Learn more Shop now Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Worried Blues Shop now Fitbit
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

God Does Not Exist Because. . . (2)

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 9801-9825 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 11:15:11 GMT
Kevin,

don't let those unnatural Jews creep up behind you. if you drop the soap in the shower leave it alone!

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 11:23:01 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Mar 2012, 11:23:22 GMT
Withnail says:
You need to take that up with Bert, not me.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 11:33:10 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"But, causing offence because one disagrees with anothers world view and says so, is different to causing offence by attacking the person themselves personally, because you disagree with their world view."
The trouble is that some people have co-opted their world view and made it part of their identity, in doing so any criticism of their worldview can not but be taken as a criticism of them personally too by the fact that they invested so much personal time, emotion and hope in it being true.

"Calling a person 'ridiculous' or stupid, is a personal attack on them not on their belief."
Yes but did you see that I said "Ridiculous views (and some views are ridiculous) need to be told they are ridiculous" I didn't say ridiculous people. You shouldn't extrapolate beyond the statement itself. This is unfortunately what people do, so when they are told 'Believing in God is stupid' they imagine that it is suggesting they are a stupid person and often appeal to someone who did something smart and believe in God. If you look again the statment provided accurate context that doesn't allow for such an interpreation - it clearly said the *belief* was stupid. Smart people can be stupid just as stupid people can be smart. There is no such thing as an infallible person.

"I would defend your right to say 'I believe your view about football is ridiculous,' but I would not defend your right to say ' I believe you are ridiculous because you hold that view about football.'"
Why? It's effectively the same thing. If a view on football or anything else is ridiculous then the person holding that belief, is ridiculous with respect to that belief. To suggest any different is to elliminate the idea that there are any ridiculous, mistaken or ignorant ideas, opinion or beliefs! What I also think is unwarranted is to imagine that statement is to be stretched to an absolute, that's the point you are no longer working with the statement itself but guiding it to a point it was not intended to work just so you can throw it out - it's the logical fallacy known as reductio ad absurdum.

"The first, is your rightful, opinion on the viewpoint itself."
Yes, but suggesting that someone has the right to an opinion is asanine. Surely you want to focus on whether or not it has merit.

"The other, is personally offensive and irrational,in that it makes a derogatory sweeping statement about the person, because you disagree with their viewpoint on one subject."
The second if offensive at all is all down to your own poor extrapolations. To say 'Opinion X is stupid' or 'I believe you are being stupid when you hold opinion X' is not the same as saying 'You hold opinion X therefore you are stupid'. The third take on the statment may even leave the possiblity that the person is claiming the other to be totally stupid on all things based on the single consideration of opinion X (something that is wrong) but it still is not saying it, it's the interpretation seeking offence to be found so they can attack the man instead of defend Opinion X.

"The person has the right to be offended by the personal attack, because it is not reasonable."
Where did that come from? We've not used a consistent example of a valid belief to know if it's reasonable here just place holder examples, there's been no actual discussion of what beliefs are reasonable other than one of sensitivites. You need to demonstrate that a view is reasonable before you should make complaints of someone mis-speaking, what you will usually find is that if you can establish opinion X to be reasonable any derogatry insinuations thown in with it are exposed and weakened. That's why I'm not worried about Bert slinging muck on evolution, it can take it, we can explain to him how he is wrong and the asspertions made fall back to him.

"This is the problem with some of the debating that happens here.
Some people play games where they debate the person in a derogatory way, rather than sticking to, and debating the subject."
This doesn't happen as much as you think, the subject often is stuck to and what causes such comments on it to be taken personally and absolutely. What happens is like above, views are discussed said and in some cases shown to be lacking and some people wilfully interpret concise statments on beliefs to be absolute conclusions about their entire lives (usually because they made the mistake of building their entire lives around a singular proposition). Drawing personal offence on a significant and even total level from an individual statement was entirely their own doing and they are blaming others for their own mistake.

"I think we could all pause and think before we use words that attack the person personally. (I include myself of course)."
I think we could also doing with pausing and asking ourselves if the other person really did just attack us personally or attacked a personal cherished belief and we you can tell the difference between the two.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 11:33:52 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 11:34:33 GMT
G. Heron says:
Bert Einstein

Thanks for correcting my spelling, using only 12 letters will save me some ATP.
I am well aware of the role that mitochondria play in the cell.

