Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by Wunarmdscissor at 11:22 pm on June 26, 2009 . -- Posted by Baron Samedi at 11:23 pm on June 26, 2009 Two words: Talking snake. -- Posted by Serj Tankian at 11:24 pm on June 26, 2009 Faith. -- Posted by revived5656 at 11:24 pm on June 26, 2009 it gives me hope. -- Posted by Schwarzy at 11:25 pm on June 26, 2009 Quote: from Baron Samedi at 11:23 pm on June 26, 2009 Two words: Talking snake. it was acctualy a water demon... a cock sucking water motherfuckin demon!! -- Posted by shadowpool at 11:27 pm on June 26, 2009 I don't believe it because it's written.  Words must always be interpreted and they must always be abstractions of reality. -- Posted by xgirltalk at 11:28 pm on June 26, 2009 Quote: from Serj Tankian at 2:24 am on June 27, 2009 Faith. -- Posted by VirtusInternus at 11:29 pm on June 26, 2009 i wipe my bottom with bible pages -- Posted by TBMP at 11:30 pm on June 26, 2009 because it doesn't appeal to me. I'm not saying I pick and choose, but I don't find what it says to be in almost any way relevant. -- Posted by babooz at 11:31 pm on June 26, 2009 No to the bible because it was written by humans, not gods -- Posted by S3b7 at 11:33 pm on June 26, 2009 Pretty much faith. Honestly, I don't hate atheists for not believeing in God, I only hate atheists who laugh at people who believe in God. I can respect someone's view on something, but there is no need to go out of one's way to say "YOU think wrong, faith is nonexistent and there is cold hard proof God does NOT exist." Personally, you could write a ten page thesis and I would simply just say, "You may be right, but you can't disprove my faith." And that's what separates atheists and believers. The problem is that it is common misconceived that all Catholics hate atheists. I know a ton of them, and they just keep to themselves, and I respect that, I don't go out forcing people to believe in God. -- Posted by Wunarmdscissor at 11:36 pm on June 26, 2009 Quote: from S3b7 at 11:33 pm on June 26, 2009 Pretty much faith. Honestly, I don't hate atheists for not believeing in God, I only hate atheists who laugh at people who believe in God. I can respect someone's view on something, but there is no need to go out of one's way to say "YOU think wrong, faith is nonexistent and there is cold hard proof God does NOT exist." Personally, you could write a ten page thesis and I would simply just say, "You may be right, but you can't disprove my faith." And that's what separates atheists and believers. The problem is that it is common misconceived that all Catholics hate atheists. I know a ton of them, and they just keep to themselves, and I respect that, I don't go out forcing people to believe in God. . -- Posted by babooz at 11:37 pm on June 26, 2009 Quote: from S3b7 at 11:33 pm on June 26, 2009 Pretty much faith. Honestly, I don't hate atheists for not believeing in God, I only hate atheists who laugh at people who believe in God. I can respect someone's view on something, but there is no need to go out of one's way to say "YOU think wrong, faith is nonexistent and there is cold hard proof God does NOT exist."   Personally, you could write a ten page thesis and I would simply just say, "You may be right, but you can't disprove my faith." And that's what separates atheists and believers. The problem is that it is common misconceived that all Catholics hate atheists. I know a ton of them, and they just keep to themselves, and I respect that, I don't go out forcing people to believe in God. t's the people that matters. Christians, muslims, etc also try to "shove" their beliefs down your throat, it all depends on the individual, not their beliefs. -- Posted by S3b7 at 11:42 pm on June 26, 2009 Quote: from Wunarmdscissor at 2:36 am on June 27, 2009 Quote: from S3b7 at 11:33 pm on June 26, 2009 Pretty much faith. Honestly, I don't hate atheists for not believeing in God, I only hate atheists who laugh at people who believe in God. I can respect someone's view on something, but there is no need to go out of one's way to say "YOU think wrong, faith is nonexistent and there is cold hard proof God does NOT exist."  Personally, you could write a ten page thesis and I would simply just say, "You may be right, but you can't disprove my faith." And that's what separates atheists and believers. The problem is that it is common misconceived that all Catholics hate atheists. I know a ton of them, and they just keep to themselves, and I respect that, I don't go out forcing people to believe in God. Everyone says "faith", but what does that mean, that you believe in God. It's a revolving logic, is it not? Now I'm a Christian fyi. Personally, I believe faith means that you are capable of believing in something that cannot be proved. But that's just me. -- Posted by S3b7 at 11:46 pm on June 26, 2009 Quote: from babooz at 2:37 am on June 27, 2009 Quote: from S3b7 at 11:33 pm on June 26, 2009 Pretty much faith. Honestly, I don't hate atheists for not believeing in God, I only hate atheists who laugh at people who believe in God. I can respect someone's view on something, but there is no need to go out of one's way to say "YOU think wrong, faith is nonexistent and there is cold hard proof God does NOT exist."  Personally, you could write a ten page thesis and I would simply just say, "You may be right, but you can't disprove my faith." And that's what separates atheists and believers. The problem is that it is common misconceived that all Catholics hate atheists. I know a ton of them, and they just keep to themselves, and I respect that, I don't go out forcing people to believe in God. t's the people that matters. Christians, muslims, etc also try to "shove" their beliefs down your throat, it all depends on the individual, not their beliefs. I agree with you, it is the person that matters. I seems these days that the power for Catholics lies in the Church. I am a Catholic, but I personally can't stand the Church. They make inferences from the Bible and use these inferences to make laws, such as celibacy. No where in the Bible does it EVER mention if masturbation is wrong, but it seems the Church believes it is wrong. This is why I live by the Bible, not by the Church. The Church is also the one responsible for the stereotype that ALL Catholics try to shove religion down your throat. I have never done that before and have a few atheists friends and family members. -- Posted by Stormblazer at 12:11 am on June 27, 2009 Simply put, I have no reason to believe in it. Oh sure, it's got relevant metaphors and such and is an important text historically, but beyond that it holds little meaning for me. :5800: -- Posted by VirtusInternus at 12:46 am on June 27, 2009 Quote: from Stormblazer at 7:11 pm on June 27, 2009 Simply put, I have no reason to believe in it. Oh sure, it's got relevant metaphors and such and is an important text historically, but beyond that it holds little meaning for me. :5800: my opinion is this also -- Posted by Effigy at 2:04 am on June 27, 2009 Same reason I don't accept any other religious texts, the bible makes extraordinary claims with little or no supporting evidence. -- Posted by SimplisticComplexity at 9:07 am on June 28, 2009 Outlandish claims, too many ridiculous rules that don't make sense, clearly fictional. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 9:29 am on June 28, 2009 To the OP: What, exactly, do you mean by "believing in the Bible?" Do you mean believing the Bible as entirely, literally factual or do you mean believing that it is entirely, spiritually Truthful? -- Posted by Moridin at 10:32 am on June 28, 2009 The bible is incompatible with a lot of things we know from historical and natural sciences. -- Posted by Moridin at 10:32 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 7:29 pm on June 28, 2009 To the OP: What, exactly, do you mean by "believing in the Bible?" Do you mean believing the Bible as entirely, literally factual or do you mean believing that it is entirely, spiritually Truthful? What does it mean for something to be "spiritually truthful"? How does this differ from factual truth? -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 10:35 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 1:32 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 7:29 pm on June 28, 2009 To the OP: What, exactly, do you mean by "believing in the Bible?" Do you mean believing the Bible as entirely, literally factual or do you mean believing that it is entirely, spiritually Truthful? What does it mean for something to be "spiritually truthful"? How does this differ from factual truth? Something that isn't factual can still convey deep truths. Consider the philosophical works of Plato, which are almost always written as fictionalized accounts of conversations between Socrates and someone else. The fact that they aren't factual accounts does not detract from the philosophical and spiritual truths that can be found in them (if, in fact, you agree with Plato). Also consider Aesop's fables. The fact that ants and grasshoppers don't talk and grasshoppers don't spend all summer dancing for the fun of it does not change the Truth that it's better to be prepared for the day of necessity than to assume that you'll never need more than what you currently have. -- Posted by Moridin at 10:41 am on June 28, 2009 But the truths displayed in Plato are factual truths, even if they are fictional discussions. Similarly, a fictional thriller that includes the claim that water consists of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, this would not somehow be a nonfactual truth or a spiritual truth. But I cannot help by wonder if the truths you've presented are factual truths as well, rather than someone "spiritual". Surely "that it's better to be prepared for the day of necessity than to assume that you'll never need more than what you currently have" is factual, since you can test it pragmatically? I'm afraid I still don't understand what "spiritual truth" is or how you differentiate that from mere factual truth. Maybe I am beyond all help? -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 10:47 am on June 28, 2009 You likely are; however, I