Fox News Goes After Pope

[LimpyLoo]

I'm not too worried about titles either (I don't like the word 'atheism') but I do get caught up in logical contradiction.

[sheatheman]

 

 

 

 

Jesus unquestionably existed historically. We shouldn't question that.

 

 

haha good one brah

 

There are no comtemporary accounts of his existence. No extra-Bible verification either.

 

We should indeed question that.

 

 

 

See Josephus for one of the most universally accepted extra-biblical verifications of Jesus' existence. You're wasting your time questioning that, trust me.

 

 

Yeah you are probably aware of how controversial that is and to say it's "universally excepted" would be a flat-out lol of a lie. In my humble view it's pretty clear that the references were added later.

 

 

No, it's universally excepted as a verification that Jesus existed, but not as a verification that he is the Son of God, which is what the controversy is about. I already know about Testimonium Flavianum, that christian transcribers likely added parts like "He was the Christ." But Josephus mentions Jesus twice, and the other time is universally accepted as authentic. Even renowned secular scholars and agnostics agree that Jesus' Crucifixion is historical fact. You can be a mythicist if you like, though.

[poblequadrat]

 

 

 

I am agnostic because I have not yet been convinced that I know whether there is a God or not, or what God's nature might be if such a "thing" exists. It's a journey, not a contradiction.

 

Now we should collaborate on a bro hug track.

 

 

Haha, I'm into it. I actually do really dig your tunes, I'd be honored to do something creative with you.

 

Limpy - http://www.diffen.com/difference/Agnostic_vs_Atheist The title doesn't matter too much to me I guess, though.

 

 

Luke, I am well aware of the difference between agnostic and atheist.

 

An atheist is someone who does not believe that God exists. An agnostic doesn't know whether God exists.

 

 

How can you believe in something that you're not sure exists? I'm not sure whether leprechauns exists, but regardless I believe in them...? It is not logical. Agnostic Theism is nonsensical.

 

 

It isn't nonsensical at all, and in fact that's how many people think of the things they do. I'll agree, though, that there's an asymmetry between doubting and believing and doubting and not believing.

 

What are we calling "god" here, though? Is there something eternal and sovereign which is immanent to this world but on another plane? If you think the laws of physics might change any moment then you don't believe in any sort of divinity. Maths are also eternal and on another plane, although they're not sovereign I guess. Bearded overmen who created the world are another story, though, but I find it is extremely hard to be a real atheist.

 

What I mean is the question of having no religious faith and the question of divinity are not one and the same.

[sheatheman]

I would consider myself a mystic.

[luke viia]

@pob: Right, that's the point I was trying to raise by bringing up ignosticism. (thanks again to SR4, I had no idea this was a school of thought until he mentioned it in a thread a year ago or so)

 

I just don't know the true nature of reality and I don't want to claim that I have answers when I don't. (My postings on watmm might sometimes suggest otherwise, lol, but I swear.)

 

Furthermore when I have conversations about "God" it becomes clear very quickly that whoever I am speaking to is not defining the term in the way I am, prohibiting meaningful discussion between us unless we first come to that agreement.

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

 

 

I am agnostic because I have not yet been convinced that I know whether there is a God or not, or what God's nature might be if such a "thing" exists. It's a journey, not a contradiction.

 

Now we should collaborate on a bro hug track.

 

 

Haha, I'm into it. I actually do really dig your tunes, I'd be honored to do something creative with you.

 

Limpy - http://www.diffen.com/difference/Agnostic_vs_Atheist The title doesn't matter too much to me I guess, though.

 

 

Luke, I am well aware of the difference between agnostic and atheist.

 

An atheist is someone who does not believe that God exists. An agnostic doesn't know whether God exists.

 

 

How can you believe in something that you're not sure exists? I'm not sure whether leprechauns exists, but regardless I believe in them...? It is not logical. Agnostic Theism is nonsensical.

 

 

It isn't nonsensical at all, and in fact that's how many people think of the things they do. I'll agree, though, that there's an asymmetry between doubting and believing and doubting and not believing.

 

What are we calling "god" here, though? Is there something eternal and sovereign which is immanent to this world but on another plane? If you think the laws of physics might change any moment then you don't believe in any sort of divinity. Maths are also eternal and on another plane, although they're not sovereign I guess. Bearded overmen who created the world are another story, though, but I find it is extremely hard to be a real atheist.

 

What I mean is the question of having no religious faith and the question of divinity are not one and the same.

