blargh! [Closed]

by **Ende** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:32 am

Norstal wrote:
Vlack Sturm wrote:Alright guys...

I have gotten all your points. Very well done. Now Vlack is returning to game play as of this moment. Have a nice day.

EDIT: No ill feelings?

No.

I'm tired of this. You don't get to run away when your arguments, beliefs, logic, and faith gets crushed. You either admit it and leave the thread open or you continue to post.

Ahem.

Let me explain something. I was once this guy.

You do not convince people to become rational Christians or atheists by continuing to attack. You let them leave. They think to themselves for a while, realize it, decide to water down their beliefs and become rationalistic Christians or atheists like me. Continuing to hound them will create an anti-atheist who thinks of all atheists as heathens and a-holes. Generally, it's better to let him leave as he has no interest in the continuation of this thread.

by **The Cummunist State** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:33 am

Yahkima wrote:
The Cummunist State wrote:I still think if there is a god, he is evil.

I try to give him the benefit of the doubt (excuse the pun.)

He could be incompetent too. Or something really awful but also unavoidable, like say he's an old Aztec god fueled by human sacrifice: Not his fault, it's just the way he was... um... born? But still a terrible inconvenience upon humanity.

I tend to think polytheism is far more reasonable. You could have good and evil gods and such. Besides, a single god would probably get bored and make more.

by **Raeyh** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:35 am

The Cummunist State wrote:
Yahkima wrote:I try to give him the benefit of the doubt (excuse the pun.)

He could be incompetent too. Or something really awful but also unavoidable, like say he's an old Aztec god fueled by human sacrifice: Not his fault, it's just the way he was... um... born? But still a terrible inconvenience upon humanity.

I tend to think polytheism is far more reasonable. You could have good and evil gods and such. Besides, a single god would probably get bored and make more.

Not only is polytheism reasonable, it's fully supported by the Bible.

by **Vlack Sturm** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:35 am

Norstal wrote:
Vlack Sturm wrote:Alright guys...

I have gotten all your points. Very well done. Now Vlack is returning to game play as of this moment. Have a nice day.

EDIT: No ill feelings?

No.

I'm tired of this. You don't get to run away when your arguments, beliefs, logic, and faith gets crushed. You either admit it and leave the thread open or you continue to post.

The point is now: What is truth? We truly don't know until we die. So eh. I still believe in God, but I am not a religious extremists (that was my only point).

by **The Cummunist State** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:35 am

Raeyh wrote:
The Cummunist State wrote:I tend to think polytheism is far more reasonable. You could have good and evil gods and such. Besides, a single god would probably get bored and make more.

Not only is polytheism reasonable, it's fully supported by the Bible.

That makes it far less reasonable to me.

by **Ende** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:35 am

Raeyh wrote:
The Cummunist State wrote:I tend to think polytheism is far more reasonable. You could have good and evil gods and such. Besides, a single god would probably get bored and make more.

Not only is polytheism reasonable, it's fully supported by the Bible.

<head explodes>

What.

by **Farnhamia** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:35 am

Yahkima wrote:
Norstal wrote:No.

I'm tired of this. You don't get to run away when your arguments, beliefs, logic, and faith gets crushed. You either admit it and leave the thread open or you continue to post.

Eh, let him run. He knows what happened here, and everyone else can see it too.

There's no reason to rub it in his face.

Why not?

"Some say that the Bible is the best fictional book out. This proves to me that you’re uneducated or really prejudiced ..."
"Let me prove to you that you are uneducated in the ways of Theology (the Study of Religion). "
"I guarantee most of you are not educated in Theology."
"Some of you are no better than the religious extremists."

Face-rubbing? Maybe.

by **The Cummunist State** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:36 am

Vlack Sturm wrote:
Norstal wrote:No.

I'm tired of this. You don't get to run away when your arguments, beliefs, logic, and faith gets crushed. You either admit it and leave the thread open or you continue to post.

The point is now: What is truth? We truly don't know until we die. So eh. I still believe in God, but I am not a religious extremists (that was my only point).

What is truth? Seriously? I mean, agnosticism is the correct position, but, really?

by **Norstal** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:37 am

Ende wrote:
Norstal wrote:No.

I'm tired of this. You don't get to run away when your arguments, beliefs, logic, and faith gets crushed. You either admit it and leave the thread open or you continue to post.

Ahem.

Let me explain something. I was once this guy.

You do not convince people to become rational Christians or atheists by continuing to attack. You let them leave. They think to themselves for a while, realize it, decide to water down their beliefs and become rationalistic Christians or atheists like me. Continuing to hound them will create an anti-atheist who thinks of all atheists as heathens and a-holes. Generally, it's better to let him leave as he has no interest in the continuation of this thread.

