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.
if this doesn't provide a real life example of why i keep repeating what I do. Thats two in day learme.
Both of you clearly have points. If we stick strictly with the definition learme is correct. If we look at what phet is actually saying, he is clearly correct also.
whats the point of not just saying it?
I will pick you both a bowl of cherries.
Note, I'm not repeating myself as much as I am clarifying what I think is the essential point of misunderstanding. No one need be wrong necessarily. Not always in any case, but I am definitely getting that feeling it's time to sign off now. Generally a time when I feel diminishing returns from any further effort expended on the likes in this forum.
I love cherries, but I only pick the ones I prefer over the ones I don't. I'll just say that and leave it there for now. Regardless the point of saying anything in this forum...
I'm not so sure. When you talk about religious disbelief, versus religious belief, cherry picking is a legitimate topic. I think it's important to differentiate between a person who identifies as a christian or (as in my case) a Buddhist, or a Hindu, who approaches their religion as a set dinner OR as a buffet.
I don't reject out of hand christianity. But I reject so many individual aspects of chrsitianity (for example, most of the old testament) that to me it is not a reasonable belief system. That doesn't mean that I can't look at many parts (but not all) of the new testament and find important (though often not exclusive) principles and wisdom that are worth serious consideration and inclusion into one's personal beliefs. That's where the cherry picking comes in, and it is clear that that phrase is seen differently by various people. Honestly, yesterday I took a bowl of cherries to make cherry crisp. As I washed them and then removed the pits, I had to toss a few of the cherries away due to deterioration. I don't think that literal cherry picking is a bad thing; it's logical...don't eat food that isn't relatively fresh. However, as my debater is pointing out, there is the danger that when people cherry pick that they may simply be picking out what they already like without really thinking.
When I look at Buddhist teachings I have the freedom to accept them, reject them, or set them aside for a while. I think that usually I can tell you exactly why I would reject a particular Buddhist teaching.
So as we discuss whether atheism is a rejection of an evil god, or not believing in an evil god, how an individual cherry picks to come up with his answer is, in my view, not "off the rails".
It always happens All threads come down to debating the factuality of Biblegod, and (on the theist side) as often as not that is done by atheism -bashing, since they have no credible case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
I like to tell people how I was really concerned about driving the wrong way in Thailand, but after a short time driving in Thailand, I realized that everyone there drives the wrong way, so I stopped being concerned.
In order to totally off topic (sue me), allow me to observe that even in Siem Reap, the maddest driving ethic I have ever seen anywhere (though Yangon comes close), they observed a two way flow, out of sheer self preservation, I suspect.
P.s of course you may have been making a quip so subtle I only just got it. In fact they drive on the left (as we still do in the UK) so for you it is the wrong way, but never mind, they all drive that wrong way, so why worry?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-16-2020 at 03:50 PM..
I'm not so sure. When you talk about religious disbelief, versus religious belief, cherry picking is a legitimate topic. I think it's important to differentiate between a person who identifies as a christian or (as in my case) a Buddhist, or a Hindu, who approaches their religion as a set dinner OR as a buffet.
I don't reject out of hand christianity. But I reject so many individual aspects of chrsitianity (for example, most of the old testament) that to me it is not a reasonable belief system. That doesn't mean that I can't look at many parts (but not all) of the new testament and find important (though often not exclusive) principles and wisdom that are worth serious consideration and inclusion into one's personal beliefs. That's where the cherry picking comes in, and it is clear that that phrase is seen differently by various people. Honestly, yesterday I took a bowl of cherries to make cherry crisp. As I washed them and then removed the pits, I had to toss a few of the cherries away due to deterioration. I don't think that literal cherry picking is a bad thing; it's logical...don't eat food that isn't relatively fresh. However, as my debater is pointing out, there is the danger that when people cherry pick that they may simply be picking out what they already like without really thinking.
When I look at Buddhist teachings I have the freedom to accept them, reject them, or set them aside for a while. I think that usually I can tell you exactly why I would reject a particular Buddhist teaching.
So as we discuss whether atheism is a rejection of an evil god, or not believing in an evil god, how an individual cherry picks to come up with his answer is, in my view, not "off the rails".
Only so many ways to say "God is evil and people should just 86 Him."
Nicely done, Thrillo and Phet. Cherry picking is legit. But only in selecting your own preferred lifestyle (within legal iimits, given).and life in, in fact, a cafeteria.
This of course is a Humanist approach and not what religious doctrine says to do; you should follow the dogma. Which is why we goddless bastards have a sneaking respect for fundamentalists; they do not compromise on the Dogma.
Not so much, that is, as the cafeterial Christians etc, who in fact are applying humanist ways of living and thinking, but still pretending that they are following their religion.
As I say, they are easier for secularists to live with, but in fact cherry -picking their religions.
Nicely done, Thrillo and Phet. Cherry picking is legit. But only in selecting your own preferred lifestyle (within legal iimits, given).and life in, in fact, a cafeteria.
This of course is a Humanist approach and not what religious doctrine says to do; you should follow the dogma. Which is why we goddless bastards have a sneaking respect for fundamentalists; they do not compromise on the Dogma.
Not so much, that is, as the cafeterial Christians etc, who in fact are applying humanist ways of living and thinking, but still pretending that they are following their religion.
As I say, they are easier for secularists to live with, but in fact cherry -picking their religions.
yeah ... I have been telling you this for years ... but I didn't just deny everything for the snake of trans religious beliefs so you can't have it ...
don't think, just rant and chant ... anti-god is the way to true salvation.
yeah, I heard statements of belief about god like this before. don't think, trust me, they deserved what they got.
Nicely done, Thrillo and Phet. Cherry picking is legit. But only in selecting your own preferred lifestyle (within legal iimits, given).and life in, in fact, a cafeteria.
This of course is a Humanist approach and not what religious doctrine says to do; you should follow the dogma. Which is why we goddless bastards have a sneaking respect for fundamentalists; they do not compromise on the Dogma.
Not so much, that is, as the cafeterial Christians etc, who in fact are applying humanist ways of living and thinking, but still pretending that they are following their religion.
As I say, they are easier for secularists to live with, but in fact cherry -picking their religions.
Sir,
I think you are being too harsh.
For starters, I've never heard a fellow Quaker call anyone a "Godless bastard." I have heard numerous times say that God loves and saves atheists. That is harsh rhetoric that I've seen more from atheists themselves in the year 2020.
You use the term "dogma"...dogma goes against my religious values.
Dogma is a group of principles/rules set by an authority. The Quaker Church was founded on being opposed to the Dogma of a church, which is a highly centralized power structure like the Catholic Church with the Pope or the Church of England. One person dictates to the masses is not a good system according to George Fox who say we must all find God personally through our own connections to Jesus/God....that is what expectant waiting is for. And my experiences with Jesus/God might be different than someone else's....and that is okay.
I believe that God gave us freewill, which includes the freewill to make choices including on religion.
This is why religion should be decentralized, so it protects people's freewill. No one telling anyone else what they must believe....everyone with their God-given freewill in tact. The power of freewill must remain with people's hearts, heads, and hands...to love, think, and do deeds with as long as they don't violate someone else's God-given inalienable rights.
Fox argued that centralized religion leads to corruption like the Spanish Inquisition. You keep power spread out where it belongs...to individuals.
There were times where we were illegal in England for this very reason, there were times where US states made it so Quakers couldn't vote since we also opposed war.
Based on previous comments I can safely assume that I am lumped in to
'cafeteria" Christians...and you therefore say I am "pretending that (I am) following (my) religion." Well...I hope you weren't trying to be demeaning on purpose. I am extremely sincere as a Quaker...and no I am not a perfect Quaker...is anybody a perfect anything? However, can you find a way that I am not living up to Quaker ideals:
For starters, I've never heard a fellow Quaker call anyone a "Godless bastard." I have heard numerous times say that God loves and saves atheists. That is harsh rhetoric that I've seen more from atheists themselves in the year 2020.
