Atheists vs Evangelist

Originally posted by Digi
I think people would be surprised about what does and doesn't rustle jimmies. I demand intellectual rigor in my opponents, not compliance. And however stereotypically atheist this next comment makes me seem, I find that far too few Christian apologists or atheist detractors come anywhere near the standards I hold myself to.

Take my general atheism thread. Read the OP. It's not condescending, but it is thorough and methodical. Now go back and read TI's OP. It's not the same level of rigor, and when it's quite obviously as shallow as this, it doesn't command my attention or respect.

However, if it's a thread that is deliberately offensive to make a point, there's probably no need. We can all understand your point without such illustrations.

I saw some jimmy rustling in this very thread (and it was not TI's...lol). Often, the "be open-minded" is meant "think the way I think". Not from you, of course...but it seems to happen a lot on KMC. Conservatives are hated, here. I don't really worry about that because, politically, I am probably more socially liberal than you are. 😄

I hold atheists to a lower standard than I do myself because pretty much none of them can live up to my standards. 😆 😆 😆 estahuh

I keeeeed I keeeed! Some Mormons are actually like that... 🙁

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you coming on to me?

No. But when you're rich, my kind words and affection will be useful.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I saw some jimmy rustling in this very thread (and it was TI's...lol). Often, the "be open-minded" is meant "think the way I think". Not from you, of course...but it seems to happen a lot on KMC. Conservatives are hated, here. I don't really worry about that because, politically, I am probably more socially liberal than you are. 😄

My liberal cock is bigger than yours!

I'm practically a fiscal libertarian, and think the government should be completely removed from some social issues that liberals would have us legislate, so you can have that crown. I happily concede it. What was it Penn Jillette said: "I'm against gay marriage. But I'm also against straight marriage."

"Be more open minded" is one of the worst phrases ever. Usually, once invoked, it's a sure sign the interesting debate is over. I'll go on record as saying that only times I've ever been told to be more open-minded in my life, it was synonymous with "think like me." Both sides seem to love accusing the other of using it that way, which is what makes it such a boring device.

Being open minded means being open to all possibilities, including the potential falsehood of an idea. Most people leave that one out. It also means that if we're truly open to more than one possibility, we go with the one that makes the most rational/logical sense, which gets back to the idea of evidence. I'm "open" to belief in God. That openness is what led to me becoming an atheist when I was a devout Christian. So now that I'm open to it...what reason is there to believe it?

When asked "What would change your mind?" Bill Nye said "Evidence." Ken Ham said "Nothing." That's not an indictment of all theists, but it is of a f*ckton of them.

Regarding gay marriage, to me the practicality of helping real people lead happy and fulfilling lives trumps my libertarian ideal that there shouldn't be an institution such as marriage.

Originally posted by Digi
My liberal cock is bigger than yours!

I'm practically a fiscal libertarian, and think the government should be completely removed from some social issues that liberals would have us legislate, so you can have that crown. I happily concede it. What was it Penn Jillette said: "I'm against gay marriage. But I'm also against straight marriage."

I actually hold the same and I posted about it in the GDF. I think we should have social contracts and do away with marriage. If you want to have a private club where you have sexual access ceremonies (that's really what "marriages" historically meant), and want to call them marriages, go ahead!

Originally posted by Digi
"Be more open minded" is one of the worst phrases ever. Usually, once invoked, it's a sure sign the interesting debate is over. I'll go on record as saying that only times I've ever been told to be more open-minded in my life, it was synonymous with "think like me." Both sides seem to love accusing the other of using it that way, which is what makes it such a boring device.

Being open minded means being open to all possibilities, including the potential falsehood of an idea. Most people leave that one out. It also means that if we're truly open to more than one possibility, we go with the one that makes the most rational/logical sense, which gets back to the idea of evidence. I'm "open" to belief in God. That openness is what led to me becoming an atheist when I was a devout Christian. So now that I'm open to it...what reason is there to believe it?

Truer mother****ing words have never been spoken.

Dammit, why did you have to settle on atheism? 🙁

Originally posted by Digi
When asked "What would change your mind?" Bill Nye said "Evidence." Ken Ham said "Nothing." That's not an indictment of all theists, but it is of a f*ckton of them.

I cannot speak for Ham but I can explain his position with Joseph Smith's words.

You see, Joseph Smith said that he had a sure knowledge (capital "O" Objective Truth) of God and His Plan. He said he saw him and spoke with Him. He also said he could never deny that. Basically, his eternal soul knew it so nothing of man could ever destroy or change that Objective Knowledge that Joseph Smith claimed to have. You know from our past discussions that I hold that the only way to obtain Objective Knowledge is to become omniscient, yourself. That then makes you God, so then denying God is stupid because you are God. Seems dumb and circular, right? Sort of. Mormons hold that Joseph Smith WAS made Godlike, temporarily, just so he could stand in the presence of God. So, yes, for a brief moment, Joseph Smith was godlike enough to obtain his Objective Knowledge.*

This is why I say only a few small amount of humans, in all of history, can claim to have Objective Knowledge. What...Moses, Joseph Smith, The Prophet Muhammad, uhhh...I'm running out of figures. But you get the point.

But, yes, here are some of Joseph Smith's words:

"25 So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation."