Which is why I said you either admit it and leave the thread open. You don't get to close threads unless you're a mod.

by **Raeyh** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:38 am

Ende wrote:
Raeyh wrote:
Not only is polytheism reasonable, it's fully supported by the Bible.

<head explodes>

What.

The Bible states you aren't supposed to worship other gods before God, not that they don't exist. You can be polytheistic as long as you know who is supposed to be on top.

by **Farnhamia** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:38 am

The Cummunist State wrote:
Vlack Sturm wrote:
The point is now: What is truth? We truly don't know until we die. So eh. I still believe in God, but I am not a religious extremists (that was my only point).

What is truth? Seriously? I mean, agnosticism is the correct position, but, really?

The default position should be non-belief. If, on consideration, you decide you aren't sure, then agnosticism.

by **The Cummunist State** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:39 am

Farnhamia wrote:
The Cummunist State wrote:What is truth? Seriously? I mean, agnosticism is the correct position, but, really?

The default position should be non-belief. If, on consideration, you decide you aren't sure, then agnosticism.

I'm not sure you understand. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. Agnosticism is admitting you can't really know. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

by **Farnhamia** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:41 am

The Cummunist State wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:The default position should be non-belief. If, on consideration, you decide you aren't sure, then agnosticism.

I'm not sure you understand. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. Agnosticism is admitting you can't really know. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Whatever. These "discussions" of what agnosticism and atheism are and how they overlap and intersect make my head hurt.

by **Norstal** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:41 am

Vlack Sturm wrote:
Norstal wrote:No.

I'm tired of this. You don't get to run away when your arguments, beliefs, logic, and faith gets crushed. You either admit it and leave the thread open or you continue to post.

The point is now: What is truth? We truly don't know until we die. So eh. I still believe in God, but I am not a religious extremists (that was my only point).

You're right, we don't. Hence why I'm not the one claiming truths because I don't know the truth.

You may stop posting for a while, contemplate, and return. Or you may even avoid the thread you made altogether. That doesn't mean you get to make the rest of us shut up about what you claimed today because that would be censorship.

by **The Cummunist State** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:42 am

Farnhamia wrote:
The Cummunist State wrote:I'm not sure you understand. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. Agnosticism is admitting you can't really know. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Whatever. These "discussions" of what agnosticism and atheism are and how they overlap and intersect make my head hurt.

Oh please, get over it. It's dead simple. Agnosticism and Gnosticism have to do with knowledge, Atheism and Theism have to due with belief. That's it.

by **Farnhamia** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:49 am

The Cummunist State wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:Whatever. These "discussions" of what agnosticism and atheism are and how they overlap and intersect make my head hurt.

Oh please, get over it. It's dead simple. Agnosticism and Gnosticism have to do with knowledge, Atheism and Theism have to due with belief. That's it.

"Gnosticism" is not the opposite of "agnosticism." As an atheist, belief does not come into my position. I see no evidence that I can accept that any supernatural phenomena exist, call them what you will. I accept what science tells me because I can, if I wish to take the time and trouble, test the data and conclusions. One cannot do that with theism.

by **Yahkima** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:49 am

Ende wrote:
Raeyh wrote:
Not only is polytheism reasonable, it's fully supported by the Bible.

<head explodes>

What. You're joking.

Riiiight?

This is disputable, but it worth noting that the old testament in particular does not say there are no other gods, only that one should not worship them. There are other things too, like when Yahweh says "we" in genesis, what is he talking about? Who is he talking to?

Also, from an archaeological and anthropological standpoint it seems likely that Yahweh originated as a tribal or city deity. This was not uncommon in the ancient near-east, and most settlements did have a patron divinity; usually the worship of rival gods was prohibited in such places (You don't worship Poseidon in Athens, for instance), Yahweh seems to have taken this a step further by prohibiting the worship of all other divinities ("Your god is a jealous god, you shall have no other gods but me.") But this is not a sufficient reason to conclude that early Judaism was not, at least in principal, polytheistic.

by **Farnhamia** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:52 am

Yahkima wrote:
Ende wrote:
<head explodes>

What. You're joking.

Riiiight?

This is disputable, but it worth noting that the old testament in particular does not say there are no other gods, only that one should not worship them. There are other things too, like when Yahweh says "we" in genesis, what is he talking about? Who is he talking to?

Also, from an archaeological and anthropological standpoint it seems likely that Yahweh originated as a tribal or city deity. This was not uncommon in the ancient near-east, and most settlements did have a patron divinity; usually the worship of rival gods was prohibited in such places (You don't worship Poseidon in Athens, for instance), Yahweh seems to have taken this a step further by prohibiting the worship of all other divinities ("Your god is a jealous god, you shall have no other gods but me.") But this is not a sufficient reason to conclude that early Judaism was not, at least in principal, polytheistic.

A Canaanite hill-god, I believe. The ancient Hebrews didn't settle down until later, after they had captured some cities and decided that was better than wandering around herding sheep.

