Religion

rug

(82,333 posts)

113. "I will fight you every step of the way"

Reply to trotsky (Reply #105)

Tue Jul 23, 2013, 11:05 PM

Jul 2013

Oh, the melodrama.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

186 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Questions about simultaneous believers in evolution and punishment/reward-based afterlife [View all] Arugula Latte Jul 2013 OP

Interesting question. nt ZombieHorde Jul 2013 #1

Because there is no real conflict between science and faith. SheilaT Jul 2013 #2

What a great analysis. cbayer Jul 2013 #3

That's fine but I was just wondering about a specific context Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #7

You'll have to hope that someone who SheilaT Jul 2013 #54

That would only be the case if "faith" skepticscott Jul 2013 #32

I am aware of that. SheilaT Jul 2013 #55

So all you really seem to be saying after all skepticscott Jul 2013 #70

Clearly for you there is a huge conflict. SheilaT Jul 2013 #80

Did I say "huge conflict" anywhere? skepticscott Jul 2013 #101

You are wrong about this edhopper Jul 2013 #98

All evidence points to their not being a god? cbayer Jul 2013 #99

The Universe functions quite well edhopper Jul 2013 #103

The fact that it functions quite well, cbayer Jul 2013 #104

Yeah, there's ample evidence. trotsky Jul 2013 #105

"I will fight you every step of the way" rug Jul 2013 #113

It is simply not true that the vast majority believe there is a god. dimbear Jul 2013 #106

Most of the data I have seen say that somewhere around 80 - 85% of the world's population cbayer Jul 2013 #107

What you actually said, cbayer, was this: trotsky Jul 2013 #108

at one time edhopper Jul 2013 #109

Silly ed. trotsky Jul 2013 #110

At the time, you couldn't have said they were wrong because you had no cbayer Jul 2013 #111

If I'm wrong, and god exists, may god strike me down. trotsky Jul 2013 #112

But they were wrong. edhopper Jul 2013 #136

As it turned out, they were wrong. cbayer Jul 2013 #137

Because people right now are making policy decisions based on their belief in gods, cbayer. trotsky Jul 2013 #140

So what? If you don't believe in god, why do you give a crap is someone else does? AlbertCat Jul 2013 #151

First of all, it's if not is. cbayer Jul 2013 #152

Actually, that is all. AlbertCat Jul 2013 #154

People inevitably retreat from you? Now that's a shock. cbayer Jul 2013 #157

People inevitably retreat from you? Now that's a shock. AlbertCat Jul 2013 #171

Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the Earth to within a few percent 200 years before Christ Fumesucker Jul 2013 #155

Were he Eratosthenes, which he most assuredly is not. cbayer Jul 2013 #156

You aren't Eratosthenes either Fumesucker Jul 2013 #159

Not sure where you are going with this. cbayer Jul 2013 #160

until there is some evidence that either makes it more or less likely that there is a god or gods AlbertCat Jul 2013 #173

Has anyone done anything similar to challenge people's belief in a god or gods? AlbertCat Jul 2013 #172

According to Stephen Hawking, you have no justification to say they were wrong. Jim__ Jul 2013 #158

His point is that until we had observations that disrupted Ptolomey edhopper Jul 2013 #161

No, that is not his point. Jim__ Jul 2013 #162

Your saying my view of the model of his statement is wrong? edhopper Jul 2013 #163

I didn't say anything about "the model of his statement" never mind your view of it. Jim__ Jul 2013 #165

The Ptolomaic model existed. yes edhopper Jul 2013 #166

"He is talking about models we use, not the actual universe." Jim__ Jul 2013 #168

If he is saying this, as you say edhopper Jul 2013 #170

*If* he is saying this? Jim__ Jul 2013 #176

So what you are saying simply is edhopper Jul 2013 #177

No. That's not what I'm saying, and that's not what Hawking is saying. Jim__ Jul 2013 #178

Okay edhopper Jul 2013 #179

It's not my claim, it's Hawking's claim. Jim__ Jul 2013 #180

I simply don't agree with your interpretation of what Hawking is saying edhopper Jul 2013 #181

Yes, what Hawking is saying conflicts with your beliefs. Jim__ Jul 2013 #182

I am expanding the claims to different models edhopper Jul 2013 #186

that there is not be something much more highly evolved AlbertCat Jul 2013 #150

This was probably mentioned Lordquinton Jul 2013 #135

I understand that. cbayer Jul 2013 #138

So what? If you don't believe in god, why do you give a crap is someone else does? AlbertCat Jul 2013 #153

