Originally posted by pawnhandler Actually, yes, you choose not to believe me. Those who have known me through that whole period are very well acquainted with the process I went through. And yes, I'm just as capable of choosing to believe there is no God. My beliefs waver depending on how I choose to interpret my life experiences. However, saying things like "...made you so stupid... ...[text shortened]... statement don't work as challenges to me. Put-downs like that end the conversation. Adios.
Your failure to take up the challenge and prove your ability tells all.
Now please explain how choosing to believe in something that you know for a fact is false can be described as anything other than stupid.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Drug use, prostitution, public nudity...
There are already places like that to live. It is called Amsterdam. I know becuase I have seen it with my own eyes. It is one thing to know that it is happening around you but it is quite another to have it shoved in your face. What of those who do not desire to have that shoved in their faces? Should they have a place to live as well?
Also I take issue with the notion that prostitution/drug abuse are victimless crimes.
Edit: Come to think of it I take issue with public nudity being a victimless crime. For example, I have a sneaking suspecion that if I were forced to look at you in the buff I would not consider it to be a victimless crime. Some people should be required to wear cloths 24/7. No offense. 😛
Originally posted by pawnhandler Actually, yes, you choose not to believe me. Those who have known me through that whole period are very well acquainted with the process I went through. And yes, I'm just as capable of choosing to believe there is no God. My beliefs waver depending on how I choose to interpret my life experiences. However, saying things like "...made you so stupid... statement don't work as challenges to me. Put-downs like that end the conversation. Adios.
Don't forget the putdown of equating our faith with believing in pink unicorns. There are, in fact, evidences for our faith despite the inability to prove it to anyone. For example, there are REASONS why people believe in God and in not pink unicorns. Exploring those reasons may become uncomfortable, however.
Originally posted by whodey Don't forget the putdown of equating our faith with believing in pink unicorns. There are, in fact, evidences for our faith despite the inability to prove it to anyone. For example, there are REASONS why people believe in God and not pink unicorns.
But pawnhandler is claiming that he is capable of choosing to believe in pink unicorns. You are rather saying that your belief is caused by evidence available to you and not by a free choice you made.
Originally posted by twhitehead But pawnhandler is claiming that he is capable of choosing to believe in pink unicorns. You are rather saying that your belief is caused by evidence available to you and not by a free choice you made.
Having a baseless belief system is a whole differnt issue than being forced into believing something based of certain evidences. For example, if one studies evolution we are confronted with such scientific facts as the Cambrian explosion which occured millions of years ago. From a theistic viewpoint, one might equate thiis explosion with an act of God during a period of creation who then slowly perfected these lifeforms slowly over time until he had his masterpiece which is mankind. Conversely, the atheist would conclude that such an explosion was due to abiogenetic forces and that mankind simply evolved from it via forces of nature devoid of a thinking creator. Thus you have the same data to draw from but have two conflicint interpretations of that data. Thus neither position could be seen as baseless.
Originally posted by whodey Having a baseless belief system is a whole differnt issue than being forced into believing something based of certain evidences. For example, if one studies evolution we are confronted with such scientific facts as the Cambrian explosion which occured millions of years ago. From a theistic viewpoint, one might equate thiis explosion with an act of God duri ...[text shortened]... e two conflicint interpretations of that data. Thus neither position could be seen as baseless.
I never said that either position was baseless. I am claiming that you do not choose what to believe. You believe based on evidence not choice. pawnhandler was claiming that once can choose to believe whatever they feel like including a baseless position.
Originally posted by twhitehead I never said that either position was baseless. I am claiming that you do not choose what to believe. You believe based on evidence not choice. pawnhandler was claiming that once can choose to believe whatever they feel like including a baseless position.
I see what you are saying. Christ made some interesting statements regarding faith, however. He stated that men love the darkenss rather than the light as one of the reasons men rejected him. Also the parable about the sower and the seed that Christ gave concerning faith, it would seem that the condition of ones heart is proportional to them recieving faith and having it produce fruit. In effect, you could argue that what we love and value are "evidences" for which believe system we will hold to and which we will reject. For example, if I love certain behavoirs or activities that conflict with a certain faith, I would probably be inclined to reject that faith because they condemn what I love or desire. I suppose you could continue by saying we are forced to love certain things and hate others, however, I would disagree with this entirely. If God gives us no choice to love him then, in effect, God would be loving himself when others show love for him and he would be hating himself through others who exhibit behavior that show they hate what he stands for.
Originally posted by whodey There are already places like that to live. It is called Amsterdam. I know becuase I have seen it with my own eyes. It is one thing to know that it is happening around you but it is quite another to have it shoved in your face. What of those who do not desire to have that shoved in their faces? Should they have a place to live as well?
Also I take iss ...[text shortened]... to be a victimless crime. Some people should be required to wear cloths 24/7. No offense. 😛
I wouldn't go around naked, but I wouldn't mind seeing some shapely boobies once in a while bobbling their way down the street. (o Y o)
Originally posted by whodey Don't forget the putdown of equating our faith with believing in pink unicorns. There are, in fact, evidences for our faith despite the inability to prove it to anyone. For example, there are REASONS why people believe in God and in not pink unicorns. Exploring those reasons may become uncomfortable, however.
There are REASONS why people believe in neither, or both:
The word "unicorn" is included in the text of the King James translation of The Bible nine times[2].
The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical, however some young earth believing Christian apologists have advanced various arguments that the biblical unicorn was not a fantasy animal
Originally posted by AThousandYoung I wouldn't go around naked, but I wouldn't mind seeing some shapely boobies once in a while bobbling their way down the street. (o Y o)
So you want to restrict public nudity according to your own personal tastes ie only shapley booblies?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung There are REASONS why people believe in neither, or both:
The word "unicorn" is included in the text of the King James translation of The Bible nine times[2].
The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical, however some young earth believing Christian apologists have advanced various arguments that the biblical unicorn was not a fantasy animal
http://www.conservapedia.com/Unicorn
There are many thoughts on the matter. The first of which is that the authors of the Bible referred to a well known mythical animal such as the unicorn, or that it actually existed or that they were, in fact, referring to another animal that became identified with the mythical animal in question.
Elect-ism
07 Sep '07 11:35
Back to Top