• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How do the religious manage to maintain social relationships?

As a rule, I don't pay much attention to those who post in colored font. Just saying. I am a Christian by the way...........the "colored font thing" however, is just a personal thing, has no basis in my faith. :shrug: :mrgreen:
 
Quote Originally Posted by Tim the plumber
You will understand if I find that that statement is not at all credible.
Click to expand...

Fearandloathing said:
Threat?

We have degenerated. Do not reply to this message
Click to expand...

???? You said that you had never met a Christian who has ever mis-quoted past events and I said that I think that's not credible so you start talking about threats????

I think that this is an example of the fact shift I'm talking about.

 
Tim the plumber said:

???? You said that you had never met a Christian who has ever mis-quoted past events and I said that I think that's not credible so you start talking about threats????

I think that this is an example of the fact shift I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Misquoting or getting something wrong is not something to hold against those of a particular religion, however, as it is fact of natural human fallibility that we will make mistakes, we will get some things wrong, we will remember things inaccurately, and we will interpret things in a way they were never intended to be. The problem comes with those who would use such human imperfections to indict an entire group. To do so is prejudicial and dishonest where honest mistakes or error is not. We do not lie or practice deception or speak for everybody just because we sometimes err or misspeak or understand something wrongly.

It relates to Jesus' challenge: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. . . ."
 
AlbqOwl said:
Misquoting or getting something wrong is not something to hold against those of a particular religion, however, as it is fact of natural human fallibility that we will make mistakes, we will get some things wrong, we will remember things inaccurately, and we will interpret things in a way they were never intended to be. The problem comes with those who would use such human imperfections to indict an entire group. To do so is prejudicial and dishonest where honest mistakes or error is not. We do not lie or practice deception or speak for everybody just because we sometimes err or misspeak or understand something wrongly.

It relates to Jesus' challenge: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. . . ."
Click to expand...

When I debate the evidence (none) for the existence of God, the theists tell me that eye witness testaments from the apostles are strong evidence. When it is pointed out that they disagree with each other and that this means that of the 4 accounts that have survived 3 must be wrong the answer is that it's still right and it's still evidence.

You seem to want to have it that facts are what you want them to be and that they can be the exact opposite from one end of a sentence to the other.

If the testaments in the Bible are strong evidence then at least 3 of them must be wrong. If 3 are wrong why is the 4th good?

Evidence in the form of forensic evidence, such as geology, then dismissed because it's not as strong as the "eye witness testaments".

People in court give their testament under oath. They are expected not to change important facts. That you seem to defend the practice of changing facts is the illustration of exactly the point I am making.
 
Tim the plumber said:
When I debate the evidence (none) for the existence of God, the theists tell me that eye witness testaments from the apostles are strong evidence. When it is pointed out that they disagree with each other and that this means that of the 4 accounts that have survived 3 must be wrong the answer is that it's still right and it's still evidence.

You seem to want to have it that facts are what you want them to be and that they can be the exact opposite from one end of a sentence to the other.

If the testaments in the Bible are strong evidence then at least 3 of them must be wrong. If 3 are wrong why is the 4th good?

Evidence in the form of forensic evidence, such as geology, then dismissed because it's not as strong as the "eye witness testaments".

People in court give their testament under oath. They are expected not to change important facts. That you seem to defend the practice of changing facts is the illustration of exactly the point I am making.
Click to expand...

Four eye witnesses are strong evidence that an event occurred whether or not they remember the same details or remember it all in the same way.

Interview 10 different witnesses to an automobile accident and you'll get 10 somewhat different versions of what happened as well as descriptions of the vehicles, people involved, etc. But there will be absolutely no question that they all witnessed an accident.
 
Tim the plumber said:
When I debate the evidence (none) for the existence of God, the theists tell me that eye witness testaments from the apostles are strong evidence. When it is pointed out that they disagree with each other and that this means that of the 4 accounts that have survived 3 must be wrong the answer is that it's still right and it's still evidence.

You seem to want to have it that facts are what you want them to be and that they can be the exact opposite from one end of a sentence to the other.

If the testaments in the Bible are strong evidence then at least 3 of them must be wrong. If 3 are wrong why is the 4th good?

Evidence in the form of forensic evidence, such as geology, then dismissed because it's not as strong as the "eye witness testaments".

People in court give their testament under oath. They are expected not to change important facts. That you seem to defend the practice of changing facts is the illustration of exactly the point I am making.
Click to expand...

Which still lends no credence that the behavior you describe is isolated to the religious. It is a human nature thing.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Four eye witnesses are strong evidence that an event occurred whether or not they remember the same details or remember it all in the same way.

Interview 10 different witnesses to an automobile accident and you'll get 10 somewhat different versions of what happened as well as descriptions of the vehicles, people involved, etc. But there will be absolutely no question that they all witnessed an accident.
Click to expand...

Where as if you look at the damage to the vehicles and skid marks you can get an unbiased picture of the event and then you will be able to discount those stories which don't fit with the physical evidence.

In this way we can easily discount the Bible.

In order to avoid this simple mental pathway the religious mind uses "non-truth" ways of thinking. That allows the religious to apply such non-truth justifications to all life. If you have done something you feel ashamed of just change the past and it will not exist any more! Happy days!!
 
maquiscat said:
Which still lends no credence that the behavior you describe is isolated to the religious. It is a human nature thing.
Click to expand...


It is amongst those which lie a lot.

I find it most apparent in the religious.
 
Tim the plumber said:


It is amongst those which lie a lot.

I find it most apparent in the religious.
Click to expand...

Key word:"I"

You're running off of an highly apparent bias and still concentrating on the Christians, dispute saying "religious". I would dare say that your anecdotal evidence that such behavior is prevalent among Christians/religious is your own revising of the past; ignoring any observed behavior in other that does not fit your preconception or calling such behavior in a non-religious setting "non-theistic religion", just to fit your preconceived notion. The behavior you are describing is no more or less common in Christians than it is in the non-religious. It is pure human nature.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Where as if you look at the damage to the vehicles and skid marks you can get an unbiased picture of the event and then you will be able to discount those stories which don't fit with the physical evidence.

In this way we can easily discount the Bible.

In order to avoid this simple mental pathway the religious mind uses "non-truth" ways of thinking. That allows the religious to apply such non-truth justifications to all life. If you have done something you feel ashamed of just change the past and it will not exist any more! Happy days!!
Click to expand...

Any forensic specialist will tell you that while looking at the physical evidence can reveal many truths, 1) they do not reveal the whole truth and 2) can be just as subject to bias interpretation.

I have yet to find any evidence that causes us to wholesale discount the Bible. Now I am honest enough to say that one certainly cannot take it on a literal word for word basis with no accounting for translation errors, errors in copying (prior to mechanical methods and even then....Adulterer's Bible anyone?), and cultural/era context writing. I will say that there is plenty of evidence that allows us to completely discount many things that the various churches tell us is "right and proper" that really aren't covered by the bible, such as evolution.
 
maquiscat said:
Any forensic specialist will tell you that while looking at the physical evidence can reveal many truths, 1) they do not reveal the whole truth and 2) can be just as subject to bias interpretation.

I have yet to find any evidence that causes us to wholesale discount the Bible. Now I am honest enough to say that one certainly cannot take it on a literal word for word basis with no accounting for translation errors, errors in copying (prior to mechanical methods and even then....Adulterer's Bible anyone?), and cultural/era context writing. I will say that there is plenty of evidence that allows us to completely discount many things that the various churches tell us is "right and proper" that really aren't covered by the bible, such as evolution.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that evolution is wrong?

Are you saying that the world/universe is a few thousand year sold?
 
Way too long, did not read. Summary?

Tim the plumber said:
On another forum I have exchanged posts with a Christian who's detractors have sent me a PM which linked to this;



I have anonymized it as far as I can for obvious reasons. I don't know which side is right or which is wrong.

I have had the same sort of experience with almost all the Christians I have come across. That is an ability to rewrite the past. That if there was a situation in which they looked bad they will simply change the facts.

Is this a Christian thing?

Is it something which happens due to the "training" resulting from religious education?

Is it something they did before they got God and religion is just a good justification for "believing" in things which you know are not true?

I just don't get it.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
Way too long, did not read. Summary?
Click to expand...
He hates all religious people and has some anecdotal examples of why he hates all religious people.
 
VanceMack said:
He hates all religious people and has some anecdotal examples of why he hates all religious people.
Click to expand...

I do believe our OP is screwed then as most Americans are at least somewhat religious. Is he gonna go around hating everyone? How sad. Sounds like he could use a hug. And Jesus.
 
Tim the plumber said:
One woman posts Christian stuff all over the net, her sister says she is talking drivel about the facts of her mother's death and stuff.
Click to expand...
Thank goodness no NON religious types are assholes. Heck...if they were, we would have to judge all non religious types by the same standard.
 
Tim the plumber said:
On another forum I have exchanged posts with a Christian who's detractors have sent me a PM which linked to this;



I have anonymized it as far as I can for obvious reasons. I don't know which side is right or which is wrong.

I have had the same sort of experience with almost all the Christians I have come across. That is an ability to rewrite the past. That if there was a situation in which they looked bad they will simply change the facts.

Is this a Christian thing?

Is it something which happens due to the "training" resulting from religious education?

Is it something they did before they got God and religion is just a good justification for "believing" in things which you know are not true?

I just don't get it.
Click to expand...

I really have no idea what your question is.:confused:
 
Tim the plumber said:
Where as if you look at the damage to the vehicles and skid marks you can get an unbiased picture of the event and then you will be able to discount those stories which don't fit with the physical evidence.

In this way we can easily discount the Bible.

In order to avoid this simple mental pathway the religious mind uses "non-truth" ways of thinking. That allows the religious to apply such non-truth justifications to all life. If you have done something you feel ashamed of just change the past and it will not exist any more! Happy days!!
Click to expand...

You haven't spent much time in courts watching expert accident reconstructionist pose their theories of how an accident happened have you? And each side will have such experts projecting polar opposite scenarios. It isn't as cut and dried as you would like to believe which is why they do take the testimony of those eye witnesses.

I know you won't believe it, but many Bible historians, archeologists, anthropologists and others who have intensely researched this conclude that the record supports at least the possibility of much of what the Bible records.

Many choose to believe the version that fits best with their own preferences, beliefs, or understanding whether it is a family event, a conversation with another person, or looking at evidence that might support the Bible. Maybe you are the one exception who is never guilty of that?
 
Tim the plumber said:

Are you saying that evolution is wrong?

Are you saying that the world/universe is a few thousand year sold?
Click to expand...

Actually no. The earth is several million years old as determined by science and the universe is many billions or more. I and many other, indeed most, Christians find no conflict with evolution and the concept that God created everything. Do not mistake the rantings of a vocal minority, or of the "official church", as representative of most of us. Science can show us how the universe works, but it does nothing to disprove that God "built the machinery" by which it works. Nor does it prove that He did or even exists. That's where faith comes in.

I love how you try to take what those of us disagreeing with you are saying and force our words into the fundamentalist Christian worldview. Highly dishonest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom