How Atheists Help to Perpetuate God Belief - Page 19

truethat · 17th July 2012, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Well I don't agree with Truehat on much including his overall point in general, his point about rationlization of behavior via the "Well I'm not one of the bad X" mode of thinking is dead on in my opinion.

At times the worst damage extremists do isn't in what they do, it's in making the more mainstream damage seem rosey by comparison.

Thank you once again. I needed the intelligent reprieve.

westprog · 18th July 2012, 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

As once did Christians. I'll take the ones harbouring their little hates in secret, never expressed, any day. Because homophobia is losing, and cultural evolution is selecting them out, and the quiet ones are the ones doing little to no damage on the way out the door. Their children are living in a culture where gays are mainstream, portrayed as regular people, people of value.

Truethat wails and beats her breast for the gays that might lose a job or be made uncomfortable in social situations, and that's too bad; but not being liked is something we all face for one reason or another. Compare that to Alan Turing or Matthew Shepard or Oscar Wilde- or the ludicrous caricatures that were staples in our culture within my lifetime- Levar from "Revenge of the Nerds" and the Blue Oyster Bar in "Police Academy". That was my generation's contribution to "the gay question". My kids' generation- they created "It gets better".

"Kinder gentler Christians who Tolerate Homosexuals are no different than those Kinder Gentler Christians who tolerated gay marriage years ago." She's right... they were/are tolerant. I fail to see that as a bad thing. She seems to demand not just tolerance, but complete orthodoxy to her own views before she'll withhold her scorn.

I'm not impressed by her crocodile tears.

I don't claim that people who avoid gays (or people of other races, or any other group) do no harm. However, it's quite obvious that they do less harm - considerably less harm - than the people who insult and attack them.

The shift in society didn't happen due to everybody saying "being gay is something with no moral issues whatsoever, and gay people should be fully accepted into society". The people who thought that homosexuality was a sin deserving of condign punishment became fewer. The people who thought that it was a private matter that they had no right to interfere in became greater in number. The kind of abuse promulgated by the WBC became unacceptable in polite society.

The fact remains that there are environments where this hasn't happened, or has happened to a lesser extent. Being gay in say, a New York ballet company isn't the same thing as being gay in an Iowa high school. The differences in approach can be huge between different classes and ethnic groups. How things get moved along is a significant issue, but I don't see the Truehat "anyone who disagrees with me is evil!" approach being very productive. It looks very like a mirror image of the intolerance supposedly being opposed.

laca · 18th July 2012, 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

I don't claim that people who avoid gays (or people of other races, or any other group) do no harm. However, it's quite obvious that they do less harm - considerably less harm - than the people who insult and attack them.

That might have been so when people were allowed to attack others for being gay (or being of another race), but not in today's society. Openly attacking someone for being gay is against the law, so it's not so much an issue nowadays. Avoidance however is still very much an issue. It could be an interesting discussion as to which is actually doing more harm, but I think the difference is far from being "considerable".

truethat · 18th July 2012, 04:30 AM

It's definitely far from being considerable. Muslims and Jews as well and any other but since we're talking about Christians here I'm staying with Christians. Saying homosexuals have it easier these days because they can come out in Ballet is absolutely ridiculous. How many gay people do you know that are ballet dancers?

The thing is, the actions of the WBC are so horrific that decent people want to distance themselves from that kind of thinking. So many Nice Christians started to change how they spoke about being gay. But you are kidding yourself if you think being Gay isn't considered a sin and that gay people aren't told this almost every single day. The WBC is ugly but they haven't hurt or attacked anyone. They have just put a face to the insidious ugliness perpetuate by the Christians who continue to assert that a gay person shouldn't be allowed to get married because "God doesn't like ****"

GeeMack · 18th July 2012, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

But you are kidding yourself if you think being Gay isn't considered a sin and that gay people aren't told this almost every single day.

Yeah, sure, they're being told that by people who have the audacity to tell other people they don't really believe what they think they believe. But haven't we pretty much agreed that's a despicable and dishonest way to treat other people and a lousy strategy for changing a paradigm?

KlLLUMINATI · 18th July 2012, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

It's definitely far from being considerable. Muslims and Jews as well and any other but since we're talking about Christians here I'm staying with Christians. Saying homosexuals have it easier these days because they can come out in Ballet is absolutely ridiculous. How many gay people do you know that are ballet dancers?

The thing is, the actions of the WBC are so horrific that decent people want to distance themselves from that kind of thinking. So many Nice Christians started to change how they spoke about being gay. But you are kidding yourself if you think being Gay isn't considered a sin and that gay people aren't told this almost every single day. The WBC is ugly but they haven't hurt or attacked anyone. They have just put a face to the insidious ugliness perpetuate by the Christians who continue to assert that a gay person shouldn't be allowed to get married because "God doesn't like ****"

You're no different than the people you're complaining about.

Piscivore · 18th July 2012, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

The WBC is ugly but they haven't hurt or attacked anyone.

You're equivocating now. WBC haven't physically attacked anyone (AFAIK), but if calling someone a name is harmful (and that's the "harm" you're claiming "nice Christians" do) then they are the worst. You're bitching about tooth decay and giving cancer a pass.

My mother works with several gay people, highly placed in a national bank (VP and up). My daughter's good friend is gay and out in HS, as was one of her teachers, and at least two of my son's bandmates. Prominent national figures are out and proud. You're simply not going to sell my this fantasy that it's still the 50's and gays have no choice but to hide or die.

Quote:

So many Nice Christians started to change how they spoke about being gay.

Yes- that's called progress. They are the ones that have to hide or face social reprobation now.

KlLLUMINATI · 18th July 2012, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

You're equivocating now. WBC haven't physically attacked anyone (AFAIK), but if calling someone a name is harmful (and that's the "harm" you're claiming "nice Christians" do) then they are the worst. You're bitching about tooth decay and giving cancer a pass.

My mother works with several gay people, highly placed in a national bank (VP and up). My daughter's good friend is gay and out in HS, as was one of her teachers, and at least two of my son's bandmates. Prominent national figures are out and proud. You're simply not going to sell my this fantasy that it's still the 50's and gays have no choice but to hide or die.

Yes- that's called progress. They are the ones that have to hide or face social opprobation now.

Its very clear that she has an agenda. Sad but true.

dasmiller · 18th July 2012, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by KlLLUMINATI

Its very clear that she has an agenda. Sad but true.

Nothing wrong with having an agenda.

If I disagreed with the goal, of course, then I might take issue, but if you're referring to truethat's goal of improving social conditions for gays etc, then I don't disagree.

If I felt that the means of pursuing that goal with deceitful or otherwise immoral, then I might take issue, but I don't think truethat is being particularly deceitful or immoral.

