Is man getting too big for the world?

[Sassy]

Looking at the topics we have today. Topics which are a mixture of people doing or saying things in the world and we all go.
"Hey! did that person really say or do that?"
I found the trans gender toilet remark really unbelievable and ask myself how did we ever get to this crazy stage in reality.

No one in their right or otherwise mind would believe that God allowed the 9/11 because of trans-gender issues.
Is there a mind-set going on to control and change the way people think about God and life in general.
Who here really for one moment thought a Christian or Atheist could believe that to be truly believed?

I cannot speak for God but I can speak for the teachings in the bible.
It made no sense for someone to say something like that about God.  Do you believe as I do, that this really damages relationships between Atheists, Christians and the rest of the world.  How does one make a judgment on these things be you a theist or atheist?

It worries me sometimes that people become so heavenly minded that they are of no earthly use.

Is this a planned and tweaked way of reporting only things that cause an even wider rift between Christians and Atheists?
Is it planned in the great scheme of things. Do you ever question the things that are published? How will it affect the future of mankind and religion?

[john]

Wow Sass

How hypocritical is that?

Do you ever stop to consider the damage your rants do to Christianity?

[floo]

The OP is a bit rich considering the things Sass claims for her version of god!

[Brownie]

I am going to mentally separate the post from (some of) the poster.  It was a great post.

[Sassy]

Wow Sass

How hypocritical is that?

Do you ever stop to consider the damage your rants do to Christianity?

No rant at all... in fact I was speaking out for those who the claims were aimed at.
At you stupid or did you not actually read the post?

[Owlswing]

No rant at all... in fact I was speaking out for those who the claims were aimed at.

At you stupid or did you not actually read the post?

Sassy's answer to anyone who questions or contradicts absolutely anything she says!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

Who here really for one moment thought a Christian or Atheist could believe that to be truly believed?

Sadly Sasperilla that's exactly the kind of thing that some clerics in particular do think - remember the bishop of Carlisle's comments about gay marriage causing flooding for example? - and I have no reason to think them to be insincere when they make these ludicrous pronouncements.

If I was a theist of some description and a cleric of my faith came out with something like that I'd despair I think at the disrepute he'd bring on my religion.

[floo]

People who think like that are desperately sad!

[Sassy]

Poor show the atheists are desperate, and yet they can still not come up with an intelligent reply.
Atheist drivel at it's best and still yet it's worse.

My post was clear.... Seems the atheist cannot take the heat... Get out of the Kitchen till you can.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

Poor show the atheists are desperate, and yet they can still not come up with an intelligent reply.

Which bit didn't you understand?

[Sassy]

Sassy,

Which bit didn't you understand?

It wasn't about understanding, it was the irrelevant part, that is all parts of what the atheists replied was and is irrelevant...

Getting difficult for an 18 year old, is it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

It wasn't about understanding, it was the irrelevant part, that is all parts of what the atheists replied was and is irrelevant...

Getting difficult for an 18 year old, is it?

You're remarkably fond of accusing others of ignorance yet seem unable to grasp that for the most part those people are capable of asking questions that you lack the intelligence or will to answer. Look, I'll show you (again): How do you Sassy propose to break out of your circular reasoning of, "the Bible is true because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so"?

You can continue to avoid it if you want to, but you're entirely unhorsed when instead of answering you just chuck around misplaced accusations of ignorance.

[Maeght]

No one in their right or otherwise mind would believe that God allowed the 9/11 because of trans-gender issues.

Agreed

Is there a mind-set going on to control and change the way people think about God and life in general.
Who here really for one moment thought a Christian or Atheist could believe that to be truly believed?

I think some people do believe it - if that is what you are asking.

[Leonard James]

How do you Sassy propose to break out of your circular reasoning of, "the Bible is true because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so"?

Any average intelligence teenager can see the stupidity of such reasoning.

[Maeght]

How do you Sassy propose to break out of your circular reasoning of, "the Bible is true because God made it so/God is real because the Bible says so"?

