Its pedantic to try to foist the "Lck o beeif" canard on us, when its clealry just a ruse.
Also, its not abotu me or me beign personall ofended by Dawkisn ro you or anoen else for "Disbeleif in MY GOD", its about the ridiculous claim that Athis is a mere lac of beeif comign from peopel who want to argue the poitn that no gods exist. -
hadmatter — 11 years ago(November 20, 2014 05:40 PM)
" Your playing games now."
No. That is what you do when you try to tell me what I believe. That is what you do when you fraudulently claim that Dawkins stated that there are no gods as a matter of FACT, when in reality he only stated that there is no such thing as YOUR god. There are plenty of gods that YOU believe to be fictional, but that doesn't make you an atheist.
" Atheists don't just dismiss "My" God, they dismis them all."
Except that they patently DON'T do this, atheists go on the record ALL THE TIME professing the opposite of what you claim, and your only recourse is to simply call them liars and say they don't really believe that. As you have JUST done.
I am the sod-off shotgun. -
ZAROVE — 11 years ago(November 20, 2014 09:40 PM)
So, when Dawkins said "there is almost certainly no god" (PLease don't be a Yank, we Brits always tend ot say thign slike almost certianly) he was just jshing?
I'm sorry but, the very point of Dawkisn Ultimate 747 Argument was to counter Theism in general, not just "MY" god. Dawkins does say, on moe than one occassion, that no gods exist or that they are all fictional, and I can quote him.
In fact, all youave to do is read this article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certain l_b_32164.html
I can go on, but the poitn is, Dawkisn doen't just dismiss "my" God, he dismisses them all as Fictional.
That said, for a bloke who wants to get angry that I somehow tell him what he beleives, dn't you think its hypocrtival to tell me that there are loads of gods I see a Fctional? I know the drill, I'm a CHristain so I see all other gods as oure fiction, right? Well, no, I dont.
But thanks for tellign me what I beleive.
The Truth is, I think many cultures have different ways to connect to the same god, and other gods, liej the Olympains, were personificatiosn of natural forces. In terms of the latter, this is, in fact, how the Ancient Greeks or ROmans understood them. NNeptune wasn't simply the god of the Sea, he was the Sea. Hadese wasn't merley the god of the Underworld, eh was its personification. Athena was not merely the goddess of Wisdom, she was Wisdom incarnate. The reason the gods were immortal is because the forces of natue they embodied were indestructable.
In that sense, then, the gods of the Greeks an ROmans are understood as real to me, I just don't see thm as gods.
I also see thigns like "The Great Spirit" of Natuve Americans to be simply their term for the same God.
But I don't dismiss other peopels gods as mere fiction.
However, you felt completley comfortable tellign me what I beleive, and yet are upset when I do the same.
The difference is, I have reason to belive he Rhetoric that is pesented to me by COntemporary Ateit such as yoruself is not enturley True. It's just a gagle fo rpeated slogans that don't add up, and they ar eincongruous with the actual arguments. If I am worng, then show me, but don't just tell me I'm wrogn and tss out definitiosn or tell me how I'm tellign you what you beleive. I'm calling it what I see it as, and have no Reasin to change my Mind. -
hadmatter — 11 years ago(November 21, 2014 12:08 PM)
So, when Dawkins said "there is almost certainly no god" (PLease don't be a Yank, we Brits always tend ot say thign slike almost certianly) he was just jshing?
I don't read Dawkins or really care about him, dude. I responded only to the quotation provided by you, which made no assertion about any gods but yours. And here you are once again, providing a quote that makes no absolute claim at all, and telling me to just ignore the part where he acknowledges a lack of certainty. Pretty weak sauce.
I'm sorry but, the very point of Dawkisn Ultimate 747 Argument was to counter Theism in general, not just "MY" god. Dawkins does say, on moe than one occassion, that no gods exist or that they are all fictional, and I can quote him.