There are certainly areas in which truethat and I see things differently, but I think the quoted text has pejorative connotations that I don't think are warranted.

westprog · 18th July 2012, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by laca

That might have been so when people were allowed to attack others for being gay (or being of another race), but not in today's society. Openly attacking someone for being gay is against the law, so it's not so much an issue nowadays. Avoidance however is still very much an issue. It could be an interesting discussion as to which is actually doing more harm, but I think the difference is far from being "considerable".

There are still areas where persecution takes place, and it tends to be the same kind of thing whoever is bullying or being bullied. If a boy is the only gay in the school, he might well be picked on. The same can apply for any obvious minority - even Christians.

KlLLUMINATI · 18th July 2012, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by dasmiller

Nothing wrong with having an agenda.

If I disagreed with the goal, of course, then I might take issue, but if you're referring to truethat's goal of improving social conditions for gays etc, then I don't disagree.

If I felt that the means of pursuing that goal with deceitful or otherwise immoral, then I might take issue, but I don't think truethat is being particularly deceitful or immoral.

There are certainly areas in which truethat and I see things differently, but I think the quoted text has pejorative connotations that I don't think are warranted.

But her problem should be with homophobes and as far as I can tell thats not it.

Dinwar · 18th July 2012, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by dasmiller

If I disagreed with the goal, of course, then I might take issue, but if you're referring to truethat's goal of improving social conditions for gays etc, then I don't disagree.

Wait, so the goal is to help gays now? I thought it was to get people to stop using the word God when they meant Yhwh!

Originally Posted by truethat

Saying homosexuals have it easier these days because they can come out in Ballet is absolutely ridiculous. How many gay people do you know that are ballet dancers?

Being openly gay isn't easy, no. Then again, they're not being murdered anymore, which certainly makes it easier to be gay today than in the past. You can't be tossed out of work for being a homosexual anymore, but in the past it was expected that you be tossed out for being gay. There are many, many ways in which it's easier to be gay today than at almost any other time. It's just that "easier" doesn't mean "easy".

Quote:

But you are kidding yourself if you think being Gay isn't considered a sin and that gay people aren't told this almost every single day.

Not sure what churches you've gone to, but the ones I went to never really discussed it. They focused on abortion and the like. And while gay people are told their actions are a sin every day, so are a bunch of other people. I frequently get told I'm a follower of Satan because I study evolution. It's not nice, certainly, but I think we're all adults here and can admit that it's unreasonable to expect the world to be nice. Freedom of speach means that you have to put up with people saying they think you're wrong--even that they think you're evil. You'll never convince everyone that you're not.

And using Yhwh in place of God isn't going to help these people anyway, since most Christians in the pews already believe that Yhwh is another word for God. It's in a lot of the songs, one of which I quoted early on in this conversation, so it's not going to have much impact--if it was going to have an impact, it already would have had one.

dasmiller · 18th July 2012, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Wait, so the goal is to help gays now? I thought it was to get people to stop using the word God when they meant Yhwh!

I thought that the whole Yhwh thing was her way to move the political discussion, and the gay thing was one particular area that she wanted to affect.

Understand that I'm very dubious about her methodology, but the methodology wasn't the subject of Kil's post.

westprog · 18th July 2012, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by dasmiller

Nothing wrong with having an agenda.

If I disagreed with the goal, of course, then I might take issue, but if you're referring to truethat's goal of improving social conditions for gays etc, then I don't disagree.

If I felt that the means of pursuing that goal with deceitful or otherwise immoral, then I might take issue, but I don't think truethat is being particularly deceitful or immoral.

There are certainly areas in which truethat and I see things differently, but I think the quoted text has pejorative connotations that I don't think are warranted.

She is, however, making unsupported personal allegations and making the exact same kind of attacks that she claims to deplore. If she were in a position of authority and went off in that way over some person whose supposed beliefs she had issue with, it would be extremely unpleasant. It doesn't bother me, but that's because of the situation I happen to be in. For a vulnerable person, in a different context, it might be very upsetting to be told "shame shame shame on you" over something never actually claimed.

Dinwar · 18th July 2012, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by dasmiller

I thought that the whole Yhwh thing was her way to move the political discussion, and the gay thing was one particular area that she wanted to affect.

My point was more to illustrate the fact that the intent of this thread has meandered more than an old-age stream.

Quote:

Understand that I'm very dubious about her methodology,

If you weren't, I'd be worried.

Changing one word in an essentially pointless way (meaning that the majority of the Christians already know and accept the name) isn't going to change anything about how homosexuals are treated. A much better method has been used by the homosexual movement in recent years: push people to change how homosexuals are treated. The Civil Rights Movement gave us a pretty good template to follow when it comes to enacting social change in America; why abandon it in favor of something as unsupported as this methodology?

dasmiller · 18th July 2012, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

She is, however, making unsupported personal allegations and making the exact same kind of attacks that she claims to deplore.

That would be one of the areas in which truethat and I see things differently.

Piscivore · 18th July 2012, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by dasmiller

Nothing wrong with having an agenda.

If I disagreed with the goal, of course, then I might take issue, but if you're referring to truethat's goal of improving social conditions for gays etc, then I don't disagree.

The problem is she seems less interested in improving social conditions for homosexuals than she does using their problems as a black mark against Christians; thus the hyperbole, the handwringing, and the reluctance to look at the problems gays are currently experiencing in an objective, evidenced manner.

http://www.timschraeder.com/2010/06/...-at-gay-pride/
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...k-page-wsoc-tv
http://perezhilton.com/2011-06-14-om...-gay-community

... Yeah, it's those dirty "Nice Christians" that are the real problem.

KlLLUMINATI · 18th July 2012, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

The problem is she seems less interested in improving social conditions for homosexuals than she does using their problems as a black mark against Christians; thus the hyperbole, the handwringing, and the reluctance to look at the problems gays are currently experiencing in an objective, evidenced manner.

http://www.timschraeder.com/2010/06/...-at-gay-pride/
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...k-page-wsoc-tv
http://perezhilton.com/2011-06-14-om...-gay-community

... Yeah, it's those dirty "Nice Christians" that are the real problem.

I was not trying to be funny when I said she might be starting to crack.

westprog · 18th July 2012, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by dasmiller

That would be one of the areas in which truethat and I see things differently.

I certainly don't mean to imply any guilt by association.

truethat · 18th July 2012, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by KlLLUMINATI

You're no different than the people you're complaining about.

Of course I'm not. Do you know how many times I've heard a religious person say that my anger towards their bigotry is my own form of bigotry? I mean it would be downright laughable it it wasn't so seriously said.

Originally Posted by dasmiller

Nothing wrong with having an agenda.

If I disagreed with the goal, of course, then I might take issue, but if you're referring to truethat's goal of improving social conditions for gays etc, then I don't disagree.

If I felt that the means of pursuing that goal with deceitful or otherwise immoral, then I might take issue, but I don't think truethat is being particularly deceitful or immoral.

There are certainly areas in which truethat and I see things differently, but I think the quoted text has pejorative connotations that I don't think are warranted.

It doesn't thanks for your reading comprehension skills, they seem slow going these days.