So if Ken Ham had a similar experience, he cannot deny it no matter what is presented because he has obtained what i would call an Objective Truth.

You and I both probably agree that he did NOT obtain Objective Truth so his position is more likely a position of stubborness rather than one of "Yo, I actually saw God, He transfigured* me, and spoke to me."

*Transfiguration: "The condition of persons who are temporarily changed in appearance and nature—that is, lifted to a higher spiritual level—so that they can endure the presence and glory of heavenly beings."

Do you think there is a way to ascertain whether someone has seen an "Objective Truth™" vs. them just being stubborn/deluding themselves?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you think there is a way to ascertain whether someone has seen an "Objective Truth™" vs. them just being stubborn/deluding themselves?

YouTube video

I don't get this video, could you delineate what it has to do with my post?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you think there is a way to ascertain whether someone has seen an "Objective Truth™" vs. them just being stubborn/deluding themselves?

Yes, but also obtaining that same sure knowledge that they have which is pretty much what the entirety of Mormonism is based on. It would be a, for a lack of better terms, a shittier version of what Joseph Smith got, but it is supposed to be a confirmation to your eternal soul, rather than your mind.

However, if I were to be frank, no, I do not think anyone can ever know that except for God. I would exercise caution against believing every person that said they have seen God and God told them to do something.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't get this video, could you delineate what it has to do with my post?

When you said "ascertain", it's what my encyclopedic mind on film/video thought of.

Originally posted by dadudemon
However, if I were to be frank, no, I do not think anyone can ever know that except for God. I would exercise caution against believing every person that said they have seen God and God told them to do something.

It's always a curious amusement to me that most people - even very tunnel-visioned fundamentalists - are extremely capable of the proper skepticism toward supernatural claims. Just not the supernatural claims they happen to believe in.

For another great example, the "THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS" jab that's often leveled at Scientology is very true...it's absurd. Yet the only thing separating that and most religions is societal acceptance. Of course, it doesn't help that Scientology displays more cultish tendencies than your average religion, but in terms of believability of the origin mythos, I'd say it's no better or worse off than any other.

Originally posted by Digi
It's always a curious amusement to me that most people - even very tunnel-visioned fundamentalists - are extremely capable of the proper skepticism toward supernatural claims. Just not the supernatural claims they happen to believe in.

For another great example, the "THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS" jab that's often leveled at Scientology is very true...it's absurd. Yet the only thing separating that and most religions is societal acceptance. Of course, it doesn't help that Scientology displays more cultish tendencies than your average religion, but in terms of believability of the origin mythos, I'd say it's no better or worse off than any other.

I agree. I defend Scientology* when people make fun of it.

That's because I'm making up for all the bad-karma I brought on myself because I used to make fun of Scientology when I was a kid. 🙁

*Also to Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Pentecostal, witchcraft, Satanism, atheism, nihilism, uhh...pretty much any religious beliefs (even if that is a lack of beliefs) that people like to make fun of. Of course, a Mormon WOULD do that because we believe almost all religions have something in them that was probably inspired by God. So making fun of other religions is considered a "no-no" in my Church. But not multiple wives. BRB, got dates.

Amidst your defense of said beliefs/religions (beliegions?), do you also acknowledge the flaws and negative aspects of them?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Amidst your defense of said beliefs/religions (beliegions?), do you also acknowledge the flaws and negative aspects of them?

Yes. I am especially critical of my own religion.

Edit - Sorry, was playing Tetris. Basically, all are flawed (because they are mostly by man for man) but they each have good, too. Well, not ALL...some belief systems are purposefully negative.

Originally posted by Digi
And one video should do all of that? Even when it's not the goal of the video to provide it? I'm pretty sure there are people better qualified to give such advice than evolutionary biologists and philosophers.

Anyway, the Christian video doesn't give me practical advice on picking a graduate school. What the hell is it good for? Actually, neither of them do, and it's some life help I could really use. So what's the use of Evangelism OR Atheism?

Grasp the point of that last paragraph or I'm done responding to you.

Ha. It's a good word.

Originally posted by Digi
The point was that TI created an arbitrary criteria for the videos and determined that it was enough to condemn one and praise the other, without actually considering the point of the videos. BWR, per his norm, whiffed spectacularly on the comprehension.

I'm not looking for a grad school. It was a f---ing example.

But, I did say I was done responding to TI if he failed to grasp the point of the example. He never responded, but I may be able to extend that courtesy to BWR.

I never responded to you because you have a chip on your shoulder and are very un uncouth. Debating with you would be pointless, if you can post your beliefs so can I.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I never responded to you because you have a chip on your shoulder and are very un uncouth. Debating with you would be pointless, if you can post your beliefs so can I.

Very true. We can both post our beliefs. Blue is also a color.

But you also shouldn't expect to have smooth sailing when you express an opinion on the internet. Nor can you expect people to hold back when they think your opinions are in the wrong. Your "uncouth" is "honest" to me. Criticism is part of any of this. And debating wouldn't be pointless, but you have yet to engage in debate with me (i.e. addressing criticisms and responding to them). So I can only assume that your initial, hopelessly shallow interpretation of two videos is all you have to offer here.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
What type of graduate school?

It was an example. I'm not searching for a graduate school. Sorry if it misled.