Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 101 of 183 FirstFirst ... 519199100101102103111151 ... LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,515 of 2742
Like Tree920Likes

Thread: ***Official*** Religious Discussion Thread

  1. #1501
    International Coach Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    13,503
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyZaltzHair View Post
    Ignorance in its best display. If my limited neural chemical reactions in the brain told "God = Santa Claus = Tooth fairy" I would jump off the bridge
    please don't jump off bridges because of a disagreement on an internet forum...

  2. #1502
    International Coach Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    13,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Ian View Post
    Actually, I think I can disprove Santa. Santa lives in the North Pole and they have mapped that area completely, and his house is not there. Santa flies through the air once per year and yet no radar has ever picked him up. Santa gives children presents each year and yet ALL presents have ultimately been proven to have been the purchase of the parents. Santa has been disproved. I do not have to search the entire universe to disprove him. Similar arguments exist for the Tooth Fairy. However, God does not exist on the Earth. He does not exist within the universe. So God can not be disproven while Santa and the Tooth Fairy (And the Easter Bunny) can. The Spaghetti Monster.... well he doesn't exist on Earth and most liekly exists in another galaxy, so he is difficult to disprove.
    nonsense, there is unimpeachable proof out there for santa and the tooth fairy...just search on youtube and you will get it...

  3. #1503
    International Coach Gnske's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Coffs Harbour
    Posts
    11,035
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post

    Now does anyone have any idea at all what we are supposed to be looking for when look for God?
    OverratedSanity, watson and zorax like this.

  4. #1504
    International Coach Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    13,503
    now that's something i can believe in...


  5. #1505
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,851
    Sachin's head does look a bit mutated though.
    Last edited by watson; 06-10-2015 at 02:59 AM.

  6. #1506
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Great A'Tuin
    Posts
    14,518
    Quote Originally Posted by Anil View Post
    nope let's not sidetrack this...i am clearly not making any claim whatsoever, someone prove the existence of god conclusively and i will believe it, i am not interested in turning away from the truth whatever it may be...however until that happens, santa, the easter bunny and any other similar fairy tale/legend deserve the same consideration...
    But implicitly, you are. How did you come to your 'starting point' for this discussion? Was there definitive proof of God's non-existence? If you answer yes, I disagree. If you answer no, the burden of proof rests equally on both sides. You definitively prove God does not exist, and I will, of course, recognise the non-existence of God. You definitively prove that God does exist and I will, naturally, recognise His existence. But neither of those possibilities has ever occurred (and, Imo, never can). So the burden of proof is shared and we recognise proof is a meaningless concept in this debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anil View Post
    sure i agree completely...however if you accept that then you need to accept this as well: blind faith =/= proof of presence
    Yep, because the guy arguing against the utility of the concept of proof and decrying a one-eyed focus on positivism for the last two pages is totally saying that blind faith = proof.

    Close the tab and come back when you can actually add to the discussion, rather than ignoring everything being posted to spout some more /r/atheism pseudo-'logic'.

  7. #1507
    International Coach ankitj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    India
    Posts
    11,491
    I hope the claim maker at least accepts the burden of definition. Step forward claim makers...Which God?
    RIP Phil Hughes. Forever 63*

  8. #1508
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Great A'Tuin
    Posts
    14,518
    Quote Originally Posted by ankitj View Post
    I hope the claim maker at least accepts the burden of definition. Step forward claim makers...Which God?
    I've been speaking exclusively within the context of God (i.e. The Christian one). Given a lot of people have told me that I'm inventing a God, I've yet to see anybody point out exactly how any of what I'm saying is inconsistent with Christian theology, so...

  9. #1509
    123/5 Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    lockie ferguson should get a side gig with brazzers
    Posts
    40,309
    which one of you mother****ers just denied santa's existence? im going to deal to you.
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    This is akin to 'Proving a Negative' which I guess is confirming the abscence of something.

    A classic example would be The Loch Ness Monster which after several decades of serious looking by 'Believers' still hasn't revealed itself. So while the Loch Ness Monster still could exist in theory, the probability of the Monster existing in reality are so small that you may as well confirm its absence for all practical purposes.

    Now does anyone have any idea at all what we are supposed to be looking for when we look for God?
    toodooloo bitch

    https://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLov...6/?pnref=story
    watson likes this.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh

  10. #1510
    Hall of Fame Member harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    18,123
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan View Post
    I've been speaking exclusively within the context of God (i.e. The Christian one). Given a lot of people have told me that I'm inventing a God, I've yet to see anybody point out exactly how any of what I'm saying is inconsistent with Christian theology, so...
    So we have talked about this already. You think that the Christian god does not necessarily have human sensibilities. So, do you think that the words "kind, loving, gracious" as used to describe him have different meaning in his context? A meaning we cannot know. Or do you think he is different for some other reason?

    For example, what do you make of lines like these ---- "For the lord your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath." ?
    ~ Do you think I care for you so little that betraying me would make a difference ~

  11. #1511
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Great A'Tuin
    Posts
    14,518
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.ag View Post
    So we have talked about this already. You think that the Christian god does not necessarily have human sensibilities. So, do you think that the words "kind, loving, gracious" as used to describe him have different meaning in his context? A meaning we cannot know. Or do you think he is different for some other reason?

    For example, what do you make of lines like these ---- "For the lord your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath." ?
    Well the line you've quoted there is from Deuteronomy (which I'm not especially familiar with tbh; Old Testament stuff isn't where I tend to focus, I'm more a "understand things through the lens of the life of Jesus" kind of guy). But I'll have a crack at the pop-theology anyway.

