Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unless you feel noses and shoes constitute a worldview, your logic is silly.
Silly only to you. It is irrelevant what the trait is, the point is that just because Stalin was an atheist doesn't mean he killed people in the military / arts / politics / churches because of his atheism.
The fact you had to move the goal posts to avoid this part is telling.
Youd have to inspect each instance seperately and decide, lumping it all into one pile is not discernable, i would question the motive in doing that.
We know Moses got it right by the results.
Israel exists today as an island of sanity in a sea of pure madness.
I "lump" all together because all the various versions are worth considering as a whole. Why they all exist and why they are all different...
"The results" you say? You almost make it sound like we should somehow be satisfied by the results, but I still see a little too much madness all over the world and not enough sanity!
Which are? And/or did I patch those up? I am fully aware of the difference between personal feelings and actions vs what justifies what is the truth and what is not. Hopefully you did not "see possible flaws" about any of that, or do tell! Might be a flaw with respect to how you are reading or understanding my comments. Possible? If so, I am more than glad to clear up any further misunderstanding or "flaws" if any remain.
Maybe tomorrow since I've really got to be signing off now. Cheers!
Well, for example here:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
If it makes someone feel better, why not? Or are you questioning whether someone who has died can hear such a prayer? If it makes someone feel better, what does it matter?
And by and large all the points I raised in posts not too many pages back. It's a bit like the thread about a doctor praying over his patients. It was argued what does it matter is the rest of the treatment is sound? Well, it is really like all religious activity; so long as it doesn't compromise the science it can be tolerated. But there is always the danger that it Will compromise the science, and it is (if we unbelievers are right) an unnecessary nuisance and worry to no real purpose.
Now if somewhere you 'patched that up' or made it clear that you were raising douts and questions about the practice, then do please direct me to the post.
Unless you feel noses and shoes constitute a worldview, your logic is silly.
It seems like it but it is rather an extreme analogy. It is pointing up false correlation. Stalin's shoes were nothing to do with how he treated his people, and neither was his atheism. His marxist dogma was one part of the reason, and his desire for power and distrust of everyone was another part. Atheism had no more to do with it than his moustache or his underpants.
Youd have to inspect each instance seperately and decide, lumping it all into one pile is not discernable, i would question the motive in doing that.
We know Moses got it right by the results.
Israel exists today as an island of sanity in a sea of pure madness.
Not convincing. For one thing 'proof in prophecy' does not of itself mean that something is true. The Isle of man exists, The Sioux lands exist, switzerland exists, Monaco exist. Taiwan exists. In fact Taiwan exists rather as S Korea does - massive support by america, and a determination not to be taken over. It is no proof of anything in the OT.
I think we already did this, but if so, you evidently ain't listening.
....
Now if somewhere you 'patched that up' or made it clear that you were raising douts and questions about the practice, then do please direct me to the post.
I'd say he was raising doubts as to the rationale for objecting to the practice, which is a different matter nothing to do with the intrinsic value it might have or not. Just challenging an attempt at narrow-minded control.
I'm not arguing with you as it were from opposite sides, as I know we are on the same side, but I'm putting some points to consider because I see some possible flaws in your argument and I want to see those patched up.
I don't think you are in a position to "patch up" the gaping holes between your denomination's beliefs and the "we don't deny everything (even science) because we aren't afraid" atheists.
You won't get too far quoting the NT to Tzaph... You won't get very far with Arach, either.
You will find, in time, that you are wearing out your fingers to no purpose, trying reasoned argument.
What you have here is an obsessive, implacable, atheist -hating bigot whose hatred of anything Liburl is driving him towards theism. His arguments are based purely on what he thinks atheists are and do, and if you say that's not it, he refuses to believe you. You are talking to a brick wall.
Because the truth is important. If someone wants to say a prayer for the dead because they believe it does something or it just makes them feel good, that's up to them.
But if someone suggests i do it, initially because it it is supposed to be true and i say I don't believe it, then to say 'it will make you feel good' is not going to persuade me.
Everyone must decide for themselves, but 'it makes you feel good' is Not a validation of a practice.
This is going to get into the benefits of art or ballet and personal choice in art, but that's Too Much Information right now
denying that prayer doesn't work at all because you don't like it doesn't make it false either.
prayer can relieve the angst of helplessness for some. Also, if a group "prays" for the same thing they make it self fulling by working in concert for that goal.
there are a few other Phycological angles we can hit to prove mindfulness helps people. Weather one calls it praying or not is irrelevant to me. I am not at war, I am only seeing if what they claim matches up to how the universe works.
notice, I never brought up god. I am just an atheist, I am not a participating member of the anti-religion denominations of atheism. I guess I am irreligious in that regard. yes, phycological was intentional. Its just a bunch of cells working together anyway. like ants without the legs.
I'd say he was raising doubts as to the rationale for objecting to the practice, which is a different matter nothing to do with the intrinsic value it might have or not. Just challenging an attempt at narrow-minded control.
But that raises the question of who says what is or is not acceptable? On another thread, GoCardinals equated the Hippocritic oaf with suggesting praying.
They are not the same because - like agreed medical procedures - they are universally accepted as valid, and whether agreed in 4th century Greece or 2oth century America are valid. prayer is not. It is a matter of personal belief and should be kept as such. Offering it is quite inappropriate even in a non critical situation. If it WAS critical and life was measured in minutes, wasting time suggesting prayer would be damned unethical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but I'm putting some points to consider because I see some possible flaws in your argument and I want to see those patched up.
You won't get very far with Arach, either.