 

 

I don't believe in the Christian God.

 

I don't believe in Zeus or Poseidon.

 

I don't believe in Allah

 

I don't believe in Xenu

 

Etc etc etc

 

 

Atheism isn't that hard. For instance, I only believe in one less god than you do. You're soooo close.

[sheatheman]

Several times a week, at night I will look at the clock and the time will be 11:11?

 

One time I told my brother to think of anything and I would guess. I let him think, then I guessed Tom Cruise. I was right.

[LimpyLoo]

Several times a week, at night I will look at the clock and the time will be 11:11?

 

One time I told my brother to think of anything and I would guess. I let him think, then I guessed Tom Cruise. I was right.

 

1600 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

800 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

400 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

200 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

100 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

50 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

25 people flipped a coin. Let's say 12 got heads.

 

12 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

6 people flipped a coin. Half got heads

 

3 people flipped a coin. Let's say one person got heads.

 

 

You go up to the person who flipped all heads and he's like "I flipped heads 10 times in a row, it's a miracle."

 

 

Statistically improbable things necessarily happen all the time. If there's a one-in-twenty-trillion chance that something will happen, then once in twenty trillion times that thing will happen. And it will appear to be a miracle because it's so "unlikely."

 

If you pray for rain and it rains, that's not a good reason to believe in God. There's a reason we have randomized double-blind controlled studies.

[luke viia]

Whoops, I just saw this question:

 

"How can you believe in something that you're not sure exists?"

 

The answer is that I don't, lol. I'm not sure why you think I "believe" in God, as that phrase definitely gives the impression that I believe in the Christian God, but I've made it clear I don't. I take it mythically, in the same sense that people "believe" 2001 a space odyssey or star wars or the story of persephone had interesting and profound things to say about humanity. I also have no direct evidence to suggest that a supernatural being can't exist outside of our ability to detect it, so I try to stay rational and admit the boundaries of what I can and cannot say with certainty. Furthermore I think 'god' is a word that gets anthropomorphized to the point of almost killing the meaning, but in a far more abstracted sense I believe that 'god' might be a sort of internal force that religious writers try to convey in a historical narrative promoting their own cultures, and I would be a fool to say that powerful, meaningful internal forces "can't exist."

[LimpyLoo]

Whoops, I just saw this question:

 

"How can you believe in something that you're not sure exists?"

 

The answer is that I don't, lol. I'm not sure why you think I "believe" in God, as that phrase definitely gives the impression that I believe in the Christian God, but I've made it clear I don't. I take it mythically, in the same sense that people "believe" 2001 a space odyssey or star wars or the story of persephone had interesting and profound things to say about humanity. I also have no direct evidence to suggest that a supernatural being can't exist outside of our ability to detect it, so I try to stay rational and admit the boundaries of what I can and cannot say with certainty. Furthermore I think 'god' is a word that gets anthropomorphized to the point of almost killing the meaning, but in a far more abstracted sense I believe that 'god' might be a sort of internal force that religious writers try to convey in a historical narrative promoting their own cultures, and I would be a fool to say that powerful, meaningful internal forces "can't exist."

 

Okay well I guess I'm not sure what you believe. If you believe that the Bible is metaphor then I think you and I share the same theological position and therefor I don't know what we're going back and forth about lol.

[luke viia]

hahah yeah pretty much, just trying to clarify. i think we were on that old chestnut, "wtf is an agnostic."

 

carry on

[solarion]

what happened to the pope being infallible? oh, that only applies when he's ritzed out in gold and calling gays abominations, eh? fucking disgusting hypocrites.

 

i'm going to talk about this for a second

 

the pope is not thought to be infallible most of the time. he has to invoke this power specially when speaking about a doctrine of the church regarding details of faith or morality, in which cases he really is infallible because he can then define anybody who goes against these doctrines as being outside the church.

 

he could not say "DVDs do not exist" for example. he can also give his opinions on theological issues without having that be regarded then as dogma.

 

any statement he's going to make where he invokes this thing i would imagine are unlikely to be motivated solely by his own opinions. it'll be discussed for a long time before he does it. rome is sloooow and this is a serious no-take-backs thing.

[Candiru]

Okay, let's get super deep: What if flies think that cows are god because that's what they get their shit from, but it's not like flies know about stuff like... the internet!

 

We don't know about the internet guys. God is not shit. Kapeesh? Word.

[luke viia]

Amen brahman.

[sheatheman]

 

Several times a week, at night I will look at the clock and the time will be 11:11?

 

One time I told my brother to think of anything and I would guess. I let him think, then I guessed Tom Cruise. I was right.

 

1600 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

800 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

400 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

200 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

100 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

50 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

25 people flipped a coin. Let's say 12 got heads.

 

12 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

6 people flipped a coin. Half got heads

 

3 people flipped a coin. Let's say one person got heads.

 

 

You go up to the person who flipped all heads and he's like "I flipped heads 10 times in a row, it's a miracle."

 

 

Statistically improbable things necessarily happen all the time. If there's a one-in-twenty-trillion chance that something will happen, then once in twenty trillion times that thing will happen. And it will appear to be a miracle because it's so "unlikely."

 

If you pray for rain and it rains, that's not a good reason to believe in God. There's a reason we have randomized double-blind controlled studies.

 

 

Cute. There's no reason those things have to be linked to God. Could easily be explained in a quantum way. You fell for my trick. I understand you now.

 

Also, seeing 11:11 on the clock all the time isn't a statistical improbability. And that game I played with my brother isn't happening 20 trillion times. It happened once.

 

Truth is, though, there's more to existence than you want to accept. If you want I'll live in the forest for a while and prove it to you.

[sheatheman]

You make music that you want to be beautiful. What is beauty if not reaching out beyond what words can explain?

 

There are forces working through you that you don't want to acknowledge.

 

Why do you have the drive to create? What do you believe about what you are creating?

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

Several times a week, at night I will look at the clock and the time will be 11:11?

 

One time I told my brother to think of anything and I would guess. I let him think, then I guessed Tom Cruise. I was right.

 

1600 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

800 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

400 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

200 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

100 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

50 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

25 people flipped a coin. Let's say 12 got heads.

 

12 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

6 people flipped a coin. Half got heads

 

3 people flipped a coin. Let's say one person got heads.

 

 

You go up to the person who flipped all heads and he's like "I flipped heads 10 times in a row, it's a miracle."

 

 

Statistically improbable things necessarily happen all the time. If there's a one-in-twenty-trillion chance that something will happen, then once in twenty trillion times that thing will happen. And it will appear to be a miracle because it's so "unlikely."

 

If you pray for rain and it rains, that's not a good reason to believe in God. There's a reason we have randomized double-blind controlled studies.

 

 

Cute. There's no reason those things have to be linked to God. Could easily be explained in a quantum way. You fell for my trick. I understand you now.

 

Also, seeing 11:11 on the clock all the time isn't a statistical improbability. And that game I played with my brother isn't happening 20 trillion times. It happened once.

 

Truth is, though, there's more to existence than you want to accept. If you want I'll live in the forest for a while and prove it to you.

 

 

Oops I guess I made the mistake of trying to explain superstition to a person who embraces their superstition and moreover thinks it's divine or some shit.

[poblequadrat]

 

 

 

Several times a week, at night I will look at the clock and the time will be 11:11?

 

One time I told my brother to think of anything and I would guess. I let him think, then I guessed Tom Cruise. I was right.

 

1600 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

800 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

400 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

200 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

100 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

50 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

25 people flipped a coin. Let's say 12 got heads.

 

12 people flipped a coin. Half got heads.

 

6 people flipped a coin. Half got heads

 

3 people flipped a coin. Let's say one person got heads.

 

 

You go up to the person who flipped all heads and he's like "I flipped heads 10 times in a row, it's a miracle."

 

 

Statistically improbable things necessarily happen all the time. If there's a one-in-twenty-trillion chance that something will happen, then once in twenty trillion times that thing will happen. And it will appear to be a miracle because it's so "unlikely."

 

If you pray for rain and it rains, that's not a good reason to believe in God. There's a reason we have randomized double-blind controlled studies.

 

 

Cute. There's no reason those things have to be linked to God. Could easily be explained in a quantum way. You fell for my trick. I understand you now.

 

Also, seeing 11:11 on the clock all the time isn't a statistical improbability. And that game I played with my brother isn't happening 20 trillion times. It happened once.

 

Truth is, though, there's more to existence than you want to accept. If you want I'll live in the forest for a while and prove it to you.

 

 

Oops I guess I made the mistake of trying to explain superstition to a person who embraces their superstition and moreover thinks it's divine or some shit.