And yes, Yahweh is different in mandating that his followers worship him above all others. (You could worship Poseidon in Athens, you know. Athy just happened to have been the eponymous founder of the city, is all.)

by **Kryozerkia** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:53 am

Norstal wrote:Which is why I said you either admit it and leave the thread open. You don't get to close threads unless you're a mod.

I don't see any reason to lock this thread. Just refrain from dogpiling.

by **The Cummunist State** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:53 am

Farnhamia wrote:
The Cummunist State wrote:Oh please, get over it. It's dead simple. Agnosticism and Gnosticism have to do with knowledge, Atheism and Theism have to due with belief. That's it.

"Gnosticism" is not the opposite of "agnosticism." As an atheist, belief does not come into my position. I see no evidence that I can accept that any supernatural phenomena exist, call them what you will. I accept what science tells me because I can, if I wish to take the time and trouble, test the data and conclusions. One cannot do that with theism.

Atheism does have to due with belief, if you actually think for a second. It is lack of belief in a binary position with Theism, therefore, has to due with belief.

by **Yahkima** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:55 am

Farnhamia wrote:
Yahkima wrote:This is disputable, but it worth noting that the old testament in particular does not say there are no other gods, only that one should not worship them. There are other things too, like when Yahweh says "we" in genesis, what is he talking about? Who is he talking to?

Also, from an archaeological and anthropological standpoint it seems likely that Yahweh originated as a tribal or city deity. This was not uncommon in the ancient near-east, and most settlements did have a patron divinity; usually the worship of rival gods was prohibited in such places (You don't worship Poseidon in Athens, for instance), Yahweh seems to have taken this a step further by prohibiting the worship of all other divinities ("Your god is a jealous god, you shall have no other gods but me.") But this is not a sufficient reason to conclude that early Judaism was not, at least in principal, polytheistic.

A Canaanite hill-god, I believe. The ancient Hebrews didn't settle down until later, after they had captured some cities and decided that was better than wandering around herding sheep.

And yes, Yahweh is different in mandating that his followers worship him above all others. (You could worship Poseidon in Athens, you know. Athy just happened to have been the eponymous founder of the city, is all.)

Actually they usually didn't. Traditionally, if you wanted to make offering to the god of the sea you go to Piraeus. Both because it makes sense to be close to the sea, and because it was considered ill fortune to beseech his aid in the sight and city of his rival.

EDIT: More a superstition than a rule, I suppose.

by **Raeyh** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:56 am

Farnhamia wrote:
The Cummunist State wrote:Oh please, get over it. It's dead simple. Agnosticism and Gnosticism have to do with knowledge, Atheism and Theism have to due with belief. That's it.

"Gnosticism" is not the opposite of "agnosticism." As an atheist, belief does not come into my position. I see no evidence that I can accept that any supernatural phenomena exist, call them what you will. I accept what science tells me because I can, if I wish to take the time and trouble, test the data and conclusions. One cannot do that with theism.

True, but either you went to Sunday school (not agnostic), or you didn't (agnostic).
You either believe in the existence of gods (theistic), or you don't (atheistic).

by **The Cummunist State** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:57 am

Raeyh wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:"Gnosticism" is not the opposite of "agnosticism." As an atheist, belief does not come into my position. I see no evidence that I can accept that any supernatural phenomena exist, call them what you will. I accept what science tells me because I can, if I wish to take the time and trouble, test the data and conclusions. One cannot do that with theism.

True, but either you went to Sunday school (not agnostic), or you didn't (agnostic).
You either believe in the existence of gods (theistic), or you don't (atheistic).

...What does sunday school have to do with Agnosticism?

by **Farnhamia** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:05 am

Yahkima wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:A Canaanite hill-god, I believe. The ancient Hebrews didn't settle down until later, after they had captured some cities and decided that was better than wandering around herding sheep.

And yes, Yahweh is different in mandating that his followers worship him above all others. (You could worship Poseidon in Athens, you know. Athy just happened to have been the eponymous founder of the city, is all.)

Actually they usually didn't. Traditionally, if you wanted to make offering to the god of the sea you go to Piraeus. Both because it makes sense to be close to the sea, and because it was considered ill fortune to beseech his aid in the sight and city of his rival.

EDIT: More a superstition than a rule, I suppose.

Well, alright. There was the Altar of the Twelve Gods in the Agora, though. And rather than Pireaus, I think Poseidon's temple at Sounion would be better. I never lived very long at Athens, I preferred Argos and Corinth, especially the latter.

by **Raeyh** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:05 am

The Cummunist State wrote:...What does sunday school have to do with Agnosticism?

Agnostic means "not learned." If you didn't receive religious instruction, you are agnostic. Likewise, if you did, you can't be agnostic. It would be like a high school graduate claiming to be uneducated.

blargh! [Closed]

Who is online