The Non Religious

[nailit]

Pardon the pun, but playing devils advocate here. Are the atheists and non-religious who contribute to R&S (and I'm including myself in this) sometimes a bit too quick to condemn, criticise and type ad hominem remarks in response to religious posts?

R&S section (just like news) seems to bring out the worst in people. We all have opinions but wouldn't it be better to try and have a reasoned and *rational* discussion rather than some of the heated exchanges that so often happens?

As I said, I'm including myself in this as sometimes Ive been a bit hasty replying, with some off the cuff remarks that I may not have made in a real life situation.

[Khandro]

//which bits of the Bible that you DO find true and why? //

What do you mean by "true"?

[nailit]

Would you like a dictionary definition of true Khandro?
Can you not understand the word?

OK lets go with historical then. (as opposed to metaphor, allegory or parable).

[dunnitall]

Look! Everything every subject has its adherents....those who agree and those who don't whatever the subject. So IMO, to argue the t o s s over any subject that brings contention and argument is never going to be solved. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed but the pros won't change and the cons won't change either. STALEMATE.

All it is....IMO.... Is a discussion which brings out heated debate. However, IMO nowt wrong with that just don't take it seriously....it ain't worth the blood pressure rise....no one will 'win' or convince anyone else they are right.... So take all with a pinch of salt, enjoy the banter et al.....but clam down, calm down, it's a game in the ether I think lots like to play. Enjoy then gerron wiv ur life xx

[nailit]

//it ain't worth the blood pressure rise..//
obviously cant speak for others but MY blood pressure aint rising one centimetre.

[Khandro]

Nailit my friend, we are in a post-modern world where truth is relative and conditional;
Is it true that there is snow on the ground? Well it certainly is for me at this moment, but it may not be for you.
Does the sun revolve around the earth? It was true once, but not now.
Are the Taliban wrong? That rather depends on who asks and who answers
Is the worshipping of bulls stupid?
etc. etc.

[naomi24]

//Does the sun revolve around the earth? It was true once, but not now. //

It was never true.

[mibn2cweus]

naomi24 //Does the sun revolve around the earth? It was true once, but not now. //

It was never true. 09:54 Mon 17th Dec 2018

I was going to compose a big spiel about the importance of why what we believe at any time to be true should ideally correlate to reality but it would be a monument undertaking to put it anymore elegantly than the above.

[Theland]

Before Gallileo and Copernicus, the Sun revolving around the earth was indeed true based on available evidence. Only later progress changed this truth to its opposite, again based on the newly available evidence.
So was the earlier observation wrong? No!
The objective truth was yet to be revealed by discovery and experiment.
Should the earliest observers have said, "The Sun moves around the earth, that is what I see, but somehow I believe I will be proved wrong one day as in the future, some new discovery will refute this!"
In that case, everything we believe to be true based on observation, discovery and experiment, must be totally wrong, because we just, "know," that somewhere in the future lies a new knowledge that will turn our present understanding and beliefs upside down."
Yes?

[Khandro]

mibn; //I was going to compose a big spiel about the importance of why what we believe at any time to be true should ideally correlate to reality //

It therefore must follow, that everything you think to be true at this moment, may not 'correlate to reality', including your certainty that God does not exist.
Had you been alive in 1500 you would have been as certain that the Sun moved around the Earth, as you are that there is no God.

[naomi24]

Theland, //So was the earlier observation wrong? No! //

Yes, it was. The sun has never revolved around the earth.

Khandro, //Had you been alive in 1500 you would have been as certain that the Sun moved around the Earth, as you are that there is no God.//

That’s a wonky argument. Had we been alive in 1500 it’s likely that, having been brainwashed by society, we’d all have been certain of the existence of God…. but our certainty would have been wrong.

mibs. :o)

[Khandro]

n. Read my post above at 20:40 Sun. where I say "we are in a post-modern world, where truth is relative and conditional".
I then (of the top of my head) gave 3 examples.
It shouldn't require you to be a student of Jacques Derrida to have sufficient imagination to catch my drift.

[naomi24]

Khandro, I prefer to keep my feet on the ground.

[mibn2cweus]

It is those who dared question whether truth was the providence of religion or reality, (often upon threat of death or eternal damnation) that (continues to) put our universe in its rightful place.

[Theland]

Really Mibs?
Then you will be interested to learn of the persecution of any scientist who follows a line of evidence and research that supports Intelligent Design.
Bullied, denied funding for research, denied promotions, loss of jobs in some cases, and worse. And why?
Because like the Pope persecuting Galilleo, these scientists are researching, with considerable success, a subject that does not fit in with the preconceived materialist narrative, so fastidiously protected by the scientific establishment in the universities.
So what is the difference between the persecuted Galilleo, and the persecuted scientists today?
Power is unforgiving.

[mibn2cweus]

Presupposing intelligence is exemplary of the lack thereof.

[Theland]

And the evidence for that statement is?

The scientists who work on intelligent design are examining the same evidence as the materialist evolutionists.
The difference is, the I.D. scientists are following the evidence to where it leads.
The evolutionist scientists close off lines of enquirer if it seems like it may contradict the accepted dogma.
It's Gallileo mark 2.

[naomi24]

Theland, //The evolutionist scientists close off lines of enquirer if it seems like it may contradict the accepted dogma. //

Which lines are they?

[Theland]

The origin of information.
Evolutionists are still struggling to account for the origin of information.
The fact that in all of our collective experiences, information can only ever originate in a mind.
That is one of the bases of I.D.
But the established accepted dogma forbids the consideration of anything other than a materialistic answer to the problem.

[naomi24]

//the established accepted dogma forbids the consideration of anything other than a materialistic answer to the problem.//

It doesn’t ‘forbid’ anything - but rather than automatically attribute the unknown to the unknown – which is what creationists do - it has the sense to question and search.

[mibn2cweus]

//The fact that in all of our collective experiences, information can only ever originate in a mind.//

The information contained in my mind originates from my perceptions of an external world. I don't just make *** up and declare, "that's information." When it comes to what you've been told is "information" . . . you've been misinformed.