Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dwarf]

The star above Jesus' birthplace being a rare constellation of planets, the red sea parting is an earthquake/a rare spring-ebb/entirely somewhere else, stuff like that.

Or, you know, the history of Moses a lie?
Anyways, I've heard that the place where he 'parted' the sea is about knee-depth anyway.

[Siquo]

The earthquake would have temporarily changed the waterflow blahblahblah.

It's just far-fetched explanations to be able to "explain" events that were previously "hand-of-god" events.
Sometimes they work (no, lightning does not come from the hammer of Thor), sometimes they're just really forced made-up stories.

When I said "nothing was ever proven" that is wrong (don't know what I was thinking). There have been lots of "hand of god" events that were proven to be natural, and explainable. Just not all of them.


The "lie" is the #2 solution: dismiss as fantasy. Easiest solution to unexplainable stuff: pretend it doesn't exist.

[Andir]

Also... low tide perhaps.  Some of these could even have been "fish stories."

Yeah, we totally just took out hundred of men with a single rubber band.  Jesus walking on water could have been an exaggeration as well.  Whoever observed it and wrote it down could have said, "It's as if he walked on water" and someone could have twisted that to say "he walked on water."

Also, several magicians have "walked on water," even recently (although he had a bit more technology to help him pull it off.)

[Cheeetar]

The earthquake would have temporarily changed the waterflow blahblahblah.

It's just far-fetched explanations to be able to "explain" events that were previously "hand-of-god" events.
Sometimes they work (no, lightning does not come from the hammer of Thor), sometimes they're just really forced made-up stories.

When I said "nothing was ever proven" that is wrong (don't know what I was thinking). There have been lots of "hand of god" events that were proven to be natural, and explainable. Just not all of them.


The "lie" is the #2 solution: dismiss as fantasy. Easiest solution to unexplainable stuff: pretend it doesn't exist.

Some things really are a waste of time to attempt to explain.

For example: I can fly. Seriously. You cannot see me flying, or any evidence of me flying, but please do try to centuries later find an explanation for my flying as opposed to dismissing it as bullshit.

[Siquo]

Some things really are a waste of time to attempt to explain.

Yes, that's the point. Irrelevant of whether you flew or not, trying to "explain" or "prove" it, is just a waste of time. Either you accept it as-is, or you don't. No reasoning, no explaining, no proving. Most of these things are simply impossible to prove without an actual time-machine. And even then God might decide to not do it while the time-traveller is around, just to mess with you. 


To add some oil to the fire, and no, I'm not attempting to troll:
The problem with not being able to or refusing to accept things without explanation is that most of "those people" (gross generalisation) also have trouble accepting people who do, without explanation. That makes a religious person more open-minded than a non-religious one.

[Huesoo]

Some things really are a waste of time to attempt to explain.

Yes, that's the point. Irrelevant of whether you flew or not, trying to "explain" or "prove" it, is just a waste of time. Either you accept it as-is, or you don't. No reasoning, no explaining, no proving.

Just stop dude, you're sounding like Conservapedia. You're coming off as a slackjawed moron.

[dreiche2]

Was that linked in this thread or the other one? Open-mindedness.

Siquo, you can be irrational all the way you want. Now you're basically just defending the stance "I can believe in whatever arbitrary potentially made-up stuff I want". And yes you can, but don't expect to get a medal for it. But as soon as it comes to decisions that influence other people, and those other people disagree with your decision or action, then the only basis for a sensible argument can be things that are actually arguably real.

If you were Jewish and wanted to circumcise your son because that's what the bible says, but your wife believes in Harry Potter and wants to uh put a magic spell on your boy's penis (hey I haven't read those books, what do I know  ), then there is simply no way to go from there. You believe in this, she in believes in that. Neither of you actually can argue that your belief has any relevance to reality. And that's it, then.

[Micro102]

Why don't you just add "except micro" to every generalization of yours because I seem to be the only atheist that doesn't fit your stereotypes...