To describe a mitochodrion as simply a cellular organelle is misleading as you miss out the very important fact that mitochondria have their own DNA, DNA which shows substantial similarities with the DNA of bacteria. It is thought that they mitochondria may have been derived from endosymbiotic prokaryotes, that is, in this case from bacteria that have formed a symbiotoc relationship with the eucaryotic cells that have at some point in the past engulfed them.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 11:40:00 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 11:41:43 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 11:43:53 GMT
C. A. Small says:
JW's just want gullible, maleable people who find thinking tricky.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 11:46:47 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Bert he spelled it the same way you do- what are you on?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 11:46:57 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 11:48:28 GMT
Withnail says:
I think they found one when they talked to Bert for the first time!

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 11:48:46 GMT
C. A. Small says:
G.Heron- great answer, I even understood a little of it!

Glad you are on our side,

cheers, Clive.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 11:50:54 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 11:52:26 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Withnail- best of luck for Sunday against the French!

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 12:01:41 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 12:06:23 GMT
'It is thought ..'

Excellent Heron! Keep doing just that .. have a nice day!

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 12:07:13 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Mar 2012, 13:02:19 GMT
K. Moss says:
Actually, Withnail, that is the exact polar reverse of what you read about in the gospel narratives.

The big criticism from the religious leaders was that Jesus preferred to surround himself with "tax-collectors and sinners" - whereas the religious hypocrites kept themselves utterly aloof from contamination through contact with those they considered to be 'inferior'.

So Jesus allows himself to be anointed by a prostitute and then defends her actions against criticisms from Simon the Pharisee.

He has dinner with Zaccheus the tax-collector (beyond the pale, according to the respectable people).

He asks the Samaritan woman at the well for a drink - even her neighbours won't have anything to do with her, because of her lifestyle.

He heals the woman afflicted with 'an issue of blood' whereas the religious types would have run a mile from her, fearing ritual impurity.

When Jesus has 'harsh words' to deliver, they are invariably aimed at the religious establishment. What Bert is doing here is overtly aligning himself with the Pharisees, and thereby orienting himself in the exactly opposite direction to Jesus.

From a personal perspective, I am deeply grateful that Jesus is fine about associating with 'riff-raff'. I don't know where I would be, otherwise.

Kevin

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 12:08:17 GMT
K. Moss says:
Yep. I've always been very anxious about that scenario.

Benched cluttocks and all that...

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 12:11:46 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 12:34:09 GMT
H W says:
Bert,

Jews came from the tribe of Judah.

The word Jew didn't exist in the bible before the tribe of Judah.

Abraham for example, was a Hebrew. Not a Jew.

Refute?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 12:48:41 GMT
Withnail says:
We are going to need more than luck - any Irish Christians out there? If so pray!!!

Posted on 2 Mar 2012, 12:56:47 GMT
Bert, go forth and multiply. I have no time for ignorant christians.
I don't have a clue what to believe, but I certianly don't believe in flaming swords and incest.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 13:04:38 GMT
G. Heron says:
Bert Einstein

"Heron .. this is good, but what is your point? Do you want to chat because you are lonely?"

The point is that at one point in the past mitochondria may have been living on their own and thus the cells we see today rather than being as you claimed were the basic unit of life are in fact a complicated structure consisting of a symbiosis of different life forms.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 13:11:13 GMT
K. Moss says:
Bert.

This looks like a smokescreen. If one googles 'natural jews', the majority of links which come up are all to do with the Watchtower organisation attempting to usurp the position of the Jewish people, and establish their credentials with a literal 144,000. It has absolutely nothing to do with a dislike of nature.

Kevin

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2012, 13:41:30 GMT
Sometimes to me it's as if Jesus had a split personality, saying something sensible then morphing into someone with completely different values. To me there's nothing wrong with being respectable, many people I know who don't have much money are still perfectly respectable in what they do and how they behave, and rich people who are perfectly normal.
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Important Announcement from Amazon
166 26 days ago
If clergy were honest, would religions die? 47 4 minutes ago
Jesus is the way and that way is the Gnostic Christian way. Not Christianity’s way. 13 3 hours ago
Gas Bag 721 20 hours ago
The Christian project has failed as Christians vote against everything Jesus stood for 466 2 days ago
Book (Snapping of the American Mind) shows Harvard tests showing parental neglect causes homosexuality 1425 7 days ago
Discover Magazine article ("Earth's Water Is Older Than The Sun') matches the Bible book of Genesis 371 7 days ago
"Transgender" folk accepted into the Anglican Church... 56 8 days ago
How To Rule The Universe And Punish Evil 4 9 days ago
EWTN.CO.UK is a very fine British Catholic Channel and website 7 15 days ago
Should religions be classified as Fake News? The bible seems to say yes. 2 22 days ago
Why do we select warrior gods who can only grow their religions by violence, --- instead of persuasion to a better way of life? 28 26 days ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  201
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  11 Sep 2010
Latest post:  5 Mar 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 13 customers