|
Nckdictator posted:Question/comment for the OP. I think you're using the term "Evangelical a bit narrowly to refer only to Fundamentalist/Right-Wing . There are plenty on the Evangelical-left, even if their often ignored. Jim Wallis, Rob Bell, Greg Boyd, and Jimmy Carter for example. Great post but that's my one minor quibble. I thought Jimmy Carter was Baptist? Are Baptists a subset of Evangelicalism?
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Protestant churches in the US are divided into four main groups- Mainline, Evangelical, and Historically Black denominational Protestantism, and nondenominational Evangelicals. The Southern Baptist Convention is an evangelical denomination, as opposed to its mainline sister denomination the American Baptist Church. So was Carter Southern or American Baptist? Quick google search doesn't say.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:He was Southern while president, but broke away from them in 2000 and founded the New Baptist Covenant, which unites liberal/moderate Southern Baptists, American Baptists, and Historically Black Baptist churches into an ecumenical organization. Cool to know. Did he break away for any specific reasons relevant to this thread?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Umm.. What Christians are these because... No it's not. *looks at post* *looks at title of thread* Golly, this sure is a tough mystery!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
I always like to use these definitions because they seem like the most clear and useful: Also, this: grate deceiver posted:Yeah, no, that's just atheism. If your answer to the question "Do you believe in God?" is anything other than a "Yes", then congrats, you're an atheist. Notice it's not about knowing or not knowing, but accepting the statement as true. And this: rudatron posted:People who identify are agnostics are atheists who, for whatever reason, don't want to identify as atheists. Which is understandable, because atheists poll low in terms of likability in places such as the US, where evangelicals have hold a stable position. It's a distinction of political convenience, not one based on any kind of logical divide. You either believe or you don't believe. Are 100% true and accurate. EDIT GAINING WEIGHT... posted:On the philosophical side, there is essentially no way to call oneself an Atheist and be intellectually consistent. The atheist demands proof and evidence, yet declares there is positively no God? No they don't. Or, at least, most atheists don't, but antitheists or contratheists (the "hard" atheists) do, while the majority are agnostic-atheists. The burden of proof is on the positive claim and it's completely fair to say that you do not believe in the claims of 'X' God because there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant that belief without also needing to actively disprove that same claim. You're shifting the burden of proof and you probably don't realize it. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Double Post
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:What if you strongly believe that there is a God (or more than one), but also that its Will is so above any kind of human comprehension that it is impossible to try to act in accordance with it without tying oneself in knots, therefore the best thing to do is look for a humanistic moral code like 'don't be a dick' instead? That's a Diest.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Yup, which is neither atheist nor agnostic, but doesn't fit any of the question "The question of "do you act according to any God's will?" can be answered with a yes or no - if yes, even if that "God" is a vague, mother-Earth spirit type God, then you are not an atheist. But if no, then you are one." Deism is a theist position and doesn't necessarily touch on the a/gnostic position, so yes it's not agnostic or atheist, I guess? I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If your point is that "Do you act according to God's will" isn't a great question to determine atheism or theism, then yeah you're completely right.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Efforts to incorporate the different agnostic positions under the umbrella of different flavors of atheism should be viewed with a degree of suspicion, since they're relatively recent redefinitions in service of the new atheist movement, which likes being able to switch between positions as needed to gain rhetorical leverage. Who What Now, where did you get that image? I have the image saved on my computer, I don't remember where I got it. What specific issues do you take with it, or is vague allusions to the spooky "New Atheist movement" all you have? Xae posted:Bullshit. Ok, but do you believe there is one? Knowledge and belief are not synonyms (although there is an argument that knowledge is a subset of beliefs, being beliefs held with maximal reasonable certainty) and when talking about theism and atheism the only question being asked is whether or not you believe, not what you claim to know. quote:"Agnostics are really atheists but don't know it yet" is the same bullshit that religious groups pull with the "Everyone is really ${OUR_RELIGION}, they just don't know it yet". How does "I don't know" contradict "I don't believe"? quote:The food analogy would be "I have a dish you can't detect in the kitchen, do you like it or not?" Some assume it is something they like and say "Yes", some assume it is something they don't like and say "No", others say "How can I know?". The food analogy is bad. A better analogy is that of the courtroom. When you're on a jury the prosecution makes a positive claim about the defendant and their job is to show that their claim is true and that the defendant is guilty of their claim. When you as a juror vote do you vote "Guilt" or "Innocent"? No, you vote "guilty" or "not guilty" because while not guilt does include innocent it does not require you to actively know the defendant is innocent to vote not guilty. If you're a juror and when asked "Is the defendant guilty" and you answer "I don't know" then that's a not guilty vote. So let's say that God is put on trial for existing. Do you believe God is guilty or not guilty of existing?