If God is so merciful, then why did Jesus have to be sacrificed?

[Dubious]

Some people do believe without any evidence but not all religious people do so.

Of course. Some people believe in all kinds of things -- from astrology to anti-matter -- without benefit of any evidence themselves. Some people even believe that "God says" just because some guy with a pointy hat told them, or that "science says" because a guy in a white lab-coat said something to them.

I have not noticed the Atheists to fall behind in the production of these types...

Atheists like theists aren't of ONE kind. There are the intelligent ones in both camps and likewise the stupid ones...in both camps!

...speaking of which...anti-matter is REAL whereas astrology is highly hypothetical. Antimatter for one is used in PET (Positron emission tomography), "positron" is a positive electron, i.e., antimatter. Most kids already get acquainted with this in grade school.

...but hey! Keep on reading your Bible for that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

[Immanuel Can]

Atheists like theists aren't of ONE kind. There are the intelligent ones in both camps and likewise the stupid ones...in both camps!

That is precisely what I said. See as follows.

...speaking of which...anti-matter is REAL whereas astrology is highly hypothetical. Antimatter for one is used in PET (Positron emission tomography), "positron" is a positive electron, i.e., antimatter. Most kids already get acquainted with this in grade school.

That is precisely why I chose that example. But I'll explain.

Consider it this way: it is quite possible to believe in something that is actually true, but only to believe for phony reasons...such as that someone who was able to cultivate an apparent air of authority told one it was true. Maybe that person has a pointed hat, and maybe he has a lab coat: what's the difference, if all you do is trust without further thought? If you're right in either case, it will only be by accident. Both are simply ignorant beliefs.

It's not the truth of the fact itself that is the same in all cases; it's the lack of evidence on the part of the one doing the believing. That was my point. Call it "science" or call it "religion": if one only "knows" because someone else bilked one into believing it, then what makes the one any morally better than the other? Both only believe out of reverence for authority, not out of good reasons.

that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.[/color]

Misquotation. You're actually quoting this: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems- ... tail/44477.

See?

Maybe I'm not the one who actually needs to do some reading.

[Dubious]

Atheists like theists aren't of ONE kind. There are the intelligent ones in both camps and likewise the stupid ones...in both camps!

That is precisely what I said. See as follows.

...speaking of which...anti-matter is REAL whereas astrology is highly hypothetical. Antimatter for one is used in PET (Positron emission tomography), "positron" is a positive electron, i.e., antimatter. Most kids already get acquainted with this in grade school.

[1]...That is precisely why I chose that example. But I'll explain.

Consider it this way: it is quite possible to believe in something that is actually true, but only to believe for phony reasons...such as that someone who was able to cultivate an apparent air of authority told one it was true. Maybe that person has a pointed hat, and maybe he has a lab coat: what's the difference, if all you do is trust without further thought? If you're right in either case, it will only be by accident. Both are simply ignorant beliefs.

It's not the truth of the fact itself that is the same in all cases; it's the lack of evidence on the part of the one doing the believing. That was my point. Call it "science" or call it "religion": if one only "knows" because someone else bilked one into believing it, then what makes the one any morally better than the other? Both only believe out of reverence for authority, not out of good reasons.

that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.[/color]

[2]...Misquotation. You're actually quoting this: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems- ... tail/44477.

See?

Maybe I'm not the one who actually needs to do some reading.

[1]...It wasn't an example! It was a straight-forward statement placing anti-matter in the same context as astrology even though the former was known to exist since 1932. It's there for anyone to read. Anti-particles are either true or not true, nothing in between. But who knows! Maybe others will believe you did it on purpose for reasons I can't make sense of! Don't really care either way. This place is fast becoming a dead end as far as brain stimulation is concerned...and I'm by no means only referring to you.

