Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
Posted: October 03 2010 at 10:37
Ivan wrote:
< ="-" ="text/; =utf-8">Dean, why don't you accept at least once that you were wrong?I have done it more than once even in this thread, doesn't kill.
You first said I liesd, so quoted the synonym dictionary
Then you said you didn't truisted the synonym dictionary so I quoted the American English Cambridge Dictionary
Just in case you didn't trusted I quoted the Advanced Lerner British English Dictionary.
And now you want to tell me what I mean when I say something, all this quotes prove I was correct and you not, learn to live with it.
Iván
It's not the dictionaries that are to be trusted or not. It's your conception of synonyms.
A little fact about synonyms: A synonymic pair does not express the exact same thing. Wrong and inappropriate doesn't have the exact same semantic content. You seem to assert this.
By your logic then, there is no difference in meaning between:
Dean, why don't you accept at least once that you were wrong?
Dean, why don't you accept at least once that you were inappropriate?
Most people with a little knowledge of English would read different meanings into this synonymic pair of sentences. Synonymity is a question of more or less. Some synonymic pairs are better examples of synonyms - others are 'not as good' examples. The pair wrong/inappropriate is not a very good example of a truly synonymic pair. In fact, there are not many 'truly' synonymic pairs. Some linguists think there aren't any at all.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: October 03 2010 at 10:52
Paravion wrote:
How do you prove something doesn't exist?...
.. It's not my experience the theist in any way think they have prove God's existence or that they recognize it as their burden to prove it. They believe in (a) God , and to many theists, the notion of 'belief' as something not rooted in any logic/rationalism/empiricism/likelyhood or anything 'scientific' is essential.
I don't understand your struggle and your eager to convince by means that for theists are completely irrelevant.
If you're essentially saying that you can't prove that your religion is correct and that you simply have faith (in the absence of evidence) - that's fine with me. But there are some Theists who claim that there's more than faith, and those are who I created this thread for.
And if you're also saying that for Theists the real world is completely irrelevant, and they don't care about whether their beliefs are actually true - I agree, that's exactly how I perceive their argumentation.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: October 03 2010 at 11:02
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Dean, why don't you accept at least once that you were wrong? I have done it more than once even in this thread, doesn't kill.
You first said I liesd, so quoted the synonym dictionary
Then you said you didn't truisted the synonym dictionary so I quoted the American English Cambridge Dictionary
Just in case you didn't trusted I quoted the Advanced Lerner British English Dictionary.
I did what!??
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
And now you want to tell me what I mean when I say something, all this quotes prove I was correct and you not, learn to live with it.
Iván
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 - breath in, hold, breath out and relax.
I cannot reply to this post without losing my temper, so I will gracefully bow out as that is the most appropriate action to take under the circumstances.
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
Posted: October 03 2010 at 11:03
ProgFreak wrote:
< ="-" ="text/; =utf-8">If you're essentially saying that you can't prove that your religion is correct and that you simply have faith (in the absence of evidence) - that's fine with me. But there are some Theists who claim that there's more than faith, and those are who I created this thread for.
And if you're also saying that for Theists the real world is completely irrelevant, and they don't care about whether their beliefs are actually true - I agree, that's exactly how I perceive their argumentation.
Well - essentially - I'm saying that it's pointless to try to convince religious people that their faith is wrong because their belief isn't based on logic, rationalism, empiricism and/or probability.
To some extend I can understand your desire to go after those who equate religious beliefs with truth. But again, rather pointless. Those people are not likely to take in any of your arguments however sound they might be.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: October 03 2010 at 11:19
^ I'm not exactly "going after" anyone. Remember, this thread is about religious people who think that their belief makes sense. Depending on which study you look at, some 40% of all US Americans believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and men walked with dinosaurs. To those I'll say any time that not only can't they prove that they're right ... they're actually flat out wrong, period, nothing else to say about it. And even moderate Catholics like Iván - a few pages ago he talked about a literal couple of humans referred to as Adam & Eve, from whom we all descend and into whom God somehow "injected" souls. To him I also say: I think you're wrong, and I have scientific evidence on my side. I agree with you that this won't convince them, but nevertheless I think that it's useful to have someone spell it out for them.
BTW: Love Tom Lehrer - the Atheist Experience TV Show used some of his songs as intros, for example the "Vatican Rag".
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Posted: October 03 2010 at 11:46
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ And even moderate Catholics like Iván - a few pages ago he talked about a literal couple of humans referred to as Adam & Eve, from whom we all descend and into whom God somehow "injected" souls. To him I also say: I think you're wrong, and I have scientific evidence on my side.
Mike, I never talked about a pair of humans from who we descend, please don't put woirds oin my mouth.