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Xae posted:Belief is not a court of law. You're attempting to force a binary answer to a non-binary question. So I'll reply with a proper binary answer: NULL. No poo poo belief isn't a court of law, that's why it's an analogy. And did you even read my post? I don't think you did because I specifically explained how the "binary choices" include a large range of choices. And how am I denying the existence of a group who disagrees with my viewpoint when I'm only speaking about using clearer terms? Do you even know what my beliefs even are? Please, I'm being serious, tell me what you believe my beliefs to be and why you think that. Guavanaut posted:I believe this post is guilty of existing. Zing! quote:You're making the argument that somebody is an atheist unless they specifically believe (presumably beyond reasonable doubt, being as you invoked the courtroom standard of evidence) in God. Does it have to be the one big God? Can you believe in only a limited fetish or river god or something, but believe in them fully or honestly? What about the Eastern religions that have a significantly different conception of what it is that is actually believed in? Yes, people who do not believe in a god concept are atheists, that seems pretty obvious. No, theism does not require belief in one big God. Yes you can believe in a limited fetish or river God or something and believe in it fully and honestly and still be a theist. Yes eastern God-concepts are theistic but those religions without God-concepts are atheistic. quote:You're lumping a lot of different people into the atheist tent here by not having them be active believers, which is similar (but less exclusive) to the Evangelical grouping of "people that have a personal belief that the Lord Jesus Christ died for their sins" and "heretics". The only people I'm limping into the atheist tent are people who don't believe in a God concept. That's it. Maybe you have me confused with another poster because I'm not saying the things you're accusing me of. I'm not saying "you aren't agnostic, you're really atheist instead!" I'm saying "you're agnostic if you don't claim to have knowledge, and atheist as well if you don't believe". Two separate questions, two separate answers. If you're going to make strawmen out of what I'm saying at least put in a little effort to make them look at least superficially like what I'm saying.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:For one thing, it's got a great big asterisk on it and I want to know what it refers to. The asterisk is for a clarification that "Gnostic Atheist" is what is commonly referred to as Hard or Strong-Atheism, if I remember correctly. But do you have any actual criticisms beyond "There's a scary piece of punctuation and GIS sent me to blogs I didn't like"? Like with the actual definitions themselves and how I am using them in this thread, maybe? quote:More generally, this category system is (for reasons others have articulated), something developed by, I wanna say Dawkins- one of the four, anyways. I don't give a poo poo. I'm not a "new atheist" or whatever because I don't follow these things so accusing me of being one is really more baffling to me. Although it's really funny that multiple people have accused me of trying not to dismiss people or shove them into different categories while doing that themselves. quote:Its purpose is to collapse several distinctions so that individuals holding the atheist position have the freedom to shift certainty statements and definition classes, while keeping the burden of proof on an externally defined Opposition. Can you show me where I've done this? quote:Right, so it's pretty clear that the New Atheist Framing Debate is going to be what this thread is about for a while. I'll be back when it's over. Oh, never mind, you're just making GBS threads and running. Well that's disappointing and I really wish you wouldn't. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Xae posted:I know your belief is that an entire category of "Belief" doesn't exist because you can't stop sucking off Dawkins. I have 10 total posts in this thread, 1 of which is a double post, and only 5 of which pertain to this topic, only two more than you. If that's a spree then ok? Again, do you have me confused with someone else? And you fundamentally don't understand the question I'm asking because "puppy" and "kitty" are not direct negations in the way that "belief" and "non-belief" are. Your example is actually two questions, "is it a puppy" and "is it a kitty" put into a single sentence. To be accurate the options would be "Is this a picture of a puppy or not a puppy?" in which case I would answer "not a puppy".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I was under the impression that was more for what was going on at that particular time. You had temple prostitutes who were converting and trying to mix their previous religion with their new one i.e. interrupting with babbling prophecy and what not. spacetoaster posted:Why do you think that? I mean really? I've looked into the issue and there was an problem, at the time, of many people from other belief systems converting and trying to bring in other religious elements. And the church in question, Corinth, was having an issue with some women being loud in assemblies because that was expected/encouraged at other god's temples. How do either of these things make what Paul says somehow non-misogynistic? I have no problem believing your claims are true, but they don't somehow excuse Paul for being a lovely rear end in a top hat to all women.