You use the term "dogma"...dogma goes against my religious values.
Dogma is a group of principles/rules set by an authority. The Quaker Church was founded on being opposed to the Dogma of a church, which is a highly centralized power structure like the Catholic Church with the Pope or the Church of England. One person dictates to the masses is not a good system according to George Fox who say we must all find God personally through our own connections to Jesus/God....that is what expectant waiting is for. And my experiences with Jesus/God might be different than someone else's....and that is okay.
I believe that God gave us freewill, which includes the freewill to make choices including on religion.
This is why religion should be decentralized, so it protects people's freewill. No one telling anyone else what they must believe....everyone with their God-given freewill in tact. The power of freewill must remain with people's hearts, heads, and hands...to love, think, and do deeds with as long as they don't violate someone else's God-given inalienable rights.
Fox argued that centralized religion leads to corruption like the Spanish Inquisition. You keep power spread out where it belongs...to individuals.
There were times where we were illegal in England for this very reason, there were times where US states made it so Quakers couldn't vote since we also opposed war.
Based on previous comments I can safely assume that I am lumped in to
'cafeteria" Christians...and you therefore say I am "pretending that (I am) following (my) religion." Well...I hope you weren't trying to be demeaning on purpose. I am extremely sincere as a Quaker...and no I am not a perfect Quaker...is anybody a perfect anything? However, can you find a way that I am not living up to Quaker ideals:
I don't think anyone wants to "demean" you, Quaker, certainly not me. You expressed that you are late teens/early 20's. I think what most of us are trying to do, certainly I am, is shake you from your religious stupor and see the world and life as it really is: a world devoid of God taking any kind of part in human activity down here. I want to do that to prevent you from losing the majority of your life, as I did, to a belief system that has absolutely no foundation to support it except the sincere desires of a group of badly deceived people to believe it is is true. How can I best state this........It ISN'T true. Any of it. I challenge you, just like someone challenged me 8 years or so ago in the Christian forum, I challenge you to tell me a single instance that can be scientifically verified where God miraculously intervened in a person's life to change it for the better. I think you will, if you're honest, reflect on it and say, "You know I cannot."
Now I ask you to consider the opposite: a world where young people (adults too) who believe in and pray to Jesus are routinely sold into the worst kinds of servile and sexual slavery where they are subjected to the most brutal, painful and dehumanizing kinds of subjugation. And Jesus, who supposedly loves these innocent victimized children, is nowhere to be seen when atrocities are perpetrated on these Jesus believers who call on him to free them from these evils.
I am constantly mystified that Christians can compartmentalize these two inexorable things: belief in a good God and a loving Jesus, and evil in the world that is so extreme that to actually show the worst of it in documentary form would be to invite the most severe censure--it's that bad. Tell me, Quaker, please
How do you manage to reconcile these two dichotomies???????I really want to know how the mind of a good person like yourself manages to separate the two and still maintain their faith.
Are you able to do it without resorting to those old red herrings, "Oh, God knows about it. He's just waiting until He sends his son back in the Millennium to right all evil in the world." Or "God didn't do it, man did when he sinned in the garden." Please, oh, please oh PLEEEEEZE don't throw that at us, I beg you.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 05-17-2020 at 09:16 AM..
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.
All threads come down to debating the factuality of Biblegod, and (on the theist side) as often as not that is done by atheism -bashing, since they have no credible case.
....It ISN'T true. Any of it. I challenge you, just like someone challenged me 8 years or so ago in the Christian forum, I challenge you to tell me a single instance that can be scientifically verified where God miraculously intervened in a person's life to change it for the better. I think you will, if you're honest, reflect on it and say, "You know I cannot."
I really want to know how the mind of a good person like yourself manages to separate the two and still maintain their faith. 