I think the argument as you describe is an over simplification. People have a belief in God, the Bible seems to support that and add meaning and more detail to that belief, so with further reading becomes seen as more and more accurate and to have more and more meaning. I don't think people believe in because of the Bible but the Bible reinforces and develops and existing belief. Its not really about reasoning but belief.

You can continue to avoid it if you want to, but you're entirely unhorsed when instead of answering you just chuck around misplaced accusations of ignorance.

There is a fair amount of lack of in depth understanding of Christianity displayed by people who argue against Sassy on theological grounds I would say. I would admit to being largely ignorant of the finer points of theology and the Bible, but since I have no belief in the God its about why would I have such deep understanding? The accusations of ignorance are over done though and tend to be fired at anyone and everyone even when, like me, posters aren't arguing about the theology at all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

I think the argument as you describe is an over simplification. People have a belief in God, the Bible seems to support that and add meaning and more detail to that belief, so with further reading becomes seen as more and more accurate and to have more and more meaning. I don't think people believe in because of the Bible but the Bible reinforces and develops and existing belief. Its not really about reasoning but belief.

It may be an oversimplification for some, but not for Sassy. I've asked her several times to explain why anyone should think her assertions about "God" to be true and she only responds with ever-longer chunks of the Bible. When I ask about her circular reasoning she accuses me of ignorance. It's a bit like watching a chap shaking his bow and arrow at the nuclear bomber overhead and shouting, "I've got you just where I want you now".

There is a fair amount of lack of in depth understanding of Christianity displayed by people who argue against Sassy on theological grounds I would say. I would admit to being largely ignorant of the finer points of theology and the Bible, but since I have no belief in the God its about why would I have such deep understanding? The accusations of ignorance are over done though and tend to be fired at anyone and everyone even when, like me, posters aren't arguing about the theology at all.

Quite so - see above. The basic logic should come before the theology, but instead Sassy insists only on telling us how much of the Bible she's memorised. 

[Maeght]

It may be an oversimplification for some, but not for Sassy. I've asked her several times to explain why anyone should think her assertions about "God" to be true and she only responds with ever-longer chunks of the Bible.

Of course, because she sees it as supporting her belief.

When I ask about her circular reasoning she accuses me of ignorance.

Of the deeper meaning and significance of what she has posted ... which is possibly fair enough.

It's a bit like watching a chap shaking his bow and arrow at the nuclear bomber overhead and shouting, "I've got you just where I want you now".

Never like analogies because they are never accurate.

Quite so - see above. The basic logic should come before the theology, but instead Sassy insists only on telling us how much of the Bible she's memorised.

Not logic - belief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Of course, because she sees it as supporting her belief.

But only in the sense that "Philosopher's Stone" supports a belief that Harry Potter is real

Of the deeper meaning and significance of what she has posted ... which is possibly fair enough.

No, because that's not the question she's been asked. She may well find "deeper significance" in a book, but what she's been asked is why anyone should accept her personal faith belief as an objective truth. Just quoting from the book doesn't do that. 

Never like analogies because they are never accurate.

But they are illustrative sometimes.

Not logic - belief.

No, logic. The alternative is to go nuclear - any claimed truth is as valid as any other - which doesn't help much. 

[Maeght]

But only in the sense that "Philosopher's Stone" supports a belief that Harry Potter is real

If someone had a strong belief that Harry Potter was real then of course they would quote sections of the books which seemed to support that. So?

No, because that's not the question she's been asked. She may well find "deeper significance" in a book, but what she's been asked is why anyone should accept her personal faith belief as an objective truth. Just quoting from the book doesn't do that.

If she thinks the Bible shows deep meaning then it will make sense to her to post it. the problem is that other people reading it don't share her belief so don't see any great meaning in it - something she doesn't seem to grasp. To her it is obvious from what the Bible says so uses it as evidence. What other argument for belief would you expect?

But they are illustrative sometimes.

But often not.

No, logic. The alternative is to go nuclear - any claimed truth is as valid as any other - which doesn't help much.