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I didn't know my comment was a defense of misogyny. Well what do you call it when you ask why someone believes some comments about how women are lesser than and to be subservient to men in all regards to be misogynistic and then provide evidence for why it isn't quite as bad as previously thought?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Are we posting warhammer quotes again? I can't tell the difference between these manics and the fictional manics anymore. The truly wise are always afraid.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Innocence proves nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
A logical argument must be dismissed with absolute conviction!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:Truth is searching for anything that proves you're right no matter how small, and holding on to that, no matter what. Get out of here, Ronaldo!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:But in the mind of such people anybody that is able to must actively prevent the gays from getting married at all costs in any way available to them. In the mind of your bog standard crazy evangelical she did absolutely nothing wrong. I believe she already did before she was even brought to court.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
You'd think if the next level or whatever was as wise as they say they'd have found a better way to communicate than crappy movies, a suicide cult, and the ramblings of a manic depressive.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:On which part? And thanks. Give a brief overview of your dissertation and we'll go from there. Seconding that it sounds really interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Thanks, I do see a shrink and take an SSRI, but I really think there is something to be said about the UFO Two. They weren't brainwashing kids or anything sinister - Mass suicide is pretty sinister.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I know my worldview isn't universal, most people are programmed by television to believe in nothing but the self, which is what has allowed Trump to go so far. He is the culmination of amoral material values, an idol if you like. It is clearly exposed how 'Christians' really worship objects here on Earth (money, flags, genes) instead of honoring the God of the universe. Atheists and agnostics are usually quite intelligent, they can make up their own mind about their scarlet letter. So what was to blame for people not worshipping God the right way before the advent of the TV? Radio? And before that, was it the printing press and movable type? What about before even that, was it the concept of written or spoken language? I mean, you've gone on record saying that glasses and prosthetics are a creation of the devil because they let people focus on the material, so it's hard to know where you'd draw the line. Besides that, the age of TV as society's boogeymen is long gone, you're supposed to blame microchips and the Internet for everything bad today. Get with the times or nobody is going to take your cult seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Nice strawman. I am talking about a message that transcends all media, including our brains. Ok, then ignore the snark, this being the case why would TV be uniquely to blame for people not getting this supposed message? Especially considering you've said that TV and movies sometimes are the message? Which is it? quote:I previously mentioned how augmented reality can become a sort of 'blinder' for social control and you've decided I'm a militant luddite. You specified ocular implants to allow the blind to see as being a bad thing, because it wouldn't be "real", it would be filtered through cameras and thus would be the devil.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
McDowell posted:No I was discussing augmented reality and hypothesizing that in the near future people with fully functional eyes will be expected to filter reality through a camera/computer - which is even more dystopian than Orwell's viewscreens. How is it uniquely worse than any other computer or phone screen? And why couldn't it be used to spread 'The Message' in the way that you think certain movies do?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Because the reptilian multicultural liberal communist c-ckservative Bilderberg Rothschild Illuminati are using augmented reality to, like, hack our brains, man! But then he says that artificial eyes are good if they restore sight to the blind. But what if those eyes are capable of AR, are they then bad again? Which is worse, blindness or Pokemon GO? What if the eye implants could be used for AR, but the recipient chooses not to use that particular function? Can I turn Satan's power on and off? I know it's a lot to ask from a schizophrenic, but I just want some consistency.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Any search for it brought up Heaven's Gate references I wasn't joking about the cult stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Prester Jane posted:I'm not entirely sure McDowell isn't just trolling here, as this is a post he wrote to me about 3 years ago in the 9-11 truther thread. If he's a troll he's a dedicated one.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 17:54
|
|