wonder that you call the philosophical Truths of Plato's works "factual," since nearly all of them make claims about the metaphysical and aren't things that can be empirically proven or disproven. That said, however, for this instance, the differentiation between "literally, factually accurate" and "spiritually True" is the difference between "I believe that the world was created in six days and Jonah was eaten by a giant fish" and "I believe that the world exists because of God's will and that God has a sense of humor when we're being dipshits about doing what He asks of us." -- Posted by Forever Angel at 10:50 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 12:41 pm on June 28, 2009 But the truths displayed in Plato are factual truths, even if they are fictional discussions. Similarly, a fictional thriller that includes the claim that water consists of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, this would not somehow be a nonfactual truth or a spiritual truth. But I cannot help by wonder if the truths you've presented are factual truths as well, rather than someone "spiritual". Surely "that it's better to be prepared for the day of necessity than to assume that you'll never need more than what you currently have" is factual, since you can test it pragmatically? I'm afraid I still don't understand what "spiritual truth" is or how you differentiate that from mere factual truth. Maybe I am beyond all help? What is your signature? -- Posted by Moridin at 11:00 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 8:47 pm on June 28, 2009 You likely are; however, I wonder that you call the philosophical Truths of Plato's works "factual," since nearly all of them make claims about the metaphysical and aren't things that can be empirically proven or disproven. That said, however, for this instance, the differentiation between "literally, factually accurate" and "spiritually True" is the difference between "I believe that the world was created in six days and Jonah was eaten by a giant fish" and "I believe that the world exists because of God's will and that God has a sense of humor when we're being dipshits about doing what He asks of us." I'm afraid I don't really understand the difference between those two.   -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 11:03 am on June 28, 2009 That really does not surprise me, as you likely lump in the existence of God with any other fantastical beliefs. I don't. -- Posted by Moridin at 11:03 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:50 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 12:41 pm on June 28, 2009 But the truths displayed in Plato are factual truths, even if they are fictional discussions. Similarly, a fictional thriller that includes the claim that water consists of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, this would not somehow be a nonfactual truth or a spiritual truth.    But I cannot help by wonder if the truths you've presented are factual truths as well, rather than someone "spiritual". Surely "that it's better to be prepared for the day of necessity than to assume that you'll never need more than what you currently have" is factual, since you can test it pragmatically?    I'm afraid I still don't understand what "spiritual truth" is or how you differentiate that from mere factual truth. Maybe I am beyond all help? What is your signature? That statement is empirically testable. The more things we know, the more areas of inquiry open up and the more awe people who like knowledge will feel. It is clearly empirically valid or invalid. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 11:51 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 1:03 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:50 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 12:41 pm on June 28, 2009 But the truths displayed in Plato are factual truths, even if they are fictional discussions. Similarly, a fictional thriller that includes the claim that water consists of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, this would not somehow be a nonfactual truth or a spiritual truth.   But I cannot help by wonder if the truths you've presented are factual truths as well, rather than someone "spiritual". Surely "that it's better to be prepared for the day of necessity than to assume that you'll never need more than what you currently have" is factual, since you can test it pragmatically?   I'm afraid I still don't understand what "spiritual truth" is or how you differentiate that from mere factual truth. Maybe I am beyond all help? What is your signature? That statement is empirically testable. The more things we know, the more areas of inquiry open up and the more awe people who like knowledge will feel. It is clearly empirically valid or invalid. The statement as it is made, is a spiritual one. It cannot be tested as stated. There is no "island of knowledge", no "shoreline of wonder"... You have to 'interpret' its meaning in order to "empirically" test it. Perhaps you are right. You don't understand what 'spiritual' means. Pages: 1 2  Next