Originally posted by dadudemonAh, so one sect. Though, to be fair, Christians don't accept you as Christians. What...with you worshipping an angel called Moron.
oooooor, Mormonism. Where everyone born on Earth will go to some sort of Heaven......besides the people like Judas (who receive a fullness of knowledge and turn away from it for deliberate, evil reasons.)
Originally posted by Bardock42
Ah, so one sect.
Yes. Because that would leave a very small handful of individuals who deliberately chose to NOT go to heaven. 😐
Originally posted by Bardock42
Though, to be fair, Christians don't accept you as Christians.
Some Christians do not accept us as Christians because we took away some of their congregation with our unpaid clergy, etc. 😐
Originally posted by Bardock42
What...with you worshipping an angel called Moron.
No. We don't worship any being except for God. 😐
Yes, I know you're being an a$$ for humor's sake. 😐
Originally posted by inimalist
something being untestable does not mean it has equal probability to other untestable things.For instance, God has an probability of X. God, who wears a 10 gallon hat, has a probability of X + the probability of God wearing a 10 gallon hat.
But neither is known or calculable, so doesn't it come out to be pretty much the exact same thing?
Originally posted by inimalist
based on statements of fact (though themselves untestable) made by any faith, one can make predictions based on what one might expect to see if that faith were true.At best, one can say that an existent God has callous indifference for those who are said to be his "creations" and no regard for those who follow him in life. Any religion that does not propose that, has evidence provided against it.
Not at all. It has provided evidence that some aspect of it may be inaccurate or incomplete and absolutely no evidence against the idea of god. Being callous has no effect on one's existance, if it did serial killers wouldn't be a problem.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But neither is known or calculable, so doesn't it come out to be pretty much the exact same thing?
no
we can't know the exact probability, but we know one is greater than the other...
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not at all. It has provided evidence that some aspect of it may be inaccurate or incomplete and absolutely no evidence against the idea of god. Being callous has no effect on one's existance, if it did serial killers wouldn't be a problem.
fine, works well if the only tenant of your faith is that God exists in a form which has no effect on the world
Originally posted by inimalist
nowe can't know the exact probability, but we know one is greater than the other...
By what amount?
Originally posted by inimalist
fine, works well if the only tenant of your faith is that God exists in a form which has no effect on the world
Or that God simply exists and does any number of different things that make noticing it impossible. It also works nicely when someone says "God doesn't exist" and acts as though they have proof of that rather broad claim.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Mormons, with their 15th wives and no black clergy...oh wait...thats in the past isn't it.
You are correct, partially.
About 2% of the Mormons practiced polygamy. "Blacks" held the priesthood before the 70s. Some were exempt, though. Racism, I think. But when has God not been racist? We read about him being jealous, racist, and violent all throughout the old testament.
You're just jealous beacuse our Clergy can have sex.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You are correct, partially.About 2% of the Mormons practiced polygamy. "Blacks" held the priesthood before the 70s. Some were exempt, though. Racism, I think. But when has God not been racist? We read about him being jealous, racist, and violent all throughout the old testament.
You're just jealous beacuse our Clergy can have sex.
Ahh, not willing to give up a few pleasures for God no?
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I don't wish to take things to seriously but Priests do not enter celibacy begrudgingly. Everything is God's and we are glad to sacrifice small things to do his work.
Correct. My comment was just jest. Of course you're not angry about that.....why do it if you were?
edit-besides.....there's more than enough jokes to go around for both our faiths.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I don't wish to take things to seriously but Priests do not enter celibacy begrudgingly. Everything is God's and we are glad to sacrifice small things to do his work.
I'm well aware of that. Self denial is a very common way of finding meaning and connectivity, I respect that greatly. Nonetheless, he owned you.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm well aware of that. Self denial is a very common way of finding meaning and connectivity, I respect that greatly. Nonetheless, he owned you.
Why?
I don't see that...
It would be like me saying "atleast the head of my church gets to live in the Vatican"...
sex is only as important as the value you put in it...and when someone chooses not to have sex you cannot "own" them by saying "well I can have sex when I like". Especially when its probably no more true for him than it is for any priest...
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How is picking a phrase that says "you're wrong and unhappy and my way is better" not picking a fight? You have a clear bias in this discussion if you really don't think that the person who made those signs was both intelligent and not trying to offend people.
