| Welcome to Godlimations. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| All religions | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 20 Oct 2009, 09:52 PM (5,194 Views) | |
| Concolor | 17 Nov 2009, 07:06 PM Post #76 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@conradw: Interesting reply. Just because no one is going to force me to stop using a word does not make me correct in using it. Might does not make right. My point is that if you allow for someone who believes in, and worships, a personal supernatural God to call himself atheist ("without God") then I say you are pulverizing the very meaning of words and language. What is the difference between this and calling a poison "nutritious" and a healthy apple "poisonous"? Though no one are going to stop you (actually in that case maybe they will), you are denying the very fact that make languages work: A common understanding of a definition for each word that separates it from others and gives it a meaning we can use to convey a useful message about the world. That is why the scientific community is filled with odd sounding terms like "Enthalpy" and "quark". They are unique precisely so that one can speak of these things with clarity and avoid confusing and mixing ideas and concepts which are closely related but not exactly the same. Ignoring this robs us of the precision we are dependent upon to get a clear picture of reality. I have no problems with you having different definitions for certain words than what I have. What scares me is when your definitions are so broad that they are blurring together an entire part of reality because your definitions make it impossible to speak of different things in this area as being different. If you do not accept "theist" as 'one who believes in a personal, supernatural God' and "atheist" as 'one who does NOT believe in a personal, supernatural God', then please give these two concepts new names that we can use for our discussion. Names are not important, concepts are. --- I guess that is what we are trying to find an answer to through our discussion. I would claim that I do not see any way I could get through such a conversion with my rationality intact. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 17 Nov 2009, 07:21 PM Post #77 |
|
Deleted User
|
Would it be rational to say you describe coversion as irrational? |
|
|
| Concolor | 18 Nov 2009, 05:15 AM Post #78 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC: Yeah, I think I agree with that in the ideal case. But I would also agree that many people who do such a transformation do not have access to enough information too understand that it is an irrational transition. So it would not seem to them to be irrational at all. In many cases, and outward conversion is also the rational choice to make. When Norway was Christened by Olav the Holy he went from town to town with his army and killed anyone who didn't convert. When he came to the area where I spent most of my upbringing, he was stopped by an army of peasants and villagers who refused to convert. Though I may take some sort of romantic pride in this fact (that's why I'm always cheering for the Arcadians in 300), I still think the more rational thing to do would be to spare all those lives and just convert outwards to avoid bloodshed. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 18 Nov 2009, 05:49 AM Post #79 |
|
Deleted User
|
well i differ from your opinion and say that those who fail to do such a conversion lack enough information to make a rational desician for Christ. i mean think about it- eternal life vs.......nothing (lets suppose a person beleives there is no hell) so if you think theres nothing after death wouldnt it be more rational to choose eternal life in case what you think is wrong? i mean you already think theres nothing so you have nothing to lose that has to be more rational |
|
|
| Concolor | 18 Nov 2009, 06:48 AM Post #80 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC: Ah, Pascals wager. Would Jesus really like it if I believed in him just to get out of hell? Or just because he offered me a good retirement plan? But this is actually a false dichotomy. My choices are not only Jesus or nothing. My choices are Allah, Buddha, Krishna, Xenu, Jesus, Brahman, Baal, Ch'tulu, Odin, Ra, Zeus, Mithra, Ahura Mazda, etc. etc. and of course I can believe in none of them. And I have never claimed there to be nothing, I'm only claiming that none of these alternatives have given me good enough reasons to choose one over all the others. Perhaps there is something other than these alternatives, and I would be in a better position to believe in this if have have not already jumped on one of the others. And I would not even agree that eternal life is a blessing. Have you not seen Interview with the Vampire or any of the Highlander movies? Who wants to live forever? I have often heard apologists say that there can be no good without evil. Can there really be life without death? The fact that our time is limited is exactly what makes every moment so precious. Sure, I wouldn't mind living until I was 200 years old. But after that things must really get boring after a while. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 18 Nov 2009, 06:00 PM Post #81 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Concolor, this might sound odd, but for an atheist, you really seem to see the world in terms of black and white. To take this as an example, the word atheist has more connotations than simply being "without God." For example you might be disillusioned with a particular religion, but open to others (interestingly, Christians were described as atheists as they didn't recognise the godliness of the Roman emperor) or you might be a 'anti-theist' as Hitchens puts it, or you might simply be a-religious in that religion holds so little relevance to you that you don't even bother to describe yourself in terms of it. You could easily describe yourself as culturally atheist or be in favour of a secular government despite your conversion. You might recognise an affinity with atheists and, for example, defend them from criticism. You might just really really hate worship songs. See, I would argue that to take the description of atheist right now (no longer being hypothetical), be strictly speaking is not true. For instance, although you don't believe in God doesn't mean you are without him. Personally, I'll extend that further (although others might disagree): that God is also not without you - Nothing could know you entirely without being affected by you. uggh I just re-read all that, and it sounds all yucky and cheesy and preachy. I'll stick by my point though: the world isn't always as well defined as the way you seem to see it. |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 18 Nov 2009, 06:13 PM Post #82 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@conradw: I agree that these words can have many associations, but I also think that only some of them are relevant to our conversation. But my main point should come through clearly enough by doing the following: For this conversation I define a "McLaffyist" as 'one who believes in a personal, supernatural God' and "Schlieffenist" as 'one who does NOT believe in a personal, supernatural God'. By these definitions I would be a Schlieffenist. For the sake of clarity, which of these categories would you fall into? |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 19 Nov 2009, 01:30 AM Post #83 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't want to sound evasive, but i fear I'm bound to. could you define personal and supernatural for me. I could give them definitions myself, and end up in either one depending on the definition i gave. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 19 Nov 2009, 06:51 AM Post #84 |
|
Deleted User
|
concolor i am sure i asked you about what you thought happened to you after you died and you said something like my heart,metabolisim blah blah stops.... i took that as nothing -you beleive your concious exsistance stops there-am i correct? what do you think? is there nothing or something after death? |
|
|
| Concolor | 19 Nov 2009, 07:55 AM Post #85 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@conradw: Personal means (to me) as in an entity having a personal consciousness that other personal consciousnesses can relate to in the way yours and mine relate to each other. By supernatural I mean something permanently beyond the reach of empirical science. To be supernatural, the entity must exist independently of the natural universe and is unbound by the laws in this. A hypothetical multiverse is not supernatural. By believing, I mean to the extent that you believe in my existence as a personal (and in my mind natural) entity. (It would also be fun to see your definitions of these) @ARAZEC: I believe my conscious existence stops at death yes. I believe that my consciousness is linked to the integrity and configuration of my brain, so that when this stops working my conscious experience also stops. I do not KNOW this of course, but that is what I believe to be the most convincing alternative of the one's I've heard so far. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 20 Nov 2009, 05:53 AM Post #86 |
|
Deleted User
|
i asked what YOU really think-not if any of the other you have heard of are convincing... this isnt the debate section and i wont ask for proof ! |
|
|
| Concolor | 20 Nov 2009, 06:25 AM Post #87 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC: This IS the debate section And my answer was yes. Why don't you want to know the background for my belief? |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 20 Nov 2009, 07:33 AM Post #88 |
|
Deleted User
|
and so it is the debate section o.k then lemme guess you died and came back to life ? |
|
|
| Concolor | 20 Nov 2009, 07:43 AM Post #89 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Uh...I'm not sure I know where you're heading with this, but no as far as I know I've never died. But you know it happens sometimes that people die and come back to life, but only few are lucky enough not to wind up in a vegetative state. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 20 Nov 2009, 08:12 AM Post #90 |
|
Deleted User
|
o.k whats the background for your beleif? dont say nothing |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



6:47 PM Jul 10