Great, then do so. And what you will have proven is that Dawkins, one specific atheists, believes that there is no such thing as any kind of god. But since Dawkins does not speak for me, or for anyone else for that matter, it's kind of irrelevant.
That said, for a bloke who wants to get angry that I somehow tell him what he beleives, dn't you think its hypocrtival to tell me that there are loads of gods I see a Fctional? I know the drill, I'm a CHristain so I see all other gods as oure fiction, right? Well, no, I dont.
But thanks for tellign me what I beleive.
The Truth is, I think many cultures have different ways to connect to the same god, and other gods, liej the Olympains, were personificatiosn of natural forces. In terms of the latter, this is, in fact, how the Ancient Greeks or ROmans understood them. NNeptune wasn't simply the god of the Sea, he was the Sea. Hadese wasn't merley the god of the Underworld, eh was its personification. Athena was not merely the goddess of Wisdom, she was Wisdom incarnate. The reason the gods were immortal is because the forces of natue they embodied were indestructable.
In that sense, then, the gods of the Greeks an ROmans are understood as real to me, I just don't see thm as gods.
So you don't see them as gods. That means you regard the claim that they are gods as a fictional one.
I also see thigns like "The Great Spirit" of Natuve Americans to be simply their term for the same God.
But I don't dismiss other peopels gods as mere fiction.
No, you just dismiss them as wrong, either attributing godlike qualities to natural forces, or referring to
your
god. You're splitting hairs in order to make it seem like we're doing the same thing. You have just stated that these "gods" are either
not
gods, or are actually referring to a different god. That is no different from dismissing the claims as fictional, but by all means, cling to that belief all you like
However, you felt completley comfortable tellign me what I beleive, and yet are upset when I do the same.
I'm not upset. I just have no interest in debating with someone who insists on misrepresenting my position. I do not believe in any particular gods. Nor do I make a general claim that none exist. I
do
believe that your god is fictional, but that is a far cry from asserting that there is no such thing as any god. It's a big universe. There is no reason to assume that there isn't one out there, but in the absence of all evidence I will go ahead and proceed as if there's not. I have no reason to alter my behavior on the off chance that a god exists someplace in the cosmos. What difference does it make?
The difference is, I have reason to belive he Rhetoric that is pesented to me by COntemporary Ateit such as yoruself is not enturley True. It's just a gagle fo rpeated slogans that don't add up, and they ar eincongruous with the actual arguments. If I am worng, then show me, but don't just tell me I'm wrogn and tss out definitiosn or tell me how I'm tellign you what you beleive. I'm calling it what I see it as, and have no Reasin to change my Mind.
Yes, you are wrong. The only person who gets to decide what I believe is me. The only person who decides what anyone believes is that person himself. And since you will not accept any person's account of what he himself believes unless that account jives with what you have already decided, then you're wrong. You have been shown. Every time an atheist makes a belief statement that you disagree with, you HAVE BEEN SHOWN.
We're done here. You cannot have a discussion without telling me what I believe and defining the terms of my beliefs for me. You're a dishonest person and, as I said at the beginning, there is no point having a conversation with you if you're going to keep doing that. I have allowed ample opportunity for you to demonstrate any ability to do otherwise.
I am the sod-off shotgun. -
ZAROVE — 11 years ago(November 21, 2014 03:50 PM)
You're trying way too hard ot maintain the status quo of the Arygkents you roefer.
When I say I sometiems see other peopels Deities as just thir exoression of the same god, soemhow I'm sayign tey are wrng. WHen I say soetiems the gods of old were personificatiosn of naturalforces, I'm still sayign their gods are fictional. Meanwhile, youhave the Right toi tell me what I beleive and what I'm saying, but heaven frbid I do the same for you.
This is really simple. I don't beleive that Atheism is a mere lack of beleif in gods ebcause that's not only not how the word is acually deined, but also because it makes no sense o define it that way. I also don't buy into the insistence that Atheism is a lakc of beeif because those who insist on it generlaly argue that gods din't exist. It's splittign hairs mroe to tll me that someen is saign "My" god doesnt exist but doenst say all gods dn't exist then it is for me to say itherwise, and frankly, its shallow of you.
