Each discovery only leads to more which we do not yet understand. Perhaps science explains all of everything someday. I expect not.
A Blanket Response to the Anti-Christian Posters
- Thread starter pastorjoeboggs
- Start date
The day we can explain everything is the day we become as a god.
This is called the God of the Gaps argument.
A dangerous approach to life. Not to mention, philosophically immature.
Didn't say it was right or wrong nor that it was what I personally believed, simply a statement. As long as there are "gaps", people will fill them with god(s). Sorry dude. Hard as you try, there will be people who believe in god for as long as you live.
The efforts are to move the needle in what non-believers perceive to be the correct direction. Toward that goal, a goal where thought, evidence, and reason outweigh faith, belief, and dogma; progress is being made.
I would also say that rather than the "god of the gaps" argument, the bigger reason people hold onto their faith is in fear of either no afterlife, or an afterlife of eternal damnation.
The hypocrisy, of course, is that you don't want anyone proselytizing to you about a god, yet you continue to do so against him to those who do not wish to hear it.
I'll remember that the next time atheists come knocking on my door to spread the gospel of reason. Get off my lawn you damn hypocrites!
Part of what I do is to teach people how to think, not what to think. I don't mention Gods or what she has arguably created outside of conversations with friends over micro-brew or this silly place.
You really think highly of yourself. What makes you think you are qualified to teach others how to think, let alone that you are right in attempting to do so?
Fair enough about door-knocking. The next atheist who knocks on my door will be the first. LDS? Not so much.
a lot of atheist are just as dogmatic, and quite frankly not particularly likeable people. That they might be "right" in this instance notwithstanding.
Along with my climate classes, I teach both a general science and critical thinking course. Both have elements of how to think, especially the critical thinking class (reasoning behind claims, pseudoscience, sourcing, inductive, deductive, skepticism, etc.). I'm "right" in doing so because there is a dearth of critical thinking skills amongst the general population, and the world will presumably be a better place if they are less susceptible to the vast amount of bullshit being thrown at them on a daily basis. I am qualified to do so because I've been trained to think like a scientist, and I have the letters behind my name to help support that claim.
Now, you must really think highly of yourself to think you are qualified to command others in a naval scenario...blah blah blah (rhetorical question, I realize you have worked to attain rank, and the navy deems you qualified for command, but I wouldn't be priggish enough to challenge that on a message board).
Most of my friends are atheist/agnostic, and I think they're great. I'm also quite generous and respectful to those I come in contact. Aren't anecdotes great!?
A lot of ________ are dogmatic, rude, and not particularly likeable. (how about lawyers!)
you combine agnostic/atheist...I don't. I've met many in the first group more likeable than those in the second. You've never heard of a "militant agnostic" for a reason.Most of my friends are atheist/agnostic, and I think they're great. I'm also quite generous and respectful to those I come in contact. Aren't anecdotes great!?
A lot of ________ are dogmatic, rude, and not particularly likeable. (how about lawyers!)
And many lawyers are difficult people to like as well. Comes with the somewhat unique and often rigid way of looking at patterns and things.
The point is that you can fill in the blank with whatever group you want to serve your argument. Your own experiences with individuals who identify with a given group aren't a representative sample for "likeability".
The atheist/agnostic discussion could go back into the definition argument we've had on here before that went nowhere. My lack of belief falls mostly in the agnostic atheist category; while I concede that anything is possible, including a deity, I do not believe one exists (ergo, by that definition, I don't believe in anything). Until I have observable or verifiable evidence in support of a deity, I see no reason to accept such a reality.
I've never met anyone who is so sure that God does not exist that they refuse to acknowledge the possibility, however remote, that they might be wrong. I would consider such a position intellectually immature.
I've met plenty, in person and online. I've met including someone we all know on here who mock/deride those that belief, and are fully certain in their position. I've never met an agnostic like that, and plenty of doubting theists.
For one thing, I'm not priggish enough to believe that there is only one way to command others, let alone that my way is the right way, regardless of the letters ahead of or behind my name. My way is A way, not THE way. While I may well be a dick for challenging that, I also recognize that I probably don't have all the answers. I'm not sure you feel the same way about yourself.
My holiday won't be the same due to worrying about what you're sure of. You seem to be attempting to both challenge me personally as well as the idea that there are better ways to evaluate reality. I'm not going to further defend myself or my credibility on an anonymous message board, but if you would like to understand what I teach, I suggest reading "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan.
Pass, thanks.
It's not your credibility I challenge, it's the credibility of your argument and your need to "move the needle" in the way you personally deem appropriate, apparently supported by a bunch of letters after your name. It is no different to me than someone attempting to "move the needle" more towards LDS, etc.
You just touched upon the biggest hurdle.
If you make any of the gods happy you get an afterlife. A bonus level.
Many religions approach the positive If you don't believe your afterlife is going to a negative zone. Believe me, all is good.
Obviously man-made.
Like Qaz and his purposeful misunderstanding of atheist and agnostic, you are dealing with a shill. Fold in the 350+ mass shootings...you aren't having a discussion with an honest broker.
They could both understand if they wanted.
Last edited:
Actually, I think the majority of the acerbic discourse on this (or any) online forum is due to the limitations of the written word. I just listened to a podcast between Sam Harris and Dan Dennett regarding their public disagreement on elements of the free-will argument. Even they, who are both highly trained in rational and reasonable discourse, had floundered in a caustic mire of misinterpretation where writing was the lone medium.
You single, Qaz? I'll bet the fireworks between you and illuminutty would rival the display in Boston.
I enjoy crazy as much as the next person, it's at least an excuse. Arrogance and a-holery is tougher to excuse.
Heh. I listened to that a few days ago. I wish Sam had time to do a weekly. I certainly got more out that conversation than those posted emails a while back.
Ohhhh...that would be a fun thread. Free will.