Originally Posted by dasmiller

I thought that the whole Yhwh thing was her way to move the political discussion, and the gay thing was one particular area that she wanted to affect.

Understand that I'm very dubious about her methodology, but the methodology wasn't the subject of Kil's post.

Originally Posted by westprog

She is, however, making unsupported personal allegations and making the exact same kind of attacks that she claims to deplore. If she were in a position of authority and went off in that way over some person whose supposed beliefs she had issue with, it would be extremely unpleasant. It doesn't bother me, but that's because of the situation I happen to be in. For a vulnerable person, in a different context, it might be very upsetting to be told "shame shame shame on you" over something never actually claimed.

Oh but they do claim it, they pretend they don't. They say they have no problem with gay people as long as they don't try to get married or join the boyscouts or kiss their partner in public or any other thing that actually lets people around them know they are gay. You know, because being gay is ok, but acting gay is a problem.

This has gone off topic but I cop to having an agenda in this regard. However that's not what this thread is about so I won't respond to any more comments about homosexuality because it's a different topic.

My point in this thread is the same as it has always been. Several people have gotten it, the one I think best explains it, is the one that refers to God as a meme.

IOW by not clarifying that if a person (Please note that I have stated a specific thing several times and those with poor reading comprehension skills have attempted to turn it into a generalized statement. It is a specific statement.) is talking about the God of the Bible then they are talking about Yhwh.

It doesn't mean the person themselves professes to believe in Yhwh or that they accept the pantheon etc. It does mean that if we are talking about the biblical God, then this particular God has some very specific parameters.

Ex. A Deist god would be one that set things in motion and let it go. A Deist god doesn't interact with it's creation via sacred texts such as the Torah or the Bible or the Qur'an.

That god cannot be proven to not exist.

However Yhwh (the God of the Torah, Bible and Qur'an) has a very documented history that we can examine when discussing his existence.

KlLLUMINATI · 18th July 2012, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Of course I'm not. Do you know how many times I've heard a religious person say that my anger towards their bigotry is my own form of bigotry? I mean it would be downright laughable it it wasn't so seriously said.

It doesn't thanks for your reading comprehension skills, they seem slow going these days.

Oh but they do claim it, they pretend they don't. They say they have no problem with gay people as long as they don't try to get married or join the boyscouts or kiss their partner in public or any other thing that actually lets people around them know they are gay. You know, because being gay is ok, but acting gay is a problem.

This has gone off topic but I cop to having an agenda in this regard. However that's not what this thread is about so I won't respond to any more comments about homosexuality because it's a different topic.

My point in this thread is the same as it has always been. Several people have gotten it, the one I think best explains it, is the one that refers to God as a meme.

IOW by not clarifying that if a person (Please note that I have stated a specific thing several times and those with poor reading comprehension skills have attempted to turn it into a generalized statement. It is a specific statement.) is talking about the God of the Bible then they are talking about Yhwh.

It doesn't mean the person themselves professes to believe in Yhwh or that they accept the pantheon etc. It does mean that if we are talking about the biblical God, then this particular God has some very specific parameters.

Ex. A Deist god would be one that set things in motion and let it go. A Deist god doesn't interact with it's creation via sacred texts such as the Torah or the Bible or the Qur'an.

That god cannot be proven to not exist.

However Yhwh (the God of the Torah, Bible and Qur'an) has a very documented history that we can examine when discussing his existence.

So are you saying you can prove that God (Yhwh as you would like God to be called) does not exist?

Dinwar · 18th July 2012, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

It doesn't thanks for your reading comprehension skills, they seem slow going these days.

Do you have any responses other than to insult people? I'm genuinely curious--it seems to be your standard method of dealing with disagreement.

Piscivore · 18th July 2012, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by KlLLUMINATI

So are you saying you can prove that God (Yhwh as you would like God to be called) does not exist?

No, the opposite. She feels she can prove that the Yhwh of the Ugaritic texts is mythical and has elements in common with the god of the bible, so she wants anyone who references the bible in their faith to therefore "admit" to being Yhwh worshippers so she can dispose of Christianity, once and for all.

KlLLUMINATI · 18th July 2012, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

No, the opposite. She feels she can prove that the Yhwh of the Ugaritic texts is mythical and has elements in common with the god of the bible, so she wants anyone who references the bible in their faith to therefore "admit" to being Yhwh worshippers so she can dispose of Christianity, once and for all.

Darn I thought I was going to be able to watch her make an attempt ehhh

Piscivore · 18th July 2012, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

IOW by not clarifying that if a person is talking about the God of the Bible then they are talking about Yhwh.

And that's the part that's not factual.

KlLLUMINATI · 18th July 2012, 10:33 AM

I am glad I stumbled upon this forum because I have learned that the misconceptions I had about atheists are not true. This is a good thing because I can correct the ignorant arguments that I see daily about you guys. I now know that there will be good and bad people in every group I think that the group does not make the person its the people that make the group. Anyway I thank you guys for the knowledge I have gained from just reading the posts and I am now going to back away from using this forum.
THX again........

truethat · 18th July 2012, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

And that's the part that's not factual.

Why not? You keep saying this as if it's true. Why is it not factual?

truethat · 18th July 2012, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

No, the opposite. She feels she can prove that the Yhwh of the Ugaritic texts is mythical and has elements in common with the god of the bible, so she wants anyone who references the bible in their faith to therefore "admit" to being Yhwh worshippers so she can dispose of Christianity, once and for all.

Nope.

truethat · 18th July 2012, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by KlLLUMINATI

So are you saying you can prove that God (Yhwh as you would like God to be called) does not exist?

Yes. If we're talking about God as Yhwh I think the same reasons we don't believe in Zeus can be applied to Yhwh.

If we are talking about a different version of God, then no I can't prove that this God doesn't exist. Only if we are discussing Yhwh. If you are not talking about Yhwh then we're having a different discussion. The logic I would apply to Yhwh not existing doesn't work except in that particular discussion.

tsig · 18th July 2012, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Yes. If we're talking about God as Yhwh I think the same reasons we don't believe in Zeus can be applied to Yhwh.

If we are talking about a different version of God, then no I can't prove that this God doesn't exist. Only if we are discussing Yhwh. If you are not talking about Yhwh then we're having a different discussion. The logic I would apply to Yhwh not existing doesn't work except in that particular discussion.

You still believe in the magic power of words?

Dinwar · 18th July 2012, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Why not? You keep saying this as if it's true. Why is it not factual?

You insist that the Yhwh they believe in is the Yhwh depicted in the Canaanite pantheon. This is every bit as true as saying that I have gills and a tail because my ancestors were at one point fish. Yhwh has evolved over time, and Christians can explain that easily, as I've repeatedly pointed out. THINGS CHANGE OVER TIME. That's a factor you've yet to address.