    The gist of Deuteronomy, from the little I'm looking at, is that it is primarily a set of sermons delivered by Moses. So I'm unsurprised that he's going to use language as people of the day use it (ftr different translations flick between 'compassionate' and 'merciful' in that sentence) to get his point across. This isn't hugely relevant to the point you're making here, but does draw out something that I think lacks in a lot of this discourse -- understanding Biblical context (the key example of this is people throwing chunks of Leviticus around for teh lolz).

    As for your main question, I think that words like those you mention have similar meanings in our day-to-day language/lives and in the context of describing God. The only reason I don't say 'the same' meaning is my well-known avoidance of claiming objectivity in matters concerning God. But I think we've got a pretty good approximation of what those words mean in theory .

    The difference, however, is how those concepts of kindness, compassion and love actually play out. We might know (or are very good at approximating) what compassion and mercy are conceptually, but when it comes to actually living it out we're nowhere near as accurate. I mean, the contrast here is between the Pharisees and Jesus. The Pharisees are crazy intelligent (albeit legalistic) religious people who memorise scripture and follow all of the laws and whatnot (or at least claim to). They know what they're supposed to do, and what things mean, but time and time again they get so caught up in their own self-righteousness that they're completely blind to how those things should actually work in reality.

    So out comes Jesus, he flips some tables, deconstructs the religious architecture of the time by absolutely destroying legalistic thinking and, in short, showing compassion to those who had never before been shown compassion, in ways we can scarcely understand.

    So, in short, if you want to understand how descriptions of God actually play out, look to Jesus. Because he damn sure does a better job of embodying those things that we ever have (or ever will).
    Mind the Windows, Tino!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Honestly if Dan isn't the greatest living creature on Earth, he is only second behind Luggage.
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    I'm the worst poster on this forum, end of.
    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Langer
    Compete with us | Smile with us | Fight on with us | Dream with us

  12. #1512
    Request Your Custom Title Now! OverratedSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Elton Chicken Burrah
    Posts
    33,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan View Post
    But implicitly, you are. How did you come to your 'starting point' for this discussion? Was there definitive proof of God's non-existence? If you answer yes, I disagree. If you answer no, the burden of proof rests equally on both sides. You definitively prove God does not exist, and I will, of course, recognise the non-existence of God. You definitively prove that God does exist and I will, naturally, recognise His existence. But neither of those possibilities has ever occurred (and, Imo, never can). So the burden of proof is shared and we recognise proof is a meaningless concept in this debate.




    Yep, because the guy arguing against the utility of the concept of proof and decrying a one-eyed focus on positivism for the last two pages is totally saying that blind faith = proof.

    Close the tab and come back when you can actually add to the discussion, rather than ignoring everything being posted to spout some more /r/atheism pseudo-'logic'.
    Holy **** you couldn't be more condescending if you tried.
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    You need to clap a cows c**t over your head and get a woolly bull to f**k some sense into you.

  13. #1513
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Great A'Tuin
    Posts
    14,518
    Quote Originally Posted by OverratedSanity View Post
    Holy **** you couldn't be more condescending if you tried.
    To be blunt, given that he demonstrably has no interest in actually engaging with the discussion (seriously, I'm apparently arguing that blind faith = proof if you listen to him, despite two pages and hundreds of words critiquing the notion of 'proof' in the first place, and hundreds more decrying its place at the centre of religious-atheist debates -- I mean, if he actually read a single post he'd realise I've said nothing of the sort), I don't really care if I sound condescending.

  14. #1514
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Great A'Tuin
    Posts
    14,518
    Also, tone policing

  15. #1515
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan View Post
    So out comes Jesus, he flips some tables, deconstructs the religious architecture of the time by absolutely destroying legalistic thinking and, in short, showing compassion to those who had never before been shown compassion, in ways we can scarcely understand.

    So, in short, if you want to understand how descriptions of God actually play out, look to Jesus. Because he damn sure does a better job of embodying those things that we ever have (or ever will).
    I think that the above paragraph gives us a good clue as to why religions like Christianity and Islam work so successfully. It is because they create and foster a virtual relationship in the mind of the believer with God, and also with the central character - Jesus or Mohammad. In Cricket Chat we drone on about how Tendulkar is idolised in India to the point of being a demi-God, but this adoration pales into insigificance when compared to the adoration that many religious people feel toward God, Jesus, or Mohammad.

    In fact, I would hazard a guess and suggest that if I performed an MRI on a believers brain during a prayer session, or some such thing, and then compared it to the brain of someone who has just fallen in love, then I reckon that similar areas of the Limbic System would light up on the 3D imaging.

    The point being that no amount of supposed 'rational argument' by sceptics can really make a whole lot of difference when the believer is emotionally engaged with their religion. It merely ends up sounding like someones mother nagging them about the new "no good girlfriend".
    Last edited by watson; 06-10-2015 at 05:58 AM.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. CricSim/PlanetCricket Discussion etc
    By ripper868 in forum Testing Forum
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 17-08-2010, 06:15 PM
  2. *Official* England Squad discussion thread
    By Furball in forum 2010 ICC World Twenty20 - West Indies
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 03-05-2010, 07:35 PM
  3. Sri Lanka Thread
    By chaminda_00 in forum 2009 ICC World Twenty20
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-05-2009, 05:29 AM
  4. Trade Discussion Thread
    By Simon in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 137
    Last Post: 15-04-2009, 03:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •