Menu Bar
garrettis's Comments
Re: Kill Witches and Stone Wizards
Third Option:
Believe there is such a thing as justice. Give people the responsibility to believe what they wish, and let them meet whatever consequence it may lead to. Giving someone their dignity is an expression of love, even if it leads to their own destruction.
Believe there is such a thing as justice. Give people the responsibility to believe what they wish, and let them meet whatever consequence it may lead to. Giving someone their dignity is an expression of love, even if it leads to their own destruction.
By: garrettis
Re: One Video EVERY Christian Should Watch!
I honestly think that you're making valid points and I'm in agreement with you. This is what anyone born into this world has to face. But if we believe something unverifiable and we're suddenly forced to accept any myth in the unverifiable past, then aren't we forced to also reject everything in the unverifiable past, even if it may be true?
That's what always leaves the case open for people to explore, because in reality, both has their holes One is gullible and the other is presumptuous.
I think the edge of this whole subject is not history, verifiable truth, science or faith, but the weight of the questions being asked about our origins, purpose and destination. I'm sure there are an array of things you accept as true from the unverifiable past, which seem harmless and inconsequential. But when these sorts of questions come up suddenly people become pompous and vulcan about what they accept or don't accept. It's a bit convenient.
That's what always leaves the case open for people to explore, because in reality, both has their holes One is gullible and the other is presumptuous.
I think the edge of this whole subject is not history, verifiable truth, science or faith, but the weight of the questions being asked about our origins, purpose and destination. I'm sure there are an array of things you accept as true from the unverifiable past, which seem harmless and inconsequential. But when these sorts of questions come up suddenly people become pompous and vulcan about what they accept or don't accept. It's a bit convenient.
By: garrettis
Re: Tim Keller: The Reason for God
It's NOT a creationist film. It's a free-speech film.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
I by no means was saying that Atheism preaches survival of the fittest (though I could argue that point with natural selection). I was pointing out the philosophy of the general popuation of man.
I refuse to just have "faith", rather, I've chosen a very specific brand of faith that is narrowly focused and directed. It is the faith that I have chosen that has demonstrated and taught me these virtues, not this world.
You said that you want people to really think about why they believe. Good point. The door should swing both ways for both sects. Theists get in the hot seat because people say they blindly believe some second-hand authority without really looking deeply into it.
But can't the same be said of Atheists? Aren't they simply going by what they consider authoritative figures and simply taking their word for it (second-hand, even third, forth or fifth) without really looking more deeply into the research itself?
Now, I'm not talking about researchers and scientists or prophets and apostles, but everyone else outside of the lab and muse. We are all believing second-hand. The theory of evolotuon is not as air-tight as many preach it to be. The belief in a Creator is not as reasonable as many preach it to be. But, perception is reality, I suppose.
This is not to say Evolution is wrong and those who believe it are rediculous. What I'm saying is that they are in just as much danger of blindly believing second-hand resources and subjectively interpreting everything around them with that bias, just as the religious seem to do.
Many Atheists believe "There is no God, and it doesn't matter". But most people, if they concluded that there was no God would say, "There is no God, and it DOES matter". It's heart-breaking for many who come to that sort of realization. People want purpose and meaning, and I don't think that's a vice. Most people find some sort of meaning in this belief in An Uncaused Cause, A Prime Mover.
If there is no God, then evolution really screwed man over in the deepest most cruel way, by deceiving us into thinking there was. I think Dawkins can blame The God Delusion on Evolution itself. There's no evidence behind what I'm saying, I'm just being pensive.
Cheers
I refuse to just have "faith", rather, I've chosen a very specific brand of faith that is narrowly focused and directed. It is the faith that I have chosen that has demonstrated and taught me these virtues, not this world.
You said that you want people to really think about why they believe. Good point. The door should swing both ways for both sects. Theists get in the hot seat because people say they blindly believe some second-hand authority without really looking deeply into it.
But can't the same be said of Atheists? Aren't they simply going by what they consider authoritative figures and simply taking their word for it (second-hand, even third, forth or fifth) without really looking more deeply into the research itself?
Now, I'm not talking about researchers and scientists or prophets and apostles, but everyone else outside of the lab and muse. We are all believing second-hand. The theory of evolotuon is not as air-tight as many preach it to be. The belief in a Creator is not as reasonable as many preach it to be. But, perception is reality, I suppose.
This is not to say Evolution is wrong and those who believe it are rediculous. What I'm saying is that they are in just as much danger of blindly believing second-hand resources and subjectively interpreting everything around them with that bias, just as the religious seem to do.