Furthermore, just because YOU acknowledge that "the God of the Bible" is Yhwh doesn't mean that everyone else does. Some people are, frankly, woefully misinformed about what the Bible says, and therefore don't actually believe in Yhwh. Thus, when they say "God" you cannot assume they may the Yhwh you understand them to be talking about.

truethat · 18th July 2012, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

You insist that the Yhwh they believe in is the Yhwh depicted in the Canaanite pantheon. This is every bit as true as saying that I have gills and a tail because my ancestors were at one point fish. Yhwh has evolved over time, and Christians can explain that easily, as I've repeatedly pointed out. THINGS CHANGE OVER TIME. That's a factor you've yet to address.

Furthermore, just because YOU acknowledge that "the God of the Bible" is Yhwh doesn't mean that everyone else does. Some people are, frankly, woefully misinformed about what the Bible says, and therefore don't actually believe in Yhwh. Thus, when they say "God" you cannot assume they may the Yhwh you understand them to be talking about.

No I don't. I mean seriously NO I DON'T How many times do I have to say this before it's going to sink in.

I ask them what they believe.

You know what's funny, the entire thread is based on making a distinction in what a person actually believes, and yet you STILL insist that I'm telling them what they believe.

It's like you can't grasp such an incredibly simple concept because you started off reading with bias.

You have consistently told me what I'm saying and I keep saying NO I am not saying that, but then you ignore that and move forward as if I did indeed say that and meant it.

It's seriously weird.

GeeMack · 18th July 2012, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

No, the opposite. She feels she can prove that the Yhwh of the Ugaritic texts is mythical and has elements in common with the god of the bible, so she wants anyone who references the bible in their faith to therefore "admit" to being Yhwh worshippers so she can dispose of Christianity, once and for all.

Exactly. It's the same stupid "gotchya" that fundies use. It's just as irrational and it's just as dishonest.

Piscivore · 18th July 2012, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Why not? You keep saying this as if it's true. Why is it not factual?

I've explained it several times. People's ideas about the bible- and the characters in it, including god- are not related to and do not depend on the document's archeologic, anthropological, or academic precursors. Those ideas have evolved over time, the same way other cultural ideas do and demonstrably have. The Council of Nicea invalidates the crux of you assertion; the council picked and chose what they wanted to include in the bible at that time, according to their beliefs at the time, discarding entire works. Modern Christians do the same, only they do so on an individual basis.

Your teachers told you this in your description of the class in the OP; you somehow failed to learn it.

truethat · 18th July 2012, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

I've explained it several times. People's ideas about the bible- and the characters in it, including god- are not related to and do not depend on the document's archeologic, anthropological, or academic precursors. Those ideas have evolved over time, the same way other cultural ideas do and demonstrably have. The Council of Nicea invalidates the crux of you assertion; the council picked and chose what they wanted to include in the bible at that time, according to their beliefs at the time, discarding entire works. Modern Christians do the same, only they do so on an individual basis.

Your teachers told you this in your description of the class in the OP; you somehow failed to learn it.

Not all modern Christians do this. You seriously think there are no people who take the Bible as the word of a God? You don't know some people actually believe that the earth is 6,000 years old? And that people walked with dinosaurs?

Of course it's individual but it's also about people who follow different beliefs as part of a sect. If a person wants to argue for literal interpretation of the Bible and Biblical inerrancy then they are talking about Yhwh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism

This is great! LMAO!!

GeeMack · 18th July 2012, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

No I don't. I mean seriously NO I DON'T How many times do I have to say this before it's going to sink in.

I ~~ask~~ tell them what they believe.

There. Fixed your lie.

Originally Posted by truethat

It's a simple thing to fix, when they are discussing the Bible, stop referring to God and start referring to Yhwh.

Originally Posted by truethat

The reason I think it is important to use the name Yhwh instead God is because, as I said, God is a vague sort of Deist god to most of these people. They don't really believe in Yhwh, they just think they do out of habit.

Originally Posted by truethat

The concept of God versus god is very important. When I see people discussing God, I know in general they mean Yhwh (el "god" El God) and it's important to point out this distinction.

Telling people they don't really believe what they think they believe is just as arrogant and dishonest now as it was when you first proposed it. And it will continue to be arrogant and dishonest every time you propose it from now on.

GeeMack · 18th July 2012, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Not all modern Christians do this. You seriously think there are no people who take the Bible as the word of a God? You don't know some people actually believe that the earth is 6,000 years old? And that people walked with dinosaurs?

Of course it's individual but it's also about people who follow different beliefs as part of a sect. If a person wants to argue for literal interpretation of the Bible and Biblical inerrancy then they are talking about Yhwh.

No, they are talking about the god they believe exists. They are not talking about the god you declare they believe exists. It doesn't matter how often you make that stupid unsupported assertion, you will continue to be wrong.

truethat · 18th July 2012, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

No, they are talking about the god they believe exists. They are not talking about the god you declare they believe exists. It doesn't matter how often you make that stupid unsupported assertion, you will continue to be wrong.

I'm assuming you have never had a discussion with a Young Earth Creationist. Because there's no other excuse for your interpretation of what I'm saying that makes any sense at all.

Also irony abounds, since the debate you and I had in another thread was you telling a person who didn't believe in God that he was definitely an atheist, because that's what your definition of an atheist was.

You insisted this for pages. Pages and pages and now you are calling me "arrogant" for doing the same thing?

Except I'm not doing anything of the sort. Projection much?

Piscivore · 18th July 2012, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Nope.

Uh... YES:

Originally Posted by truethat

Stop arguing about God when you are really arguing about Yhwh.

When you use the term God instead of Yhwh you are essentially digging up the goal posts for Yhwh believers and helping them move them

Stop using the word God when you are discussing Yhwh.

Originally Posted by truethat

If we are talking about Biblical tradition in the line of JudeoChristianIslamic beliefs we are discussing ONE SPECIFIC GOD.

People have said to me many times that I can't prove that GOD doesn't exist.

I can't prove that God doesn't exist if God is some abstract concept. But if we are talking about Yhwh, the god of the Biblical tradition then YES I CAN.

Originally Posted by truethat

When I see people discussing God, I know in general they mean Yhwh (el "god" El God)...

Originally Posted by truethat

I know "in general" as I stated that they are talking about Yhwh. If they aren't they quickly make it known.

I stand by my statement. People in the United States more often use the term God (not god) when they are discussing Yhwh.

On a message board it's quite easy to write god instead of God. The capital G usually means Yhwh. The same with el and El.

Originally Posted by truethat

The distinction is important to me, because Yhwh has been proven not to exist. We' can't prove that the idea of God is false or that God doesn't exist.

But we can prove that Yhwh doesn't exist. This needs to be moved into public consciousness.

Originally Posted by truethat

Exactly and flushing this out is part of the paradigm shift that IMO if it occurs will, in the future, begin to deconstruct these beliefs into the myths they are.