We both know that popel can claim things that arent True and that peopel can get caught up in stock arguments and proaganda, I just realise that Atheists are liek that tooin rtegards to Atheism.
No, I'm not sayign all Athusts are alike, but lets face Reality, you haven't really even tried to convicne me I'm wrong, somuch as youve ust decided ot attack aythgi I say. -
hadmatter — 11 years ago(November 30, 2014 04:37 PM)
I don't need to convince you that you are wrong, because all the evidence is in my favor, meaning that
nothing
will convince you. The only truth that matters regarding
another person's
belief is what that person claims to believe, and how they express that belief. Your refusal to accept an individual's personal testimony is not an argument, dude, it's just denial.
The idea of simply lacking a belief in something does not make sense
to you
. Fine. But that is merely your own shortcoming, and does not actually undermine the entire concept. You seem to fall short when it comes to the relatively simple idea of
being unconvinced
. If someone is
unconvinced
by evidence that has been presented, it does not mean that they are forced to pick a side anyway. They are completely within their rights to remain on the fence. To
lack belief
one way or the other.
The idea of gods is
utterly unconvincing
. But I certainly cannot claim absolute knowledge of the universe. I do not discount the possibility of gods
as a concept
because there may well be evidence out there. Somewhere. That neither I nor anyone else has ever encountered.
And there are plenty of people who feel the same way. But you discount them because you don't share their point of view.
All you have shown me is that
some
claim that there are no gods. You have not shown me why I should feel obliged to take that same position just because somebody else does.
You have also shown me that when an atheist makes the claim that
your
god doesn't exist, you someone extrapolate from that a claim that
no
gods exist. That is dishonest.
This is really simple. I don't beleive that Atheism is a mere lack of beleif in gods ebcause that's not only not how the word is acually deined
No. There are multiple definitions, because people who call themselves "atheists" are not all the same. You have chosen to only acknowledge
one
definition, another example of your dishonesty.
but also because it makes no sense o define it that way
to you.
Obviously, many disagree, which is why you are forced to make this claim over and over again.
I also don't buy into the insistence that Atheism is a lakc of beeif because those who insist on it generlaly argue that gods din't exist
Even if this were true and unassailable, you yourself have been forced to add "generally" because
you know that it is not true of all who make this claim.
It's splittign hairs mroe to tll me that someen is saign "My" god doesnt exist but doenst say all gods dn't exist then it is for me to say itherwise, and frankly, its shallow of you.
It is
accurate
of me. When someone says that they believe
your
god is fictional, it
makes no claim
about the veracity of any other god. I can believe in Bigfoot but not the Loch Ness Monster. They are both cryptozoological animals, but some people still believe in one but not the other.
I am the sod-off shotgun. -
Ironman54 — 10 years ago(August 16, 2015 10:31 PM)
-
Ironman54 — 10 years ago(August 16, 2015 10:32 PM)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Advanced_Technology_Telescope
f'n numbnutz -
DepressedOptomist — 10 years ago(February 28, 2016 04:50 PM)
So you're like the individual walking down the street with his friend. The friend looks up in the sky, and sees a Boeing 747 flying across. The friend says, "Isn't it remarkable all the engineers, machinists, electricians, and others that came together to fashion a several ton flying steel structure like that?"
You reply, "Are you kidding me. There was no intelligence behind making that object fly. I'm sure all those parts were lying around in a junk yard, and a great wind came up and those parts came together to form a Boeing 747!! Intelligent design my ass!!"
So please tell me how living tissue and complex life forms and organisms came randomly into being from rock and goo since you believe in science and intellect. -
Woodyanders — 2 months ago(January 14, 2026 01:58 AM)
I wasn't remotely offended at this movie's jabs at religion and evolution. They were done in a spirit of good-natured fun that was more amusing than offensive.
You've seen Guy Standeven in something because the man was in everything.