I expressed clearly that Adam is an alegory for early humanity, and I was extremely clear on this, never said that God gave a soul to a Adam & Eve (a couple of humans), my church says that Gid decided when humanity was ready to hae a soul, I don't know, maybe a thousand maybe a million huumans, I never claimed to know that
But please, do't try to make our argumets seem absurd with statements that are false.
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: October 03 2010 at 12:01
This video is poking fun at ''reforms'' in the Catholic Church. This has been explored at some length already in the thread, but basically there's this dichotomy that Christians are either ''fanatics'' if they take everything literally or are ''hypocrites'' if they embrace change. I can't put it as well as Ivan, but I hope all will know what I mean.
This kind of argument makes me think of the witch hunts of the 16th and 17th Centuries, and the Trial by Ordeal whereby if the person drowned they were innocent and if they floated they were a witch (and therefore hanged).
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: October 03 2010 at 12:07
Iván wrote:
We believe God may have decided when the moment came to provide the evolved man of a soul:
On the creation of the soul, the Church has a very strong teaching.
The human soul was deliberately created in the likeness and image of
God.
The human soul is not simply a byproduct of the human body.
The human soul has the power to know abstract concepts, to know God (intellect)
The human soul has the power to choose and to love (will)
The human soul has unique dignity above the rest of visible creation.
The human being is a combination of human body and human soul. Regardless
of any speculative ideas of evolutionary processes that God may or may
not have used in the design of the human body, Adam and Eve became human
beings when God infused their bodies with human souls. The creation of
the human soul was created immediately. The "image and likeness of God"
that we read about in Scripture may be referring to our soul.
:
So the instantaneous creation by God of human soul is the center of our believe
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
Posted: October 03 2010 at 12:12
^If you limit you criticism to those (by my standards) extremists who think their religious beliefs are in accordance with truth - go ahead.
I don't know many of those, but I know many religious people and some religious intellectuals who make much sense, even though I don't share their beliefs. I'd may feel differently about it if I was living in a society that was more dominated by strict and dogmatic interpretations of religious scriptures.. In Denmark you can be a priest and declare that you don't believe in God..
The problem is that atheism in general often offers a much broader criticism of religion that doesn't consider the many diverse faces of religion, and because of that, the criticism put forth by the atheists is sometimes misplaced and irrelevant. And yet sometimes hysterically funny, as with the Vatican Rag
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: October 03 2010 at 12:17
seventhsojourn wrote:
This video is poking fun at ''reforms'' in the Catholic Church. This has been explored at some length already in the thread, but basically there's this dichotomy that Christians are either ''fanatics'' if they take everything literally or are ''hypocrites'' if they embrace change. I can't put it as well as Ivan, but I hope all will know what I mean.
This kind of argument makes me think of the witch hunts of the 16th and 17th Centuries, and the Trial by Ordeal whereby if the person drowned they were innocent and if they floated they were a witch (and therefore hanged).
Same kind of ''logic''.
Take Noah and the flood as an example. If you believe it literally, you're an idiot, because it's obviously false. If you don't believe it literally, you are contradicting the Bible - but you still claim that your belief is founded on it. The literal fundamentalists call the moderates/liberals heretics, and they are within their rights to do so. Yet the moderates/liberals have their own standards and have yet another set of beliefs which they might refer to as heretical. Claiming that this all somehow makes sense does seem hypocritical to me ... but the literals are being hypocritical in their own rights (e.g. Creationism ignoring obvious evidence to the contrary), so it's by no means a true dichotomy.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Posted: October 03 2010 at 12:22
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Iván wrote:
We believe God may have decided when the moment came to provide the evolved man of a soul:
On the creation of the soul, the Church has a very strong teaching. The human soul was deliberately created in the likeness and image of God.
The human soul is not simply a byproduct of the human body.
The human soul has the power to know abstract concepts, to know God (intellect)
The human soul has the power to choose and to love (will)
The human soul has unique dignity above the rest of visible creation.
The human being is a combination of human body and human soul. Regardless of any speculative ideas of evolutionary processes that God may or may not have used in the design of the human body, Adam and Eve became human beings when God infused their bodies with human souls. The creation of the human soul was created immediately. The "image and likeness of God" that we read about in Scripture may be referring to our soul.
:
So the instantaneous creation by God of human soul is the center of our believe
I feel vindicated.
Mike, that's a quote, but I clearly said that Adam & Eve were an alegory for all umanity and if I'm not wrong Dean reinforced this point.
I have to vote today and don't have time to search where I said it, but you must remembered tha when Imentioned that Afdam & Eve were an allegory you replied that this was a contradiction with 1,800 years of Catholic history.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: October 03 2010 at 13:01
^^ Don't bring me into this
I said the story was allegorical - I did not say that the event it was being allegorical about was in any way valid - the entire concept of a soul is allegorical to consciousness and that is something that just is and is present in all animal life from an ant to a brontosaurus.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: October 03 2010 at 13:04
^ Of course. Many qualities that used to be attributed to "soul" can today be safely said to be produced by "brain" alone - and not only in humans, but also animals.