Originally Posted by truethat

Why do we not want Christians to feel "uncomfortable' when discussing a made up belief system? They should feel uncomfortable. We want them to stop it so instead of enabling them we need to get real.

Dinwar · 18th July 2012, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Also irony abounds, since the debate you and I had in another thread was you telling a person who didn't believe in God that he was definitely an atheist, because that's what your definition of an atheist was.

You insisted this for pages. Pages and pages and now you are calling me "arrogant" for doing the same thing?

This is nowhere near the same thing. Atheist means "one who does not believe in any gods". If you don't beleive in gods, you're an atheist; simple as that. Whether you like to be called that or not is irrelevant. It's not dealing with beliefs, but with labels.

This is entirely different from saying that someone believes in a god they do not believe in. The believer in question has a specific belief, and you're saying that they don't actually have that belief, they REALLY have this OTHER belief. This isn't dealing with labels, it's dealing with specific beliefs.

Quote:

I'm assuming you have never had a discussion with a Young Earth Creationist. Because there's no other excuse for your interpretation of what I'm saying that makes any sense at all.

No, you flat-out stated it:

Originally Posted by truethat

The concept of God versus god is very important. When I see people discussing God, I know in general they mean Yhwh (el "god" El God) and it's important to point out this distinction.

Our point is that you DON'T know that they mean Yhwh, you ASSUME they mean Yhwh. And then you further assume that that Yhwh is the same Yhwh as the Canaanite one, despite it demonstrably not being the same (the modern version may have originated as the Canaanite Yhwh, but it's NOT currently that god).

17th July 2012, 05:21 PM	#721
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	Originally Posted by JoeBentley Well I don't agree with Truehat on much including his overall point in general, his point about rationlization of behavior via the "Well I'm not one of the bad X" mode of thinking is dead on in my opinion. At times the worst damage extremists do isn't in what they do, it's in making the more mainstream damage seem rosey by comparison. Thank you once again. I needed the intelligent reprieve.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

18th July 2012, 03:19 AM	#722
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by Piscivore As once did Christians. I'll take the ones harbouring their little hates in secret, never expressed, any day. Because homophobia is losing, and cultural evolution is selecting them out, and the quiet ones are the ones doing little to no damage on the way out the door. Their children are living in a culture where gays are mainstream, portrayed as regular people, people of value. Truethat wails and beats her breast for the gays that might lose a job or be made uncomfortable in social situations, and that's too bad; but not being liked is something we all face for one reason or another. Compare that to Alan Turing or Matthew Shepard or Oscar Wilde- or the ludicrous caricatures that were staples in our culture within my lifetime- Levar from "Revenge of the Nerds" and the Blue Oyster Bar in "Police Academy". That was my generation's contribution to "the gay question". My kids' generation- they created "It gets better". "Kinder gentler Christians who Tolerate Homosexuals are no different than those Kinder Gentler Christians who tolerated gay marriage years ago." She's right... they were/are tolerant. I fail to see that as a bad thing. She seems to demand not just tolerance, but complete orthodoxy to her own views before she'll withhold her scorn. I'm not impressed by her crocodile tears. I don't claim that people who avoid gays (or people of other races, or any other group) do no harm. However, it's quite obvious that they do less harm - considerably less harm - than the people who insult and attack them. The shift in society didn't happen due to everybody saying "being gay is something with no moral issues whatsoever, and gay people should be fully accepted into society". The people who thought that homosexuality was a sin deserving of condign punishment became fewer. The people who thought that it was a private matter that they had no right to interfere in became greater in number. The kind of abuse promulgated by the WBC became unacceptable in polite society. The fact remains that there are environments where this hasn't happened, or has happened to a lesser extent. Being gay in say, a New York ballet company isn't the same thing as being gay in an Iowa high school. The differences in approach can be huge between different classes and ethnic groups. How things get moved along is a significant issue, but I don't see the Truehat "anyone who disagrees with me is evil!" approach being very productive. It looks very like a mirror image of the intolerance supposedly being opposed.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

18th July 2012, 03:34 AM	#723
laca Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 3,161	Originally Posted by westprog I don't claim that people who avoid gays (or people of other races, or any other group) do no harm. However, it's quite obvious that they do less harm - considerably less harm - than the people who insult and attack them. That might have been so when people were allowed to attack others for being gay (or being of another race), but not in today's society. Openly attacking someone for being gay is against the law, so it's not so much an issue nowadays. Avoidance however is still very much an issue. It could be an interesting discussion as to which is actually doing more harm, but I think the difference is far from being "considerable".
laca Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 3,161

18th July 2012, 04:30 AM	#724
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	It's definitely far from being considerable. Muslims and Jews as well and any other but since we're talking about Christians here I'm staying with Christians. Saying homosexuals have it easier these days because they can come out in Ballet is absolutely ridiculous. How many gay people do you know that are ballet dancers? The thing is, the actions of the WBC are so horrific that decent people want to distance themselves from that kind of thinking. So many Nice Christians started to change how they spoke about being gay. But you are kidding yourself if you think being Gay isn't considered a sin and that gay people aren't told this almost every single day. The WBC is ugly but they haven't hurt or attacked anyone. They have just put a face to the insidious ugliness perpetuate by the Christians who continue to assert that a gay person shouldn't be allowed to get married because "God doesn't like ****"
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain Last edited by truethat; 18th July 2012 at 04:44 AM.

18th July 2012, 07:41 AM	#727
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,476	Originally Posted by truethat The WBC is ugly but they haven't hurt or attacked anyone. You're equivocating now. WBC haven't physically attacked anyone (AFAIK), but if calling someone a name is harmful (and that's the "harm" you're claiming "nice Christians" do) then they are the worst. You're bitching about tooth decay and giving cancer a pass. My mother works with several gay people, highly placed in a national bank (VP and up). My daughter's good friend is gay and out in HS, as was one of her teachers, and at least two of my son's bandmates. Prominent national figures are out and proud. You're simply not going to sell my this fantasy that it's still the 50's and gays have no choice but to hide or die. Quote: So many Nice Christians started to change how they spoke about being gay. Yes- that's called progress. They are the ones that have to hide or face social reprobation now.
	__________________ Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Take his fish away and tell him he's lucky just to be alive, and he'll figure out how to catch another one for you to take tomorrow. "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen Last edited by Piscivore; 18th July 2012 at 08:04 AM.

18th July 2012, 04:41 AM	#725
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,186	Originally Posted by truethat But you are kidding yourself if you think being Gay isn't considered a sin and that gay people aren't told this almost every single day. Yeah, sure, they're being told that by people who have the audacity to tell other people they don't really believe what they think they believe. But haven't we pretty much agreed that's a despicable and dishonest way to treat other people and a lousy strategy for changing a paradigm?