Many Atheists believe "There is no God, and it doesn't matter". But most people, if they concluded that there was no God would say, "There is no God, and it DOES matter". It's heart-breaking for many who come to that sort of realization. People want purpose and meaning, and I don't think that's a vice. Most people find some sort of meaning in this belief in An Uncaused Cause, A Prime Mover.
If there is no God, then evolution really screwed man over in the deepest most cruel way, by deceiving us into thinking there was. I think Dawkins can blame The God Delusion on Evolution itself. There's no evidence behind what I'm saying, I'm just being pensive.
Cheers
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
To be honest, I actually find myself cheering on Dawkins, because he gives religion the punch in the face it sometimes deserves. However, I receive Dawkins as I would anyone else.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
"After all, it was faith, not creativity, that inspired the writing of the Bible, yes?"
Yes, it was faith that inspired scriptures. Let's makes one thing clear: I don't believe in a "Bible", but approach each of the 66 books as seperate works that desereve their own seperate cristicisms. Some writings, though motivated by faith, were written with liberty and an immense amount of creativity, such as Psalms, Songs of Solomon, Proverbs and several others. Oh, and don't forget the Parables of Jesus: brilliant creativity. For some, truth is in art.
"You want to assault Dawkins' character and integrity? Well and good, but I and others may have something to say about it."
Wow, I didn't realize atheists had patron saints that were inerrant. Just believe everything they say and bow down, while simply plagiarizing and regurgitating their witty little comments to make anyone of faith feel foolish. It's just as pathetic as Christian Apologists. It has less to do with intellectualism and more to do with being mean-spirited and prejudice.
Yes, it was faith that inspired scriptures. Let's makes one thing clear: I don't believe in a "Bible", but approach each of the 66 books as seperate works that desereve their own seperate cristicisms. Some writings, though motivated by faith, were written with liberty and an immense amount of creativity, such as Psalms, Songs of Solomon, Proverbs and several others. Oh, and don't forget the Parables of Jesus: brilliant creativity. For some, truth is in art.
"You want to assault Dawkins' character and integrity? Well and good, but I and others may have something to say about it."
Wow, I didn't realize atheists had patron saints that were inerrant. Just believe everything they say and bow down, while simply plagiarizing and regurgitating their witty little comments to make anyone of faith feel foolish. It's just as pathetic as Christian Apologists. It has less to do with intellectualism and more to do with being mean-spirited and prejudice.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
Excellent points, and well spoken.
I have found that 90% of Religious Theists (Christians) are not very well educated, and don't necessarily know why they believe. They attempt to give scientific reasons, but they don't hold up very well, then they default to what Sharpton said.
I think what Christians are trying to say Atheists is "Your being convinced that God doesn't exist doesn't convince me of the same thing". It drives Athesists crazy that a person can believe in a god for reasons other than evidence. Theists tend to believe there are things in this universe that are beyond physical evidence or knowledge. However, they pretend to play scientist and betray their own professed faith by preaching psuedo-science.
Look, all people have different intellectual appetites. For some people, only a few points will convince them of God being a reasonable possibility. Others need more, but fail to be satisfied. People believe (or don't believe) many things for very different reasons. That's why I find it interesting that tend to break people down into two categories. It's much more complex than that. Hey, we have our entires lifetimes to figure these things out for ourselves. Cheers.
I have found that 90% of Religious Theists (Christians) are not very well educated, and don't necessarily know why they believe. They attempt to give scientific reasons, but they don't hold up very well, then they default to what Sharpton said.
I think what Christians are trying to say Atheists is "Your being convinced that God doesn't exist doesn't convince me of the same thing". It drives Athesists crazy that a person can believe in a god for reasons other than evidence. Theists tend to believe there are things in this universe that are beyond physical evidence or knowledge. However, they pretend to play scientist and betray their own professed faith by preaching psuedo-science.
Look, all people have different intellectual appetites. For some people, only a few points will convince them of God being a reasonable possibility. Others need more, but fail to be satisfied. People believe (or don't believe) many things for very different reasons. That's why I find it interesting that tend to break people down into two categories. It's much more complex than that. Hey, we have our entires lifetimes to figure these things out for ourselves. Cheers.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
I like talking to you DerDobs. We can actually have a conversation with honest opinions with out calling one another idiots.
You're right, if you're going to judge people it should probably be on the basis of what they do, not how they think.