I sincerely don't think the intent was to offend. The article at this thread's opening admits that it isn't offensive. He even goes so far as to say that it should be more offensive, since the current phrase is fairly bland. If that is actually the intent, it's a horrible attempt at it. Some people will be offended at anything that disagrees with their personal sensibilities....but that's a natural part of existing in the world. So long as it's presented in a non-derisive manner, we can't be responsible for the supposed slights that others perceive in religious messages.
The obvious point also remains that no one need be offended at ANY religious propaganda. It is only offensive if we allow it to be, so long as it isn't negative toward any particular group of people.
I see nothing wrong with harmlessly displaying a position of opinion. Much as I wouldn't be offended at, say, a John McCain message on a bus.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
no one who sees "God Doesn't Exist. So Stop Worrying" and feel the same.
Disagree. It's very comforting to me, and to many atheists, because it's an affirmation of our own control over the meaning and direction of our lives, including our own happiness.
It also says he probably doesn't exist. I wouldn't normally play semantics, but it's an important admission, because it's the different between stubborn dogmatism and a rational opinion.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I sincerely don't think the intent was to offend. The article at this thread's opening admits that it isn't offensive. He even goes so far as to say that it should be more offensive, since the current phrase is fairly bland. If that is actually the intent, it's a horrible attempt at it. Some people will be offended at anything that disagrees with their personal sensibilities....but that's a natural part of existing in the world. So long as it's presented in a non-derisive manner, we can't be responsible for the supposed slights that others perceive in religious messages.The obvious point also remains that no one need be offended at ANY religious propaganda. It is only offensive if we allow it to be, so long as it isn't negative toward any particular group of people.
I see nothing wrong with harmlessly displaying a position of opinion. Much as I wouldn't be offended at, say, a John McCain message on a bus.
Disagree. It's very comforting to me, and to many atheists, because it's an affirmation of our own control over the meaning and direction of our lives, including our own happiness.
It also says he probably doesn't exist. I wouldn't normally play semantics, but it's an important admission, because it's the different between stubborn dogmatism and a rational opinion.
Ahh Digi, when will you come home?
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Ahh Digi, when will you come home?
I'm assuming this is a humorous attempt at conversion, yes? I smiled, at least.
Jokes aside, playing the nostalgia card with my Catholic upbringing (i.e. calling it "home"😉 isn't ever going to be effective. Ironic, though, because when I left Christianity, those who attempted to "bring me back" would ask similar questions. Do you miss it? or Does something feel like it's missing from your life? or variations thereof. The answer was always a contented "no" followed by brief explanation. The arguments never approached it from a logical perspective, but rather worked at playing the emotions. Which is effective only when one doesn't realize how emotional appeals are used to make religion seem so enticing.
Anyway. Ideologically, I'm about as far as is possible from Christianity, and very secure (and happy) in my beliefs. Sorry to burst the bubble Gav.
😉
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm assuming this is a humorous attempt at conversion, yes? I smiled, at least.Jokes aside, playing the nostalgia card with my Catholic upbringing (i.e. calling it "home"😉 isn't ever going to be effective. Ironic, though, because when I left Christianity, those who attempted to "bring me back" would ask similar questions. Do you miss it? or Does something feel like it's missing from your life? or variations thereof. The answer was always a contented "no" followed by brief explanation. The arguments never approached it from a logical perspective, but rather worked at playing the emotions. Which is effective only when one doesn't realize how emotional appeals are used to make religion seem so enticing.
Anyway. Ideologically, I'm about as far as is possible from Christianity, and very secure (and happy) in my beliefs. Sorry to burst the bubble Gav.
😉
That didn't answer the question though did it?
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
sex is only as important as the value you put in it...
that coupled with a plethora of biological systems creates varying degrees of libido.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
and when someone chooses not to have sex you cannot "own" them by saying "well I can have sex when I like".
Yes, yes you can. Because it's a joke.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Especially when its probably no more true for him than it is for any priest...
😆 😆 😆
Wait, you WERE making a joke about priests molesting and raping little boys, right?
edit-
Wait, holy damn....... 😐
You could also be saying that I'm an internet nerd who is most likely a virgin. I'm married.
The kids go to bed by 8:30 pm. I'm up until 1 or 2 every night. Do the math. flirt