18th July 2012, 07:02 AM	#726
KlLLUMINATI Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 477	Originally Posted by truethat It's definitely far from being considerable. Muslims and Jews as well and any other but since we're talking about Christians here I'm staying with Christians. Saying homosexuals have it easier these days because they can come out in Ballet is absolutely ridiculous. How many gay people do you know that are ballet dancers? The thing is, the actions of the WBC are so horrific that decent people want to distance themselves from that kind of thinking. So many Nice Christians started to change how they spoke about being gay. But you are kidding yourself if you think being Gay isn't considered a sin and that gay people aren't told this almost every single day. The WBC is ugly but they haven't hurt or attacked anyone. They have just put a face to the insidious ugliness perpetuate by the Christians who continue to assert that a gay person shouldn't be allowed to get married because "God doesn't like ****" You're no different than the people you're complaining about.

18th July 2012, 07:49 AM	#728
KlLLUMINATI Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 477	Originally Posted by Piscivore You're equivocating now. WBC haven't physically attacked anyone (AFAIK), but if calling someone a name is harmful (and that's the "harm" you're claiming "nice Christians" do) then they are the worst. You're bitching about tooth decay and giving cancer a pass. My mother works with several gay people, highly placed in a national bank (VP and up). My daughter's good friend is gay and out in HS, as was one of her teachers, and at least two of my son's bandmates. Prominent national figures are out and proud. You're simply not going to sell my this fantasy that it's still the 50's and gays have no choice but to hide or die. Yes- that's called progress. They are the ones that have to hide or face social opprobation now. Its very clear that she has an agenda. Sad but true.

18th July 2012, 08:26 AM	#729
dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon Posts: 3,464	Originally Posted by KlLLUMINATI Its very clear that she has an agenda. Sad but true. Nothing wrong with having an agenda. If I disagreed with the goal, of course, then I might take issue, but if you're referring to truethat's goal of improving social conditions for gays etc, then I don't disagree. If I felt that the means of pursuing that goal with deceitful or otherwise immoral, then I might take issue, but I don't think truethat is being particularly deceitful or immoral. There are certainly areas in which truethat and I see things differently, but I think the quoted text has pejorative connotations that I don't think are warranted.
	__________________ "In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt

18th July 2012, 08:28 AM	#730
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by laca That might have been so when people were allowed to attack others for being gay (or being of another race), but not in today's society. Openly attacking someone for being gay is against the law, so it's not so much an issue nowadays. Avoidance however is still very much an issue. It could be an interesting discussion as to which is actually doing more harm, but I think the difference is far from being "considerable". There are still areas where persecution takes place, and it tends to be the same kind of thing whoever is bullying or being bullied. If a boy is the only gay in the school, he might well be picked on. The same can apply for any obvious minority - even Christians.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

18th July 2012, 08:33 AM	#731
KlLLUMINATI Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 477	Originally Posted by dasmiller Nothing wrong with having an agenda. If I disagreed with the goal, of course, then I might take issue, but if you're referring to truethat's goal of improving social conditions for gays etc, then I don't disagree. If I felt that the means of pursuing that goal with deceitful or otherwise immoral, then I might take issue, but I don't think truethat is being particularly deceitful or immoral. There are certainly areas in which truethat and I see things differently, but I think the quoted text has pejorative connotations that I don't think are warranted. But her problem should be with homophobes and as far as I can tell thats not it.

18th July 2012, 08:46 AM	#732
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,960	Originally Posted by dasmiller If I disagreed with the goal, of course, then I might take issue, but if you're referring to truethat's goal of improving social conditions for gays etc, then I don't disagree. Wait, so the goal is to help gays now? I thought it was to get people to stop using the word God when they meant Yhwh! Originally Posted by truethat Saying homosexuals have it easier these days because they can come out in Ballet is absolutely ridiculous. How many gay people do you know that are ballet dancers? Being openly gay isn't easy, no. Then again, they're not being murdered anymore, which certainly makes it easier to be gay today than in the past. You can't be tossed out of work for being a homosexual anymore, but in the past it was expected that you be tossed out for being gay. There are many, many ways in which it's easier to be gay today than at almost any other time. It's just that "easier" doesn't mean "easy". Quote: But you are kidding yourself if you think being Gay isn't considered a sin and that gay people aren't told this almost every single day. Not sure what churches you've gone to, but the ones I went to never really discussed it. They focused on abortion and the like. And while gay people are told their actions are a sin every day, so are a bunch of other people. I frequently get told I'm a follower of Satan because I study evolution. It's not nice, certainly, but I think we're all adults here and can admit that it's unreasonable to expect the world to be nice. Freedom of speach means that you have to put up with people saying they think you're wrong--even that they think you're evil. You'll never convince everyone that you're not. And using Yhwh in place of God isn't going to help these people anyway, since most Christians in the pews already believe that Yhwh is another word for God. It's in a lot of the songs, one of which I quoted early on in this conversation, so it's not going to have much impact--if it was going to have an impact, it already would have had one.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,960	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

18th July 2012, 08:54 AM	#733
dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon Posts: 3,464	Originally Posted by Dinwar Wait, so the goal is to help gays now? I thought it was to get people to stop using the word God when they meant Yhwh! I thought that the whole Yhwh thing was her way to move the political discussion, and the gay thing was one particular area that she wanted to affect. Understand that I'm very dubious about her methodology, but the methodology wasn't the subject of Kil's post.
	__________________ "In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt

18th July 2012, 08:57 AM	#734
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by dasmiller Nothing wrong with having an agenda. If I disagreed with the goal, of course, then I might take issue, but if you're referring to truethat's goal of improving social conditions for gays etc, then I don't disagree. If I felt that the means of pursuing that goal with deceitful or otherwise immoral, then I might take issue, but I don't think truethat is being particularly deceitful or immoral. There are certainly areas in which truethat and I see things differently, but I think the quoted text has pejorative connotations that I don't think are warranted. She is, however, making unsupported personal allegations and making the exact same kind of attacks that she claims to deplore. If she were in a position of authority and went off in that way over some person whose supposed beliefs she had issue with, it would be extremely unpleasant. It doesn't bother me, but that's because of the situation I happen to be in. For a vulnerable person, in a different context, it might be very upsetting to be told "shame shame shame on you" over something never actually claimed.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

18th July 2012, 09:04 AM	#735
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,960	Originally Posted by dasmiller I thought that the whole Yhwh thing was her way to move the political discussion, and the gay thing was one particular area that she wanted to affect. My point was more to illustrate the fact that the intent of this thread has meandered more than an old-age stream. Quote: Understand that I'm very dubious about her methodology, If you weren't, I'd be worried. Changing one word in an essentially pointless way (meaning that the majority of the Christians already know and accept the name) isn't going to change anything about how homosexuals are treated. A much better method has been used by the homosexual movement in recent years: push people to change how homosexuals are treated. The Civil Rights Movement gave us a pretty good template to follow when it comes to enacting social change in America; why abandon it in favor of something as unsupported as this methodology?
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,960	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

18th July 2012, 09:20 AM	#736
dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon Posts: 3,464	Originally Posted by westprog She is, however, making unsupported personal allegations and making the exact same kind of attacks that she claims to deplore. That would be one of the areas in which truethat and I see things differently.
	__________________ "In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt

18th July 2012, 09:30 AM	#737
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,476	Originally Posted by dasmiller Nothing wrong with having an agenda. If I disagreed with the goal, of course, then I might take issue, but if you're referring to truethat's goal of improving social conditions for gays etc, then I don't disagree. The problem is she seems less interested in improving social conditions for homosexuals than she does using their problems as a black mark against Christians; thus the hyperbole, the handwringing, and the reluctance to look at the problems gays are currently experiencing in an objective, evidenced manner. http://www.timschraeder.com/2010/06/...-at-gay-pride/ http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...k-page-wsoc-tv http://perezhilton.com/2011-06-14-om...-gay-community ... Yeah, it's those dirty "Nice Christians" that are the real problem.
	__________________ Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Take his fish away and tell him he's lucky just to be alive, and he'll figure out how to catch another one for you to take tomorrow. "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen Last edited by Piscivore; 18th July 2012 at 09:34 AM.

18th July 2012, 09:36 AM	#738
KlLLUMINATI Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 477	Originally Posted by Piscivore The problem is she seems less interested in improving social conditions for homosexuals than she does using their problems as a black mark against Christians; thus the hyperbole, the handwringing, and the reluctance to look at the problems gays are currently experiencing in an objective, evidenced manner. http://www.timschraeder.com/2010/06/...-at-gay-pride/ http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...k-page-wsoc-tv http://perezhilton.com/2011-06-14-om...-gay-community ... Yeah, it's those dirty "Nice Christians" that are the real problem. I was not trying to be funny when I said she might be starting to crack.

18th July 2012, 09:39 AM	#739
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by dasmiller That would be one of the areas in which truethat and I see things differently. I certainly don't mean to imply any guilt by association.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

18th July 2012, 10:00 AM	#740
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	Originally Posted by KlLLUMINATI You're no different than the people you're complaining about. Of course I'm not. Do you know how many times I've heard a religious person say that my anger towards their bigotry is my own form of bigotry? I mean it would be downright laughable it it wasn't so seriously said. Originally Posted by dasmiller Nothing wrong with having an agenda. If I disagreed with the goal, of course, then I might take issue, but if you're referring to truethat's goal of improving social conditions for gays etc, then I don't disagree. If I felt that the means of pursuing that goal with deceitful or otherwise immoral, then I might take issue, but I don't think truethat is being particularly deceitful or immoral. There are certainly areas in which truethat and I see things differently, but I think the quoted text has pejorative connotations that I don't think are warranted. It doesn't thanks for your reading comprehension skills, they seem slow going these days. Originally Posted by dasmiller I thought that the whole Yhwh thing was her way to move the political discussion, and the gay thing was one particular area that she wanted to affect. Understand that I'm very dubious about her methodology, but the methodology wasn't the subject of Kil's post. Originally Posted by westprog She is, however, making unsupported personal allegations and making the exact same kind of attacks that she claims to deplore. If she were in a position of authority and went off in that way over some person whose supposed beliefs she had issue with, it would be extremely unpleasant. It doesn't bother me, but that's because of the situation I happen to be in. For a vulnerable person, in a different context, it might be very upsetting to be told "shame shame shame on you" over something never actually claimed. Oh but they do claim it, they pretend they don't. They say they have no problem with gay people as long as they don't try to get married or join the boyscouts or kiss their partner in public or any other thing that actually lets people around them know they are gay. You know, because being gay is ok, but acting gay is a problem. This has gone off topic but I cop to having an agenda in this regard. However that's not what this thread is about so I won't respond to any more comments about homosexuality because it's a different topic. My point in this thread is the same as it has always been. Several people have gotten it, the one I think best explains it, is the one that refers to God as a meme. IOW by not clarifying that if a person (Please note that I have stated a specific thing several times and those with poor reading comprehension skills have attempted to turn it into a generalized statement. It is a specific statement.) is talking about the God of the Bible then they are talking about Yhwh. It doesn't mean the person themselves professes to believe in Yhwh or that they accept the pantheon etc. It does mean that if we are talking about the biblical God, then this particular God has some very specific parameters. Ex. A Deist god would be one that set things in motion and let it go. A Deist god doesn't interact with it's creation via sacred texts such as the Torah or the Bible or the Qur'an. That god cannot be proven to not exist. However Yhwh (the God of the Torah, Bible and Qur'an) has a very documented history that we can examine when discussing his existence.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

18th July 2012, 10:05 AM	#741
KlLLUMINATI Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 477	Originally Posted by truethat Of course I'm not. Do you know how many times I've heard a religious person say that my anger towards their bigotry is my own form of bigotry? I mean it would be downright laughable it it wasn't so seriously said. It doesn't thanks for your reading comprehension skills, they seem slow going these days. Oh but they do claim it, they pretend they don't. They say they have no problem with gay people as long as they don't try to get married or join the boyscouts or kiss their partner in public or any other thing that actually lets people around them know they are gay. You know, because being gay is ok, but acting gay is a problem. This has gone off topic but I cop to having an agenda in this regard. However that's not what this thread is about so I won't respond to any more comments about homosexuality because it's a different topic. My point in this thread is the same as it has always been. Several people have gotten it, the one I think best explains it, is the one that refers to God as a meme. IOW by not clarifying that if a person (Please note that I have stated a specific thing several times and those with poor reading comprehension skills have attempted to turn it into a generalized statement. It is a specific statement.) is talking about the God of the Bible then they are talking about Yhwh. It doesn't mean the person themselves professes to believe in Yhwh or that they accept the pantheon etc. It does mean that if we are talking about the biblical God, then this particular God has some very specific parameters. Ex. A Deist god would be one that set things in motion and let it go. A Deist god doesn't interact with it's creation via sacred texts such as the Torah or the Bible or the Qur'an. That god cannot be proven to not exist. However Yhwh (the God of the Torah, Bible and Qur'an) has a very documented history that we can examine when discussing his existence. So are you saying you can prove that God (Yhwh as you would like God to be called) does not exist?