In response to "Still i think its the wrong way, to do everything for a god. For me, this would feel like doing it to get something out of the deal (i.e. i go to heaven not hell)." To be honest, most thesists don't live like that daily or hourly. They shop, go to work, have sex, watch sports and make decisions in ways that have nothing to do with their professed faith. For the most part, religious people live relatively selfish lives.
It's just when conversations go to "issues of utmost concern" (i.e. origin, purpose and the questionsy of death) their opinions become very strong. As someone who tries to be a follower of Jesus, I learned a long time ago that there would be nothing I could to please God (if he really exists).
My faith (on good days) leads me to do things, not to please God, but to do what I think is the right thing to do, without paybacks (i.e. a kind word, actually talking to a homeless person, helping someone through a crisis, not talking back to a pissed off clerk behind the register). In those moments, this idea of heaven rarely comes to mind.
My faith has taught me mercy and social justice. I have a hard time finding that in a world that seems to be preach survival of the fittest.
You're right, if you're going to judge people it should probably be on the basis of what they do, not how they think.
In response to "Still i think its the wrong way, to do everything for a god. For me, this would feel like doing it to get something out of the deal (i.e. i go to heaven not hell)." To be honest, most thesists don't live like that daily or hourly. They shop, go to work, have sex, watch sports and make decisions in ways that have nothing to do with their professed faith. For the most part, religious people live relatively selfish lives.
It's just when conversations go to "issues of utmost concern" (i.e. origin, purpose and the questionsy of death) their opinions become very strong. As someone who tries to be a follower of Jesus, I learned a long time ago that there would be nothing I could to please God (if he really exists).
My faith (on good days) leads me to do things, not to please God, but to do what I think is the right thing to do, without paybacks (i.e. a kind word, actually talking to a homeless person, helping someone through a crisis, not talking back to a pissed off clerk behind the register). In those moments, this idea of heaven rarely comes to mind.
My faith has taught me mercy and social justice. I have a hard time finding that in a world that seems to be preach survival of the fittest.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
“They fought because they had to, not because their faith dictated they should."
Ask a soldier. They would probably know better than you.
"Faith had nothing to do with why America fought back.”
You’re right, politically faith in God had nothing to do with the war, but it had everything do with the personal experience of individuals caught knee deep in the hell of battle. I wasn’t talking about nations, but people.
"It's true that humans have a demonstrated, enduring capacity for hope even against seemingly impossible odds (take the lottery, for instance), which I suspect is the underlying principle you are referring to when you say they relied on faith."
NOTE: I mean people believing in a presence beyond their reason to accomplish what they could never accomplish themselves.
"Then when? All major civil liberties in history have had to have been fought for to be attained. The right of children to make up their own minds and not be subjected to religious tradition (circumcision) is no different. Just because something will not be easy is by no means reason not to try. Your WWII example comes to mind."
Good luck with your war against human instinct.
"Are you saying that's how you view creativity?"
No, I was saying how some theists view it, since you were trying to some how use creativity as something that disguises itself as faith.
"You're speaking with just as much certainty and from my standpoint are not giving any consideration to my view. See how quickly that assertion falls to pieces?"
No, I’m not certain at all. I wrestle with my faith daily. I just don’t appreciate you taking each line I wrote and nullifying it. That’s not a conversation. The way you wish to converse is waiting for people to make a statement so you can add your condescending commentary (like I'm finding myself doing right now. Shame on me!). I feel like I was handed my homework from my grade school teacher with red marks all over it. It makes a person no longer feel like expressing any opinion to people who insist on being asses.
In all humility, while I have opinions, I’m actually asking questions. If all you want to do feed me remarks I can care less what you have to say, no matter how certain you think you are and how stupid you think I am.
""As usual on forums, no one is actually listening."
True; I'm reading."
You just see words across a page, my friend. Even when reading, people are still failing to “listen”.
Ask a soldier. They would probably know better than you.
"Faith had nothing to do with why America fought back.”
You’re right, politically faith in God had nothing to do with the war, but it had everything do with the personal experience of individuals caught knee deep in the hell of battle. I wasn’t talking about nations, but people.
"It's true that humans have a demonstrated, enduring capacity for hope even against seemingly impossible odds (take the lottery, for instance), which I suspect is the underlying principle you are referring to when you say they relied on faith."
NOTE: I mean people believing in a presence beyond their reason to accomplish what they could never accomplish themselves.
"Then when? All major civil liberties in history have had to have been fought for to be attained. The right of children to make up their own minds and not be subjected to religious tradition (circumcision) is no different. Just because something will not be easy is by no means reason not to try. Your WWII example comes to mind."