And I heavily disagree with religious people being more open minded. But then again we might be thinking of openmindedness ina  different way. I don't have a problem with anyone's religion as long as it doesn't involve live sacrifices or stuff like that. Even if it's goats. But if someone told me their car levitated in the air I would have to see it first.

In the past people have been slaughtered due to their religion by other religions and I think the only thing keeping that from happening today are the laws and how mad everyone will get at you if you did do it. If I went up to a religious person and said "I'm an atheist" how many people do you think would walk away or give me a weird look?

[Andir]

If I went up to a religious person and said "I'm an atheist" how many people do you think would walk away or give me a weird look?

Anymore, they'd just tell you they'll pray for you and walk away.  The smart one's at least.  It's ignorance with a poke and jab in there.  My latest experiences with the religious community tells me this is the direction religion is heading.  Ignore the person, but make sure they know that ___ still exists.  (ie: get in the last word)

[Siquo]

Was that linked in this thread or the other one? Open-mindedness.

Siquo, you can be irrational all the way you want. Now you're basically just defending the stance "I can believe in whatever arbitrary potentially made-up stuff I want". And yes you can, but don't expect to get a medal for it. But as soon as it comes to decisions that influence other people, and those other people disagree with your decision or action, then the only basis for a sensible argument can be things that are actually arguably real.

That is an extremely bad video. One of the comments below it had it right:

"This clip seems to be more about someone very frustrated about people not seeing he is so right, than about open-mindedness."

And it once again shows my problem: Why can't they (the atheists-except-micro) let someone be wrong? Just... let it. If they bother you, tell them what bothers you. So if someone wants to circumcise his son, and you think that's childmolesting, tell him it's childmolesting, not that his entire faith is based on bullcrap. Open-mindedness is about perspectives, and how your perspective is never better than someone else's, however wrong you think they are. That does not mean you should respect or tolerate war or terrorism or blasphemy or exploitation or.. etc. But you can be civil about it, and say what's really bothering you instead of "trying to attack the root of all evil".

[Huesoo]

Siquo just stop.

[Andir]

And it once again shows my problem: Why can't they (the atheists-except-micro) let someone be wrong? Just... let it. If they bother you, tell them what bothers you.
...But you can be civil about it, and say what's really bothering you instead of "trying to attack the root of all evil".

But you don't understand... it's not us... it's them.  Have you even heard some of the arguments against restoring secular law by removing God from our legal/monetary/political matters?  "God is in everything, you can't take him out," "You are trying to kill our religion" and such nonsensical stuff as that.  Some even go as far as to say that they will never trust or vote for someone "who doesn't fear the wrath of God".  The religious community views us as Satan's Advocate and anything we do is driven by his will, so they fight tooth and nail to stop any and all action we try to do to gain representation or support.  There's such a drive right now to push religious teaching into the schools and there's literally nothing we can do about it but hope that someone who did get elected (and is religious) has the sense to deny such things rather than listen to their priest tell them how horrible we are.

I can't tell you the number of emails I get from Christian relatives fighting to "keep God in Government" stating that the removal of God from our money will bring on the apocalypse.

[Sordid]

Open-mindedness is about perspectives, and how your perspective is never better than someone else's, however wrong you think they are.

No it's not and you bloody well know it, otherwise you wouldn't be lecturing people here about how wrong they are. Their opinion is as valid as yours, remember? So you have no business telling anyone that they're wrong. Unless you're a hypocrite who just uses this argument because he doesn't have a better one.

That does not mean you should respect or tolerate war or terrorism or blasphemy or exploitation or.. etc.

Soooo every viewpoint is equally valid, except those that go against yours. Uh-huh.

[G-Flex]

Open-mindedness is about the willingness to modify your own ideas based on new information, and the willingness to consider that information. This goes hand-in-hand with respecting a person despite disliking what they think, but does not require you to think that their perspectives/opinions/ideas are as good or better than your own. Sordid just pointed out an extremely obvious issue with this.

[Neruz]

Holy Shit Siquo, Holy Shit.

Their opinion is as valid as yours, remember?

The only valid opinion is the correct one. If my opinion is incorrect, and yours is. Then my opinion is not valid.