Yes.
“I don’t need to be a woman to know when something is right or wrong” is true in and of itself, but it’s not a logical response to the aforementioned woman, because she clearly says that I’ll need to be able to become pregnant to have an opinion about her pregnancy at all, regardless of the content of that opinion. I think I can have an opinion about whoever and whatever I like. She doesn’t have to agree with it, nor does she have to listen to it. I would also advice her to listen to The Dude, who famously said: “Yeah, well, you know, that’s just like eh… your opinion man.” That is probably sound advice to my fellow safe-space demanding students as well. But that doesn’t mean that every opinion or every opportunity to express one’s opinion is appropiate. People working for CIA or MI6 should hold their tongues about their jobs.Yes.
So if a woman told you, “You cannot have any opinion about what I should do with my pregnancy, since you will never be pregnant”, you would (validly, I think) say: I don’t need to be a woman to know when something is right or wrong.
Indeed.
Well, yeah.
Yes.
You are correct.
I think the revelation that God is a Trinity refutes the above.
I think the answer is staring us in the face too.
Oddly enough, there are certain rigorously literal Christians who share your view that God is defined by the literal words on the page. It is odd that an atheist would share a rigid religious outlook.
Yes. The more I dialogue with atheists, the more true I find this statement, (coined by Catholic apologist Mark Shea): scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.
Yes, secular humanism is a human invention. Strictly spoken, secular humanism is not a religion because it doesn’t appeal to something supernatural.
I don’t see the connection. Can you elaborate?
You do know that all the blind men turned out to be completely wrong? Perhaps the elephant is some kind of natural explanation.I think the answer is staring us in the face too.
http://www.ethosapologetics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/4124173571_1b0ed73139_o.jpg
If salvation depended on wearing your hat correctly, then it’s absolutely vital that God sends us some clear instructions. And what God supposedly knows or doesn’t know about believers is completely unknown to me. I wonder how one could possibly check that. Most definitions of God include omniscience, so I guess He does know what goes on the minds of different people.
I think I recognized more than once that the Bible is not the literal word of God and that that’s a good thing. My understanding of Islam is that muslims do regard the Qu’ran as such. What I’m saying is if that’s the correct understanding of the Qu’ran, then I would expect zero errors. If muslims are prepared to say that the Qu’ran is not the literal word of God, then that’s an enormous concession and I’m a very happy man. One way of extracting these concessions is to pretend to be more pious than the pope and test how seriously the opponent takes his religious belief.
Who would make up such a thing? 3 Persons in One God?
This is quite a complex matter. But yes, unscrupulous people can take advantage. But it’s the fact that society couldn’t exist if everyone was unscrupulous gives certain people that advantage.It’s a very small - and very convenient - step to believe no one is ever watching.
“If God doesn’t exist everything is permissible” unless an arbitrary excuse can be found. There are plenty of criminals in high society and positions of power because it is a distinct advantage to be unscrupulous in the human jungle…
Smacks of relativity to me.
Durn it. I was with you almost all the way until that point.
You will no doubt be aware that for Christians, it is perfectly possible to understand God as being in ultimate command of natural processes given that He is their Source.
I appreciate your point and must admit my reply was somewhat toungue in cheek. For those people whose knowledge of the natural world are pre Darwinian I am bemused why they don’t recognise the process as HOW God did it. They seem to specifically want something that couldn’t have happened naturally. Despite what you say above.
LOL. Good. Props for your consistency.
No. How so?
I think the elephant IS natural. What could be more natural than the Truth.… Perhaps the elephant is some kind of natural explanation.
I think He does.
Perhaps you mean that you don’t believe anything you have heard or read about God
The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! …Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all!
Really? Sounds just like Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva to me.
Sounds like Tertullian. Credo quia absurdum.The absurdity of it diminishes the likelihood that it’s made up. To me it’s exactly opposite. However, I’ve read stuff that is far weirder. Scientology for example. Human imagination is big.
True. Each religion should be judged on its own merits.
I should have phrased that a bit better. They were completely wrong about what they thought was the entire thing. The blind man feeling the tail thought that the elephant was made enitrely of rope.No. How so?
If they are all ‘partly’ correct how could they be completely wrong?
I don’t want to get into word games.
So Jesus was right and the Aztec mode of worship was wrong. Why then, did God not send a prophet to the Aztecs? Why was He perfectly content to let Aztecs kill their family and friends in a vain attempt to please Him?
Not all claims are the same. Global warming doesn’t conflict with what we know about nature. Resurrection does. If you were to tell me you have a dog, then I would believe you. It’s not uncommon to have a dog as a pet. If you tell me your pet is a dragon, then I want to see evidence. Secondly, scientists work in a very competitive environment where fame is earned by disproving other scientists. There is nothing like that in theology.
Even the atheists? Then why bother being a member of the Chuch at all?
Your knowledge of Islam didn’t even extend to what took me ten seconds to google, and you can’t even spell Muhammad. The view you express here, that Islam is a personality cult, is disrespectful to the religion, and the view you expressed in post #167, “On 9/11, America wasn’t attacked by the faithless, but by pious muslims” is in essence calling all Muslims terrorists, which the stickies give as an example where “suspension may be immediate and without prior counseling”.