View Poll Results: do you believe in a supreme being?
- Voters
- 173. You may not vote on this poll
-
yes
102 58.96% -
no
71 41.04%
Results 431 to 440 of 655
-
10-17-2008, 11:00 AM #431
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 3,763
Thanked: 735Well, it took 430 posts, but I suppose in the end the original question " Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God" has finally been answered.
-
10-17-2008, 01:28 PM #432
I fail to see anything that is offensive in any of those posts, especially the sections that you highlighted.
In the end this is the most common argument of the religious, that being feigning be offended and taking their ball home, because they don't want to play. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that the devout have no logical arguments left to explain their devotion to a man made religious dogma that requires one to surrender one's freewill, natural inquisitiveness and rational thought or spend an eternity in torture and damnation.
-
10-17-2008, 01:28 PM #433
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,292
Thanked: 150To be fair, the last few posts haven't mentioned God, just the validity of the stories in the bible.
It's one thing to say that you have faith in God, it's entirely different to say that you know that those stories are absolutely factual and accurate.
-
10-17-2008, 01:33 PM #434
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- Newtown, CT
- Posts
- 2,153
Thanked: 586My first interjection into this thread is my answer to the original question. Of course, it is possible to have a discussion on any topic. Of course the nature of the discussion will likely be argumentative unless the participants start from the same point of view. If that is the case, what would be the point? Conversely, if the discussion is between individuals with differing beliefs, an arugument is certain to ensue. However, because the beliefs are all faith based, it is not likely that anyone will change their mind and agree with the other side. Subsequently begging the question, what would be the point? My final answer to the original question is: Yes but I'll abstain because I see no point to such a discussion.
-
10-17-2008, 01:36 PM #435
The point is to have an interesting discussion by sharing ideas with each other. You don't have to have a mindset that if you don't change the other person's mind then there's no point to the conversation. We're a group of members who enjoy each other's company, aren't we? Isn't that why we have a Conversation forum?
It's just a nice place to share ideas. When we keep it niceFind me on SRP's official chat in ##srp on Freenode. Link is at top of SRP's homepage
-
10-17-2008, 01:40 PM #436
Other evidence to support such conclusions with regards to the passing down of folk tails are commonalities with regards to various religions throughout time, a prime example is the virgin birth, the vast majority of religions contain a virgin birth. The ancients seem to have a real thing for virgin births back in the day, amazingly they don't seem to happen now that we have a scientific understanding of reproduction.
Last edited by Hutch; 10-17-2008 at 01:42 PM.
-
10-17-2008, 01:45 PM #437
-
10-17-2008, 01:50 PM #438
That is not totally true, as debating a subject forces one to look at and understand ones own beliefs as well as the the ideas and beliefs from the other position. Many people have turned to faith for their own reasons just as many have turned away by examining their beliefs and finding them not compatible. So no discussion is pointless.
Unfortunately some take offense by the act of even being questioned about their beliefs and the fact that others don't believe them.
-
10-17-2008, 01:50 PM #439
-
The Following User Says Thank You to hoglahoo For This Useful Post:
Seraphim (10-18-2008)
-
10-17-2008, 01:53 PM #440
The point is to try and understand the pov of the other person, and the reasons for it.
I had a good friend (ex colleague in the Netherlands) who is a very devout catholic.
I've discussed religion with him for hours and hours, and he learned my reasons for thinking the way I do, and I learned his.
The fundamental reason why we could reach an understanding is that he -as I- was aware of the factual history of his religion. I.e. we could discuss the changes that were made to christianity over the millenia, the bible, the gospels, catholic doctrine, ... and neither of us had to argue about the facts surrounding those things, because we both knew and accepted them.
The significance of those facts and the motivation behind the changes is where we disagreed, but we could follow each others reasoning.
What also helped was that neither of us was offended bythe other person casting doubt on their beliefs, but rather took it is a challenge to explain.
Reasoned debate is not possible with people who accept their holy writings as pure fact, just because other people have done the same. There are people who even believe genesis is to be taken literally.
There are even christians who make the claim that the King James bible is 100% the 'Word Of God' because the final translation was divinely inspired. So all the millenia of hearsay, translation and transcription errors worked out to be the turth as God intended it to be written down. End of discussion.Til shade is gone, til water is gone, Into the shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath.
To spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the Last Day