[2]...I know exactly what I'm quoting so please to explain where the "misquotation" is. Unless I'm hallucinating they're exactly the ending words to the "Ode on a Grecian Urn" by Keats already familiar to me in my early teens. I loved poetry then reading Keats, Shelley, Byron, Wordsworth, etc. I even memorized the entire 1st book of Paradise Lost being in awe of Milton's blank verse. Later I tried to capture some of Goethe's Faust in the original German. It was part of memory training which at that time was exceptionally good. But again! where is the misquote?? I'd really like to know

[thedoc]

[2]...I know exactly what I'm quoting so please to explain where the "misquotation" is. Unless I'm hallucinating they're exactly the ending words to the "Ode on a Grecian Urn" by Keats already familiar to me in my early teens. I loved poetry then reading Keats, Shelley, Byron, Wordsworth, etc. I even memorized the entire 1st book of Paradise Lost being in awe of Milton's blank verse. Later I tried to capture some of Goethe's Faust in the original German. It was part of memory training which at that time was exceptionally good. But again! where is the misquote?? I'd really like to know

You implied that it was from the Bible,

"...but hey! Keep on reading your Bible, for that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

You did not credit it as being written by Keats, It looks more like you are back peddling trying to CYA.

[Walker]

Oops.

Is this the boring part?

[thedoc]

...speaking of which...anti-matter is REAL whereas astrology is highly hypothetical. Antimatter for one is used in PET (Positron emission tomography), "positron" is a positive electron, i.e., antimatter. Most kids already get acquainted with this in grade school.

I read IC as posting both ends of the extremes, not equating one with the other.

"Of course. Some people believe in all kinds of things -- from astrology to anti-matter -- without benefit of any evidence themselves. Some people even believe that "God says" just because some guy with a pointy hat told them, or that "science says" because a guy in a white lab-coat said something to them."

Most people believe one or the other without any direct evidence, except what others have told them. I don't have a high powered particle accelerator, so I accept what those who do have access to one, tell me. I don't have access to a large telescope, so I rely on the reports of those who do. I don't call BS just because I don't have access to direct evidence.

[thedoc]

Oops.

Is this the boring part?

No, it's the part where false statements are called, and the fireworks start.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4tc07VlQ-A

[Harbal]

So it passes as rational -- to you -- to simply dismiss things you don't understand?

Well, that's a surprise.

We have to make judgements about what to dismiss and what to take seriously all the time. Life is not long enough to become an expert on everything. I don't need to think very long about religion before it becomes obvious to me that it's not compatible with my own World view. If you insist on implying that everyone who doesn't believe the same as you is a fool then, apart from thedoc -who ironically actually is a fool- I think you'll find that most of what you say will get dismissed.

[uwot]

...I know that some people have evidence that suits them if not anyone else.

Right. They would be relativists.

Some people do believe without any evidence...

So they wouldn't claim to know that god exists, which would make them agnostics in your estimation.

No, people who have evidence are Christians or other believers in an Abrahamic religion.

In your own words "some people have evidence that suits them if not anyone else." That is pretty much what relativism is. Here is how wikipedia defines it: "Relativism is the idea that views are relative to differences in perception and consideration, and intrinsically, have no absolute truth or validity." (I am clearly wasting my time asking you to take my word for it, and I rather suspect I am wasting my time asking you to take anyone but Mr Can's word for it, but hey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism )

People who believe without evidence could also be a follower of an Abrahamic religion.

Absolutely. The point I was making is that if they "believe without evidence", it is not reasonable for them to claim they 'know'. I assume that some such theists would accept that they don't know that god exists. Again in your own words: "most agnostics will claim that "they don't know if there is a God". Therefore theists can be agnostic. (Here's wikipedia again: "Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the existence of God or the supernatural are unknown and unknowable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism Note that agnosticism is not simply shrugging and saying 'I don't know.' It is the claim that nobody can know. I am not an agnostic, because I accept that there could be evidence that would persuade me of god's existence, but I am an atheist precisely because I haven't seen any.)

These people are not relativists because they believe there is a source of absolute truth.

Granted that the people who "have evidence that suits them if not anyone else" may not accept that they are relativists; but there are examples of anosognosia in which people who are literally blind insist they can see perfectly well. Funny thing the human mind. But if the evidence doesn't suit anyone else, then belief or otherwise is "relative to differences in perception and consideration".

