keyser_soze

I used merrians also...Only I didn't neglect to include any entries, due to their lack of appeal to my point. You not only neglected to enter the other parts of the first definition, you forgot the whole other section of the definition. I suspect because they were not supportive of your declaration..

Goliath

danielius,

Wrong. Dogmas are beliefs that are not to be questioned. I hold no such beliefs. Therefore I hold no dogmas. If you think I do, you're wrong.

How does it feel to be wrong?

Sincerely,

Goliath

DMB

Danielius: I find your contributions to this thread very woolly. I think the trouble is that you have tried to include too much. I would suggest that in future you try to be more specific when you start a thread.

Instead of contenting yourself with the original question you seem to be trying to argue for atheists even though, despite your upbringing, you don't seem to understand the views of a majority of atheists.

When you say
that appears to imply that those are the only positions that atheists can take on the bible. Others have already demolished your analysis of these two positions.

I would disbelieve xian dogma even if I had never encountered the bible. It is not central to my rejection of xianity and other religions. I reject them because no-one ever comes up with a convincing argument in favour of the existence of god(s) and even if I hypothesise the existence of an entity that could be described as the creator of the universe, there is no evidence that it would correspond to the god of xianity.

Thus until I can get over the threshhold of belief in a god, the bible is simply irrelevant fiction, just like the koran and the 1001 Nights. Plenty of fiction is bloodthirsty and nasty. The depiction of nastiness may be very realistic, but that doesn't stop fiction from being fictional. I can discern that something is fictional without being fictional myself.

Bumble Bee Tuna

You have selectively interpretted the definition of dogma to make it devoid of all unique meaning. Good job. Meanwhile, you keep up the assault of bad reasoning:

No, insanity has to do with believing your imagination. And that's religion.
Your anecdote about mathemeticians is of course another fallacy to knock up onto your tally: this time, a non sequitur AND a falsehood, all in one. For one, poets also go insane, so your fact is off. But when mathematicians are insane, they are not logical when it comes to their insanity. Was John Nash logical in thinking he had discovered secret codes in popular magazines? Of course not! Was he logical in making his incredible discoveries in the field of mathematics? Of course. The two parts of his life were not related. Your point is worthless. You could just as easily argue that counting leads to mental illness, because autists are so good as counting, just like some people are both insane and incredibly good mathematicians.

I think you will find if you look that just about all people considered to be geniuses, regardless of their field (art, math, science, etc), tend to have something not right in their brains.

-B

Primordial Groove

I find it hard to believe that Daniel has ever been an atheist.
Hell, I find it hard to believe he is a xtian. It sounds like he has a few religions rolled into one. That's just my opinion though.

Perhaps if I got 'more reality' I would understand, but at the moment, I'm kinda baffled by his statements.

If you cant blind with brilliance, baffle them with bs.

AJ113

If this is an attempt to show that there is such a thing in this world as "more" reality, then it is very poor. Even a pleb like me can see that it's a false dichotomy.

The photo is real.
The sunflower is real.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Tharmas

For the sake of reference, here is the actual discussion of Original Sin (in context) to which danielius was referring:


“The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...”

I have broken it off here because the remainder continues with an enumeration of specific sins committed by one King George III, a character who, unless I misremember, is scarcely mentioned (if indeed he is even mentioned at all!) in the Bible.

However I can’t help but wonder why it was that the author(s) chose to introduce a discussion of Original Sin with an appeal to Natural Law rather than Biblical Law.

Infidelettante

Danielious, I reread both threads you began and confirmed a suspicion I’ve had since you first appeared on the forum. Most, if not all, Theists who post here will, at some point mention Jesus Christ or quote verses from the Bible in support of their positions. You have done neither.

In fact you seem to rather ignorant of Christianity in particular and theology in general. You seem incapable of producing a sentence that carries one meaning from beginning to end and of assisting those who, confused by your “style”, ask for explanation.

You are either a powerfully ignorant apologist or you are posting here as a lark. If there is a third possibility please let me know.

If you have in fact mentioned Jesus or quoted the Bible please accept my apologies.

JT

Biff the unclean

Come on guys!
He claims to be gay and to be an "orthodox" Christian both at the same time.
Then you are surprised when he is ignorant of Christianity and is given to picking only the parts of definitions he likes? He let you know he was like that right off the bat.

Spaz

When you use a definition for yourself that's different from everybody elses, then it's irrelevant. Your dogma argument is pointless.

If you really feel like defining original sin like that, go for it, whatever, but evolving unequally makes no damn sense. We're all human, and therefore all equal, I think that's what the founding fathers were getting at (except for the racist ones).