Good luck with your war against human instinct.
"Are you saying that's how you view creativity?"
No, I was saying how some theists view it, since you were trying to some how use creativity as something that disguises itself as faith.
"You're speaking with just as much certainty and from my standpoint are not giving any consideration to my view. See how quickly that assertion falls to pieces?"
No, I’m not certain at all. I wrestle with my faith daily. I just don’t appreciate you taking each line I wrote and nullifying it. That’s not a conversation. The way you wish to converse is waiting for people to make a statement so you can add your condescending commentary (like I'm finding myself doing right now. Shame on me!). I feel like I was handed my homework from my grade school teacher with red marks all over it. It makes a person no longer feel like expressing any opinion to people who insist on being asses.
In all humility, while I have opinions, I’m actually asking questions. If all you want to do feed me remarks I can care less what you have to say, no matter how certain you think you are and how stupid you think I am.
""As usual on forums, no one is actually listening."
True; I'm reading."
You just see words across a page, my friend. Even when reading, people are still failing to “listen”.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
Good point. You're right, faith doesn't require a god. But, certainly, God requires faith. Everyday, I have to struggle with my faith and reconcile it what I learn and what I observe about life. I have some really touhg days, and some really good days. Faith is very difficult, because doubt is ever present, and it should be.
I would venture to say, that there are likely many athesists who wrestle with their own doubts, wondering if there is something more.
You also make good point that the object of faith seems to be a very decisive factor (i.e. having faith in Hitler vs. having faith in God). You've made the point that having faith isn't enough, but rather the object of your faith matters.
I would venture to say, that there are likely many athesists who wrestle with their own doubts, wondering if there is something more.
You also make good point that the object of faith seems to be a very decisive factor (i.e. having faith in Hitler vs. having faith in God). You've made the point that having faith isn't enough, but rather the object of your faith matters.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
I'd love to atually continue this conversation. However, I must know one thing: Do you believe that a person of faith is worthy of any respect, and actually has something to contribute to your reason? If so, then we can continue to talk. If not, then farewell, friend.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
One thing at a time friend, and please, loosen up a bit. Again, you're speak with such certainly with no consideration.
"I imagine you'd be hard put to prove none of the 'great human accomplishments' you refer to were inspired by creativity as opposed to faith."
I already made an example: WWII. For soldiers and commanding officers, the risks many of them took were not always “because it made sense on paper”, but because they had a hope beyond “what makes sense”. Ask any WWII infantry soldier, or anyone who has fought for a cause that is seemingly beyond hope.
Faith, even if it were nothing but a fraud, has perpetuated humanity. This is something that Dawkins never likes to mention. For some reason, he thinks the world actually makes enough sense to man abandon faith altogether. Even if faith is a fraud, now is not the time in human history to abandon it.
I mention WWII because our minds should turn to the many points in human history when hope and faith were required for people to press on in terrible circumstances. There are cases where reason would give up, while faith is actually capable of pressing further. Man is remarkable for having both reason and faith, which at their finest work in companionship.
Creativity, as you mentioned, to those of faith is considered to be one of the prime components of being in God’s image. Call it what you will, to many creativity is a religious celebration of a creative God who designed man to be co-creators with him. In fact, some have called Worship “Creativity in Love”.
As usual on forums, no one is actually listening. People are only as wise as they are humble. Good night.
"I imagine you'd be hard put to prove none of the 'great human accomplishments' you refer to were inspired by creativity as opposed to faith."
I already made an example: WWII. For soldiers and commanding officers, the risks many of them took were not always “because it made sense on paper”, but because they had a hope beyond “what makes sense”. Ask any WWII infantry soldier, or anyone who has fought for a cause that is seemingly beyond hope.
Faith, even if it were nothing but a fraud, has perpetuated humanity. This is something that Dawkins never likes to mention. For some reason, he thinks the world actually makes enough sense to man abandon faith altogether. Even if faith is a fraud, now is not the time in human history to abandon it.
I mention WWII because our minds should turn to the many points in human history when hope and faith were required for people to press on in terrible circumstances. There are cases where reason would give up, while faith is actually capable of pressing further. Man is remarkable for having both reason and faith, which at their finest work in companionship.
Creativity, as you mentioned, to those of faith is considered to be one of the prime components of being in God’s image. Call it what you will, to many creativity is a religious celebration of a creative God who designed man to be co-creators with him. In fact, some have called Worship “Creativity in Love”.