 

 

I'm repeating myself, but what about what is statistically necessary? Since nature is objectively driven by laws, and since laws are not something you can find in natural phaenomena (describing how a stone falls is not a description of gravity, and in any case what causes the earth to pull the stone isn't present), there's an immaterial dimension beyond phaenomena. And if these laws are to be laws, this dimension must be eternal. I guess this is obvious enough, but what deals with that dimension is not science, because science deals with particular laws and not with the existence of laws themselves. It is a theological matter: it is hard to deny that questions such as "is this non-phaenomenal dimension cognoscible?", "how is this dimension cognoscible?", "what is this dimension's exact relationship to this world?" are theological in nature. And if there is theology, there is the divine.

[SR4]

Guys, after reading the past two pages, sheathe is either trolling or clinically retarded. I honestly wouldn't bother arguing with him at this point.

[LimpyLoo]

yeah lol

[MisterE]

it's funny how left wing types want to champion this dude as a hero for gays because he says 'who am i to judge' when specifically talking about gay PRIESTS. his feeling about homosexuality in general based on anything he's said, is still fairly ambiguous at best. here's what he actually said:

If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?

 

all he really said was that he didn't think gay men should be prevented from being priests. why does that make him man of the year? oh right, because the liberal media machine spun it into a wider acceptance of homosexuality in general. type 'pope who am i to judge' into google and behold the number of headlines reading like:

"Pope Francis On Gays: Who Am I To Judge Them? - Huffington Post"

Pope: 'Who am I to judge' gay people? - World News

Pope Francis on gays: 'Who am I to judge?' CNN Belief Blog ...

BBC News - Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

 

etc etc etc. but it's not at all dishonest left wing propaganda, is it? even though what he said was not at all, in any way shape or form 'who am i to judge gay people' in a wider, broader sense. he just never actually said that. at. all. keeping in mind that the church's official stance is still, as it always has been, that the act of gay sex itself is a SIN. he can say who am i to judge this or that all day long. that statement doesn't at all approach contradicting the church's doctrine about gay sex being a sinful act. his answer was merely him, as an authority figure within the church, discussing internal church type stuff. not a statement about society at large. and definitely not a statement about the act itself (which he will probably avoid making since it would be bad PR, and he's the pope appointed to help the church's PR after the last decade).

 

all he actually did say there, and fresh on the heels of a decade of scandals involving gay priests and young boys, was that he thought it was ok to have more gay priests. and this makes him man of the year. makes sense, right? now, i'm not saying anything even remotely like that all gays are interested in young boys, but there obviously, to anyone honest, seems to be some kind of correlation with gay priests being interested in them. perhaps because as priests they are even more repressed? or maybe the authority of priesthood actually attracts more predatory types, just the authority of a badge attracts dickheads? so what if, just hypothetically, this pope's more liberal stances on priests actually sees a new round of molestation stories crop up? or maybe he got the church more locked down, put more protocols in place to prevent these events from actually leaking? but if it does happen, it will be funny to watch as the same liberals who championed this guy based on what largely amount to 100% false, misleading headlines, again criticizing the church's sexual abuse scandals which may very well have been a result of what those headlines were actually quoting. and before anyone criticizes me for DARING to even pose the possibility of increased gay priests possibly leading to increased lil boy molestation, let me just point out that the pope considers that more gay men should be ordained, but wont consider the idea of letting some women in there... and the same leftist media outlets that declare him a champion will go on to publish some article next week about some sexist male power structure somewhere in society. you know it won't be the one this pope sits atop in his expensive looking robes, though.

[LimpyLoo]

Who are you referring to, MisterE?

[Guest disparaissant]

jesus christ mistere you constantly one-up yourself in the arena of idiocy. it's almost breathtaking to watch.

[LimpyLoo]

MisterE - 1

 

Random Left-Wing Strawman - 0

[MisterE]

who am i referring to? i think i laid it out pretty clearly. how am i an idiot for pointing out how his quote was specifically referring to gay priests, and not to gays in general, and that it has been dishonestly misrepresented as being a statement about gays in general by many left leaning media outlets? what do you mean who am i referring to when i say left leaning outlets. did you see how one of the ones i linked was huffpo?

 

you don't think that's dishonest? but you do think i'm an idiot.

 

can't say i'm going to lose any sleep over that. especially since neither of you feel the need to explain where anything i said is wrong, which (and this is maybe the dozenth time i've said this in a year) is typical. ad hominems are part of what make this watmm.