You are just trying to twist everything to suit your own misconceptions.

Our disagreement about that conclusion is "relative to differences in perception and consideration".

[Dubious]

[2]...I know exactly what I'm quoting so please to explain where the "misquotation" is. Unless I'm hallucinating they're exactly the ending words to the "Ode on a Grecian Urn" by Keats already familiar to me in my early teens. I loved poetry then reading Keats, Shelley, Byron, Wordsworth, etc. I even memorized the entire 1st book of Paradise Lost being in awe of Milton's blank verse. Later I tried to capture some of Goethe's Faust in the original German. It was part of memory training which at that time was exceptionally good. But again! where is the misquote?? I'd really like to know

You implied that it was from the Bible,

"...but hey! Keep on reading your Bible, for that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

You did not credit it as being written by Keats, It looks more like you are back peddling trying to CYA.

No I did not imply it came from the Bible. However I did take it for granted that being one of the most famous lines in one of the best known poems in the English language that most people would know where it came from because most do without mentioning Keats...at least among the educated! Now go back like a good little poodle and serve your master.

[Dubious]

...speaking of which...anti-matter is REAL whereas astrology is highly hypothetical. Antimatter for one is used in PET (Positron emission tomography), "positron" is a positive electron, i.e., antimatter. Most kids already get acquainted with this in grade school.

I read IC as posting both ends of the extremes, not equating one with the other.

"Of course. Some people believe in all kinds of things -- from astrology to anti-matter -- without benefit of any evidence themselves. Some people even believe that "God says" just because some guy with a pointy hat told them, or that "science says" because a guy in a white lab-coat said something to them."

I read it as written! It equates astrology to antimatter because there is no direct evidence like maybe being hit by a bus making both equally tenuous in terms of validity. It's not normal for anyone to "believe" in antimatter the way one believes in astrology or god for that matter! The subsequent explanation by IC trying to separate the two is well-nigh incomprehensible to commonsense. Like I said, your efforts in service of your master reminds me of Renfield. He too was always trying to pick-up the pieces.

[Belinda]

The doc wrote:

You did not credit it as being written by Keats, It looks more like you are back peddling trying to CYA.

The literary convention is that well known authors such as Keats, or St Paul,or Shakespeare,especially their better-known utterances can be quoted without having to have the source named. We aren't primary school kids, and if anyone is uncertain of where a quotation originates and wants to know they only have to ask the poster.

The Ode to a Nightingale, BTW, is a pathway towards the eternal andthe longing for it, like Starry Night, and the sacrifice of Jesus points to eternity and its infinite empathy.

[Walker]

The doc wrote:

You did not credit it as being written by Keats, It looks more like you are back peddling trying to CYA.

The literary convention is that well known authors such as Keats, or St Paul,or Shakespeare,especially their better-known utterances can be quoted without having to have the source named. We aren't primary school kids, and if anyone is uncertain of where a quotation originates and wants to know they only have to ask the poster.

The Ode to a Nightingale, BTW, is a pathway towards the eternal andthe longing for it, like Starry Night, and the sacrifice of Jesus points to eternity and its infinite empathy.

Oops.

The quoted poetic line is from the Keats poem, Ode On A Grecian Urn, btw.

This is the rest of what usually comprises the reference, which is rather important to the meaning.

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

[thedoc]

So it passes as rational -- to you -- to simply dismiss things you don't understand?

Well, that's a surprise.

We have to make judgements about what to dismiss and what to take seriously all the time. Life is not long enough to become an expert on everything. I don't need to think very long about religion before it becomes obvious to me that it's not compatible with my own World view. If you insist on implying that everyone who doesn't believe the same as you is a fool then, apart from thedoc -who ironically actually is a fool- I think you'll find that most of what you say will get dismissed.

Thankyou, can I put that on my resume?

[thedoc]

I should really start taking my own advice, "when in the company of fools, keep your own council". There are a few that I enjoy reading, but most are dross.