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Posted: October 03 2010 at 14:57
The school I work at is a private school. My own religious feeling aside though, there was a very pragmatic reason not to have a Christian club. We take in international students and a great number of our students come from the Middle East- Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc. Seeing "Christian group" listed as an extra-curricular activity, particularly with no "Islam group" really wouldn't have been the best way to appeal to that market.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Posted: October 03 2010 at 15:59
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Iván wrote:
We believe God may have decided when the moment came to provide the evolved man of a soul:
On the creation of the soul, the Church has a very strong teaching.
The human soul was deliberately created in the likeness and image of
God.
The human soul is not simply a byproduct of the human body.
The human soul has the power to know abstract concepts, to know God (intellect)
The human soul has the power to choose and to love (will)
The human soul has unique dignity above the rest of visible creation.
The human being is a combination of human body and human soul. Regardless
of any speculative ideas of evolutionary processes that God may or may
not have used in the design of the human body, Adam and Eve became human
beings when God infused their bodies with human souls. The creation of
the human soul was created immediately. The "image and likeness of God"
that we read about in Scripture may be referring to our soul.
:
So the instantaneous creation by God of human soul is the center of our believe
I feel vindicated.
Now I can say with confidence you lied altering my posit to seem I said something I never said:
You place that quote as if I had said it.....THIS IS A LIE
THIS IS THE ORIGINAL QUOTE:
Iván_Melgar_M wrote:
You are right Dean, but even more, we don't believe in Intelligent Design or that God helped ALL along the process.
We believe God may have decided when the moment came to provide the evolved man of a soul:
On the creation of the soul, the Church has a very strong teaching. The human soul was deliberately created in the likeness and image of God.
The human soul is not simply a byproduct of the human body.
The human soul has the power to know abstract concepts, to know God (intellect)
The human soul has the power to choose and to love (will)
The human soul has unique dignity above the rest of visible creation.
The human being is a combination of human body and human soul. Regardless of any speculative ideas of evolutionary processes that God may or may not have used in the design of the human body, Adam and Eve became human beings when God infused their bodies with human souls. The creation of the human soul was created immediately. The "image and likeness of God" that we read about in Scripture may be referring to our soul.
:
So the instantaneous creation by God of human soul is the center of our believe
Iván
As you noticed I quoted what somebody else said, but you modified the post in order to look as something I said, this is not an accident or misunderstanding, this is a lie:
Even more,. when you know you asked me the same question and I replied:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Well, it's nice to hear from you that despite everything you said before you do still believe in the literal Adam and Eve. And it's also interesting that the center of your believe (as you put it) has been almost entirely debunked by modern science - cognitive neuroscience, to be precise.
1.- The use of the names Adam & Eve was explained by Mons Ratzinger (He was not Pope yet) and the Pope John Paul II, as the first Man and Woman or early humanity in general.
Iván
I understand Dean's anger for a misunderstanding, but in this case you know I never mentioned Adam & Eve as two real characters,. but as early humanity, but still you insist in the same point.
Abżnd then you try to be funny making a joke with two apes with soul, when I have mentioned repeatedly the words early humanity.
So please Mike, if you want to make an argument, use the truth.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 03 2010 at 16:01
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Posted: October 03 2010 at 16:37
Dean wrote:
^^ Don't bring me into this
I said the story was allegorical - I did not say that the event it was being allegorical about was in any way valid - the entire concept of a soul is allegorical to consciousness and that is something that just is and is present in all animal life from an ant to a brontosaurus.
That's all I said, you only supported the fact that the characters of Adam and Eve are only allegorical, that's all.
Joined: January 24 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8684
Posted: October 03 2010 at 18:49
myself, i believe that there is a creator, but i do not feel that there is anything that survives death-surviving death as an eternal spirit sounds great, but does not make sense to me, it is wish-fulfillment i am open minded enough to realise that i could be completely wrong, and am going on my "gut feeling", for whatever it is worth
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: October 04 2010 at 01:51
^^^ This was exactly what I quoted (EDIT: minus the box lines, I give you that - as explained below), so I'm not a liar, but you are an asshead for calling me one, and also a moron for thinking that you could get away with a stupid stunt like that.
EDIT: And yes, when I copied and pasted that passage the [quote] block was removed by the editor - it wasn't my intention to suggest that it was you who said that. Any sane person would see by reading the text that you were quoting something there - but if you say that it is the "center of our belief", it means that you strongly agree with it and it's just like if you said it yourself.
EDIT2: Anal retention reference removed.
But I am wasting my time, talking to an ass who goes around calling people liars.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.250 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
Topic Options
Ivan wrote:
Prog Archives Tour Van 