18th July 2012, 10:10 AM	#742
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,960	Originally Posted by truethat It doesn't thanks for your reading comprehension skills, they seem slow going these days. Do you have any responses other than to insult people? I'm genuinely curious--it seems to be your standard method of dealing with disagreement.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,960	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

18th July 2012, 10:11 AM	#743
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,476	Originally Posted by KlLLUMINATI So are you saying you can prove that God (Yhwh as you would like God to be called) does not exist? No, the opposite. She feels she can prove that the Yhwh of the Ugaritic texts is mythical and has elements in common with the god of the bible, so she wants anyone who references the bible in their faith to therefore "admit" to being Yhwh worshippers so she can dispose of Christianity, once and for all.
	__________________ Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Take his fish away and tell him he's lucky just to be alive, and he'll figure out how to catch another one for you to take tomorrow. "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

18th July 2012, 10:16 AM	#744
KlLLUMINATI Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 477	Originally Posted by Piscivore No, the opposite. She feels she can prove that the Yhwh of the Ugaritic texts is mythical and has elements in common with the god of the bible, so she wants anyone who references the bible in their faith to therefore "admit" to being Yhwh worshippers so she can dispose of Christianity, once and for all. Darn I thought I was going to be able to watch her make an attempt ehhh

18th July 2012, 10:16 AM	#745
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,476	Originally Posted by truethat IOW by not clarifying that if a person is talking about the God of the Bible then they are talking about Yhwh. And that's the part that's not factual.
	__________________ Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Take his fish away and tell him he's lucky just to be alive, and he'll figure out how to catch another one for you to take tomorrow. "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

18th July 2012, 10:33 AM	#746
KlLLUMINATI Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 477	I am glad I stumbled upon this forum because I have learned that the misconceptions I had about atheists are not true. This is a good thing because I can correct the ignorant arguments that I see daily about you guys. I now know that there will be good and bad people in every group I think that the group does not make the person its the people that make the group. Anyway I thank you guys for the knowledge I have gained from just reading the posts and I am now going to back away from using this forum. THX again........

18th July 2012, 10:33 AM	#747
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	Originally Posted by Piscivore And that's the part that's not factual. Why not? You keep saying this as if it's true. Why is it not factual?
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

18th July 2012, 10:34 AM	#748
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	Originally Posted by Piscivore No, the opposite. She feels she can prove that the Yhwh of the Ugaritic texts is mythical and has elements in common with the god of the bible, so she wants anyone who references the bible in their faith to therefore "admit" to being Yhwh worshippers so she can dispose of Christianity, once and for all. Nope.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

18th July 2012, 10:36 AM	#749
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	Originally Posted by KlLLUMINATI So are you saying you can prove that God (Yhwh as you would like God to be called) does not exist? Yes. If we're talking about God as Yhwh I think the same reasons we don't believe in Zeus can be applied to Yhwh. If we are talking about a different version of God, then no I can't prove that this God doesn't exist. Only if we are discussing Yhwh. If you are not talking about Yhwh then we're having a different discussion. The logic I would apply to Yhwh not existing doesn't work except in that particular discussion.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

18th July 2012, 10:42 AM	#750
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,779	Originally Posted by truethat Yes. If we're talking about God as Yhwh I think the same reasons we don't believe in Zeus can be applied to Yhwh. If we are talking about a different version of God, then no I can't prove that this God doesn't exist. Only if we are discussing Yhwh. If you are not talking about Yhwh then we're having a different discussion. The logic I would apply to Yhwh not existing doesn't work except in that particular discussion. You still believe in the magic power of words?

18th July 2012, 10:43 AM	#751
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,960	Originally Posted by truethat Why not? You keep saying this as if it's true. Why is it not factual? You insist that the Yhwh they believe in is the Yhwh depicted in the Canaanite pantheon. This is every bit as true as saying that I have gills and a tail because my ancestors were at one point fish. Yhwh has evolved over time, and Christians can explain that easily, as I've repeatedly pointed out. THINGS CHANGE OVER TIME. That's a factor you've yet to address. Furthermore, just because YOU acknowledge that "the God of the Bible" is Yhwh doesn't mean that everyone else does. Some people are, frankly, woefully misinformed about what the Bible says, and therefore don't actually believe in Yhwh. Thus, when they say "God" you cannot assume they may the Yhwh you understand them to be talking about.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,960	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

18th July 2012, 10:48 AM	#752
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	Originally Posted by Dinwar You insist that the Yhwh they believe in is the Yhwh depicted in the Canaanite pantheon. This is every bit as true as saying that I have gills and a tail because my ancestors were at one point fish. Yhwh has evolved over time, and Christians can explain that easily, as I've repeatedly pointed out. THINGS CHANGE OVER TIME. That's a factor you've yet to address. Furthermore, just because YOU acknowledge that "the God of the Bible" is Yhwh doesn't mean that everyone else does. Some people are, frankly, woefully misinformed about what the Bible says, and therefore don't actually believe in Yhwh. Thus, when they say "God" you cannot assume they may the Yhwh you understand them to be talking about. No I don't. I mean seriously NO I DON'T How many times do I have to say this before it's going to sink in. I ask them what they believe. You know what's funny, the entire thread is based on making a distinction in what a person actually believes, and yet you STILL insist that I'm telling them what they believe. It's like you can't grasp such an incredibly simple concept because you started off reading with bias. You have consistently told me what I'm saying and I keep saying NO I am not saying that, but then you ignore that and move forward as if I did indeed say that and meant it. It's seriously weird.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

18th July 2012, 10:51 AM	#753
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,186	Originally Posted by Piscivore No, the opposite. She feels she can prove that the Yhwh of the Ugaritic texts is mythical and has elements in common with the god of the bible, so she wants anyone who references the bible in their faith to therefore "admit" to being Yhwh worshippers so she can dispose of Christianity, once and for all. Exactly. It's the same stupid "gotchya" that fundies use. It's just as irrational and it's just as dishonest.

18th July 2012, 10:51 AM	#754
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,476	Originally Posted by truethat Why not? You keep saying this as if it's true. Why is it not factual? I've explained it several times. People's ideas about the bible- and the characters in it, including god- are not related to and do not depend on the document's archeologic, anthropological, or academic precursors. Those ideas have evolved over time, the same way other cultural ideas do and demonstrably have. The Council of Nicea invalidates the crux of you assertion; the council picked and chose what they wanted to include in the bible at that time, according to their beliefs at the time, discarding entire works. Modern Christians do the same, only they do so on an individual basis. Your teachers told you this in your description of the class in the OP; you somehow failed to learn it.
	__________________ Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Take his fish away and tell him he's lucky just to be alive, and he'll figure out how to catch another one for you to take tomorrow. "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

18th July 2012, 10:54 AM	#755
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	Originally Posted by Piscivore I've explained it several times. People's ideas about the bible- and the characters in it, including god- are not related to and do not depend on the document's archeologic, anthropological, or academic precursors. Those ideas have evolved over time, the same way other cultural ideas do and demonstrably have. The Council of Nicea invalidates the crux of you assertion; the council picked and chose what they wanted to include in the bible at that time, according to their beliefs at the time, discarding entire works. Modern Christians do the same, only they do so on an individual basis. Your teachers told you this in your description of the class in the OP; you somehow failed to learn it. Not all modern Christians do this. You seriously think there are no people who take the Bible as the word of a God? You don't know some people actually believe that the earth is 6,000 years old? And that people walked with dinosaurs? Of course it's individual but it's also about people who follow different beliefs as part of a sect. If a person wants to argue for literal interpretation of the Bible and Biblical inerrancy then they are talking about Yhwh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism This is great! LMAO!!
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,628	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain Last edited by truethat; 18th July 2012 at 10:58 AM.