All evidence points to their not being a god? AlbertCat Jul 2013 #149

Question about posts like this that feign sincerity and curiosity. cbayer Jul 2013 #4

I honestly am wondering how it has traditionally been explained. Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #6

Sorry, not buying it. cbayer Jul 2013 #8

"Please help me understand" okasha Jul 2013 #9

"I am so confused by this" and "i guess there is no answer" cbayer Jul 2013 #11

You are the one mocking, defacto7 Jul 2013 #63

Who are you? Haven't seen you around much before. cbayer Jul 2013 #86

The "hey everybody, look what I've done" thread in the Atheist safe haven is revealing as well. goldent Jul 2013 #62

Your response is about as childish as it can get. defacto7 Jul 2013 #64

I'm with you on this! goldent Jul 2013 #79

I don't think SheilaT's post answers the question in the OP at all muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #10

I can't speak for her, but what I read is that she finds the question cbayer Jul 2013 #12

So you think "your question is completely inane" is a "great answer"? muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #13

No, I think her explanation for why it is inane is a good answer. cbayer Jul 2013 #14

It's your dismissive attitude to a question - that to not answer it is 'great' muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #16

Acknowledging that a question is inane and explaining why is not dismissive. cbayer Jul 2013 #18

I'll give you an example. Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #15

Uh, huh. cbayer Jul 2013 #17

Is this not a forum for discussion about religious topics? Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #20

Why would I have an answer? cbayer Jul 2013 #23

This forum has religious people who post. Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #25

Muriel supplied the conventional catholic explanation in this thread. cbayer Jul 2013 #30

Yes, actually. Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #61

Well, you know, this is about the most honest post I have seen from you in this thread. cbayer Jul 2013 #85

And your post got exactly the kind of response okasha Jul 2013 #29

I think there used to be a great deal more of this before some smart people, both cbayer Jul 2013 #31

Truth. okasha Jul 2013 #35

By which you mean . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #44

Nonbelievers considering all believers to be fools would be, well, cbayer Jul 2013 #47

Anyone who, when faced with a straightforward question . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #57

OMG! What a freaking brilliant debate technique! cbayer Jul 2013 #83

Wrong. okasha Jul 2013 #59

Asking rather straightforward question is a "ploy." Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #60

Nope. okasha Jul 2013 #90

Yes, the 'ploy' is to ask a question that *you* don't want to answer . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #67

The question isn't directed to me, okasha Jul 2013 #91

Pagan-schmagan. MrModerate Jul 2013 #114

Ploy it was. okasha Jul 2013 #117

And 'smug' will be the attitude you adopt should anyone question you. MrModerate Jul 2013 #119

Oh my. okasha Jul 2013 #123

Wow. Anthropoligist *and* clairvoyant MrModerate Jul 2013 #124

Yep. okasha Jul 2013 #127

Interesting, since I'm an editor by trade, and yet . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #129

Hear, hear! defacto7 Jul 2013 #65

different people think different things d_r Jul 2013 #52

I don't see how SheilaT's reply answers the questions. ZombieHorde Jul 2013 #33

The Catholics do have an answer, as has been given by both rug and muriel in this thread. cbayer Jul 2013 #37

I did not say that the Catholics did not have an answer, I said that I did not know their answer. ZombieHorde Jul 2013 #38

As I read it, she is saying that it is not a valid question. cbayer Jul 2013 #39

What?!? You don't ike Pius XII's encyclical?!?! rug Jul 2013 #76

You 'doubt' the questioner's sincerity, but refuse to answer the question . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #42

I wouldn't even pretend to be able to answer the question. cbayer Jul 2013 #43

You have the same negative attitude towards fundamentalists, cbayer skepticscott Jul 2013 #45

It's been quite enjoyable seeing multiple people call her behavior out on this thread. trotsky Jul 2013 #77

Which comes back to you saying . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #46

That is correct. It doesn't need to be answered... by anyone. cbayer Jul 2013 #48

A single loyal trooper okasha Jul 2013 #50

That seems to be you! defacto7 Jul 2013 #66

LOL! trotsky Jul 2013 #78

Nope. That's Mr. Moderate okasha Jul 2013 #92

Highlighting the fact that religion can't even be effectively defended by its adherents . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #58

More of this freaking brilliant debate technique. cbayer Jul 2013 #84

For something that doesn't need to be defended . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #146

The ability to ignore skullcrushing paradoxes also developed slowly over time. dimbear Jul 2013 #5