As usual on forums, no one is actually listening. People are only as wise as they are humble. Good night.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
Richard Dawkins and James Randy are very indignant men who believe that someone of faith is not due one ounce of respect. While, at the same times, it is this notion of faith that has perpetuated man in the face of crisis and difficult times (i.e. Word War II). In fact, it is faith that has helped man cross many barriers that were well beyond reason. Faith has been the fuel of many great human accomplishments.
To be honest, I think that Dawkins betrays his own brand of reasoning by using his platform to work out their own personal issues from growing up, while under the guise of intellectual absolutes that attacks all faith. He is a pissed off man who can't stand people like him. And in doing so, has become the very thing he hates.
And while Dawkins and Randy love use the "Thor" comment to question why they should ever believe in a Chrsitian-Judeo God, they are implying that religion has not, cannot, will not progress. Religion and spirituality have always progressed, and that's exactly why we don't believe in Thor.
Our understanding and interpretation of the universe does develop and expand in terms of the religion. There are things that we've abandoned, other things we've reformed. You're right, I don't believe in Thor. But I'm sure scientists no longer believe in blood-letting or that maggots appear out of thin air. Science has abandoned many things and moved on, just as some modern religions have done the same.
Even my own understanding of God, Jesus, Miracle, The Church, The Afterlife is very different from those of 500, 100, even 20 years ago. There is a certain brand of religion that is being attacked by so many, and they make the mistake of pouring all religion into one bowl and lighting it on fire. How ignorant and arrogant. Honestly, have Dawkins or Randy ever kissed a girl?
This is no offense to those who insist on atheism. It's just that I grow wearly of the absoluteness of it and the hate-mongering that takes place. We're all just people, for crying out loud.
To be honest, I think that Dawkins betrays his own brand of reasoning by using his platform to work out their own personal issues from growing up, while under the guise of intellectual absolutes that attacks all faith. He is a pissed off man who can't stand people like him. And in doing so, has become the very thing he hates.
And while Dawkins and Randy love use the "Thor" comment to question why they should ever believe in a Chrsitian-Judeo God, they are implying that religion has not, cannot, will not progress. Religion and spirituality have always progressed, and that's exactly why we don't believe in Thor.
Our understanding and interpretation of the universe does develop and expand in terms of the religion. There are things that we've abandoned, other things we've reformed. You're right, I don't believe in Thor. But I'm sure scientists no longer believe in blood-letting or that maggots appear out of thin air. Science has abandoned many things and moved on, just as some modern religions have done the same.
Even my own understanding of God, Jesus, Miracle, The Church, The Afterlife is very different from those of 500, 100, even 20 years ago. There is a certain brand of religion that is being attacked by so many, and they make the mistake of pouring all religion into one bowl and lighting it on fire. How ignorant and arrogant. Honestly, have Dawkins or Randy ever kissed a girl?
This is no offense to those who insist on atheism. It's just that I grow wearly of the absoluteness of it and the hate-mongering that takes place. We're all just people, for crying out loud.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
I am a theist, Christian in fact, however I do at times become a closet agnostic. I try and deal with my faith honestly, not defensively.
That said, I think Sharpton was a poor choice for this debate. The an is primarily an activist who flies under the flag of Reverend. It was painful to watch.
I do believe that God cannot be proven scientifically, and for many that is the primary reason why some do not believe.
I do have a question for those who do consider themselves atheist or agnostic, and this is a humble, honest question for myself: If God were a true reality, what sort of physical evidence would you expect to find?
That would really be a good discussion.
That said, I think Sharpton was a poor choice for this debate. The an is primarily an activist who flies under the flag of Reverend. It was painful to watch.
I do believe that God cannot be proven scientifically, and for many that is the primary reason why some do not believe.
I do have a question for those who do consider themselves atheist or agnostic, and this is a humble, honest question for myself: If God were a true reality, what sort of physical evidence would you expect to find?
That would really be a good discussion.
By: garrettis
These are poisonous people with lies dripping from their lips, praying on those who have hope. But far be it for those people to nullify some actual events that may have truly happened, regardless of their pathetic plagiarism.
I've never considered these events common. Even when you look at the Gospels, Jesus gets a bit pissed at people who get focused on his healings, turns to 5,000 followers and barks a few mind-blowing statements to them. 4,898 followers turn away from him. Only 12 remained. When he apparently raised Lazarus from the dead, he did so knowing that Lazarus would simply die again. His healings and miracles were not the point, but part of a larger message.