Its about beliefs which are supported by Biblical texts in the eye of the believer. This seems logical to the believer but not to a non-believer. I'm just not sure what alternative answer you are expecting.

[Nearly Sane]

If I might interject, I agree with Maeght that there isn't much use in engaging with people who just say 'Faith' or 'True for me' BUT that's rarely the whole position, and people also use or attempt to use logical arguments with that as well. Now if we want to to the only way to take part in a meaningful discussion is that people accept every axiom and definition up front, or that we just accept there is no common ground possible then not only is is this forum's goose a bit well done but so is every discussion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

If someone had a strong belief that Harry Potter was real then of course they would quote sections of the books which seemed to support that. So?

So nothing if they want to keep that as a private belief. It's no-one's business but her own. What we're discussing here is why anyone else should agree with them though - why in other words it's an objective as well as a subjective belief - because often people who hold these private beliefs arrogate to themselves special rights and privileges in the public square on the back of them.

If she thinks the Bible shows deep meaning then it will make sense to her to post it. the problem is that other people reading it don't share her belief so don't see any great meaning in it - something she doesn't seem to grasp. To her it is obvious from what the Bible says so uses it as evidence. What other argument for belief would you expect?

An argument that isn't circular: "The Bible is true because God made it so/God exists because the Bible says so". Circular reasoning is always wrong, which is why I asked Sassy whether she has anything else in the locker.

She hasn't. 

But often not.

But in this case it is.

Its about beliefs which are supported by Biblical texts in the eye of the believer. his seems logical to the believer but not to a non-believer. I'm just not sure what alternative answer you are expecting?

"It" may be so far as personal faith beliefs are concerned, but the bar is set much higher for truth claims to be accepted as objective truths for the rest of us. The answer I'd expect to support a claim of objective truth is therefore something more than a circular argument. What that argument might look like isn't my problem - it's a burden of proof issue for the proponent.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

If I might interject, I agree with Maeght that there isn't much use in engaging with people who just say 'Faith' or 'True for me' BUT that's rarely the whole position, and people also use or attempt to use logical arguments with that as well. Now if we want to to the only way to take part in a meaningful discussion is that people accept every axiom and definition up front, or that we just accept there is no common ground possible then not only is is this forum's goose a bit well done but so is every discussion.

I have no issue with people who say "true for me" because that's their "faith". What this is about though is those who claim "true for you too" on the same basis - and then make certain demands accordingly. And when they do that, if not for engaging with them at some level at least what else can we say - fuck off?

At least perhaps if one such person realises that she has no claim to special treatment for her beliefs then that's one "fuck off" needed fewer, which I think is a good thing.

[Nearly Sane]

It's not about the special treatment though as we aren't close to getting there externally. It's an internal claim about the discussion. 'True for me' is a claim that there is no possibility of anything in common challenging that. 'True for everybody' is merely a large egoed TfM

[Maeght]

Sassy, as I've said, sees deep meaning and significance and 'truth' in the Bible and presents this as evidence as she thinks it is obviously that and should be obvious to everyone else that her truth is correct. She thinks those who don't see it are intentionally ignoring it or just don't get the obvious. We're not really discussing why anyone else should agree with her but why Sassy's only answer to your question is to quote the Bible. I totally agree re the special rights etc Of course circular arguments are wrong but I don't think she is making the argument you state. I don't think she is saying God exists because the Bible says so but that she believes in God and that the has added to her beliefs and deeper understanding and thinks this should be obvious to others. She just can't get her head around people genuinely not having a belief in God.

But in this case it is.

If you say so.

"It" may be so far as personal faith beliefs are concerned, but the bar is set much higher for truth claims to be accepted as objective truths for the rest of us. The answer I'd expect to support a claim of objective truth is therefore something more than a circular argument. What that argument might look like isn't my problem - it's a burden of proof issue for the proponent.

Never gonna happen.

[Maeght]

It's not about the special treatment though as we aren't close to getting there externally. It's an internal claim about the discussion.

Yep.