Assuming this s a legitimate question, you can read Humani Generis for a Catholic perspective. rug Jul 2013 #19

Okay, thank you. Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #22

I made it to paragraph (chapter? verse?) 5 . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #68

Well, aren't you special. rug Jul 2013 #72

The whole point is that he's "special." okasha Jul 2013 #93

No reassurance required, thanks. MrModerate Jul 2013 #121

I bet it itches okasha Jul 2013 #125

That movie running on the inside of your eyelids? MrModerate Jul 2013 #126

Oh dear. okasha Jul 2013 #130

Hey, your eyelids, no problem. n/t MrModerate Jul 2013 #131

The operative word being 'muddle.' n/t MrModerate Jul 2013 #118

I'm sorry I can't apply reason like you so I too can be running, screaming, from the building, rug Jul 2013 #120

Look out for the front steps. MrModerate Jul 2013 #122

How will we go on? cbayer Jul 2013 #87

Hmm. Paranoid much? n/t MrModerate Jul 2013 #116

Nope. Any other psychiatric diagnoses you want to throw out there? cbayer Jul 2013 #139

Well perhaps I should have dumbed down my diagnosis for you . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #141

Well, bless your little heart, MrModerate. cbayer Jul 2013 #142

I trust you'll be sending me a scan . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #143

That must be a mighty small collection. rug Jul 2013 #144

Most are about 5 inches across . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #145

And, as a significant followup, this from 2004: muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #71

That is significant. rug Jul 2013 #73

The split into two species may not last, though. okasha Jul 2013 #95

You're right. rug Jul 2013 #96

I read an article a while ago-- okasha Jul 2013 #184

Ooh, I can't wait to till that to a certain redhead I know. rug Jul 2013 #185

My understanding is that Neanderthals, Florensis, and us, Homo Sapiens Sapiens... Humanist_Activist Jul 2013 #164

I hadn't heard of Florensis but being contemporaries is the likeliest case. rug Jul 2013 #167

Florensis is an island species, they are better known as the "hobbit" species... Humanist_Activist Jul 2013 #169

Oh, ok, now I remember them. rug Jul 2013 #174

They lived in the Shire edhopper Jul 2013 #175

I heard about that debate, I remember reading a science fiction book written around that time... Humanist_Activist Jul 2013 #183

Which sort of answers the question asked by the op. Warren Stupidity Jul 2013 #75

You agree with this? edhopper Jul 2013 #81

No, and I'm surprised at the typo "principle' instead of "principal". rug Jul 2013 #82

Okay edhopper Jul 2013 #97

That paragraph is. rug Jul 2013 #100

I was only referring to it. edhopper Jul 2013 #102

Simple question. When did heaven open for business? You might think dimbear Jul 2013 #21

I'll name that tune in one. rug Jul 2013 #74

I don't believe in hell so I think we all go to heaven in the end. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #24

Do you think only modern humans are there, or do you think it goes farther back? Arugula Latte Jul 2013 #26

Interesting question. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #28

You can create your own heaven or hell by your thoughts. Manifestor_of_Light Jul 2013 #27

I agree. cbayer Jul 2013 #36

OMG! You did not just do that! cbayer Jul 2013 #34

Yes, she did! okasha Jul 2013 #40

Funny joke (well, funny to me at least). cbayer Jul 2013 #41

Many year ago, when I was a new birder, okasha Jul 2013 #49

My religious views are not views about the nature of the natural world: they are views struggle4progress Jul 2013 #51

You vote 'pass,' but do you in any way resent the asking of the question? dimbear Jul 2013 #53

? struggle4progress Jul 2013 #56

So your view of religion . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #69

I think I prefer to describe my own religious views -- and to let you describe your own but not mine struggle4progress Jul 2013 #88

Your call, of course . . . MrModerate Jul 2013 #115

In your #69, you misrepresented my views, but now I suspect you're just trolling. struggle4progress Jul 2013 #132

I *interpreted* your views. This is not identical to misrepresenting them. MrModerate Jul 2013 #134

This is a great question. DavidDvorkin Jul 2013 #89

One answer - while evolution was used to create animals, possibly including man el_bryanto Jul 2013 #94

Anyone who lives with dogs knows they have a sense of right and wrong. Warren Stupidity Jul 2013 #147

But cats don't edhopper Jul 2013 #148

"...at what point did modern humans become eligible for Heaven or Hell?" Jenoch Jul 2013 #128

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #133