> Econ wrote:

Agreed. That's why we have to make do with things that we can observe/test to decide for ourselves (some people can't) as to whether or not to believe. If we can't test it, we can't observe it, and all we have is some guy telling us about it, then we get a very poor foundation.

edit: I welcome Phoenix or avo to talk about this.>

A few points of contention, but basically yeah .

"
Actually I disproved your logic. Acolyte even backed me. It was you who conveniently ignored it."

ok, i dont remember that; so just to remind me, you believe that you should only believe things that can be empirically proven; so how can you empirically prove that you should only believe things that can be empirically proven?

You guys think being an atheist makes you logical or smart? I'm really tired of the notion that atheists are some kind of intellectual elite.

> avogadro wrote:

you're self-defeating youself. you determine oughts through empiricism but admit you cant justify empiricism itself through your system, to follow your system is to go against it. you believe that you should only believe things that can be empirically proven (you're determining oughts through empiricism); so how can you empirically prove that you should only believe things that can be empirically proven (which is also an ought that contradicts your first ought)?>

I'm not claiming any ought at all.

> what are well placed people?

Dude, I can't hold your hand through everything. 'Rev' means Reverend, which means they have had significantly more training in these things than you or I, therefore they are a "well placed person" for commenting.

>there is no correct interpretation, but here is mine.

>your quotes recognize passages in the bible regulating slavery. the well educated people, the people that could write, were high in the rung's of society and were greatly biased against slavery. anti-slavery propaganda would not survive the culture. instead, the bible encouraged a step in the right direction, where you dont enslave your own people specifically in the quote you gave, and others in other biblical quotes. to take a passage that is telling people not to enslave people of your country, as pro-slavery is the type of twist, to the bible i've been talking about.  you can see another example of this, where the author asks for one step in a certain direction, and a future author asks for another step in that direction with the old testament teaching an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth which is much better then the rediculous things they were doing people for minor things; but later, once that has taken hold, Jesus goes further, and says when someone strikes you, to turn the other cheek.

Thanks for taking the time to share this. I respect it even though I disagree with it.

Christianity/the Vatican/the church/some-other-christian-authority-of-your-choosing adopted many 'current' trends to suit themselves and make christanity easier to accept for the 'masses' being introduced to the new religion, for example I believe that both halos and (edit: specific) holidays were convinently adopted from previous religions/traditions.

But that is different from condoning an entirely unwholesome practise that demonstrates a set of low personal morals. Is it not un-Christian like to abandon one's morals in order to gain favour with other people.

> Phssthpok wrote:

> You guys think being an atheist makes you logical or smart? I'm really tired of the notion that atheists are some kind of intellectual elite.

You have got it backwards. COMPLETELY backwards.

I prefer to use what I percieve to be my own logical train of thought to state that I have realised that God does not exist. I have NOT said: I have realised that God does not exist and therefore I am logical.

I would welcome you to continue debating this.

> Phssthpok wrote:

So I suppose you're a rocket surgeon or something?>

wtf is a rocket surgeon?

> Justinian I wrote:

>wtf is a rocket surgeon?

It's the combination of a "brain surgeon" and "rocket scientist" into one uber genius.

> Phssthpok wrote:

> What I meant is you guys apparently think you are smarter than religious people for whatever reason. Like somehow you have cut through all the lies that all those hicks were too stupid to see. You refer to them as the masses like they are bunch of sheep. So many atheists have this arrogant attitude when they themselves are often D students.

Nope. I put " " around the word masses on purpose. It was an atheist who was first to start throwing around comments about intelligence in this thread. So you are wrong (not a comment about your intelligence - the point you are trying to make is just wrong)

"for example I believe that both halos and (edit: specific) holidays were convinently adopted from previous religions/traditions."

i dont understand your problem with that. the church doesnt say Jesus was born on December 25th; christians just celebrate Jesus's birth on December 25th.

"Is it not un-Christian like to abandon one's morals in order to gain favour with other people."

starting traditions of celebrations at convenient times isnt abandoning one's morals.

"hahahaha. 'Murder is wrong' is a personal opinion, just as 'God exists' is a personal opinion"

wow, im amazed you said that. so beleiving or not beleive in God is no different then beleiving or not beleiving Murder exists?

"while 'the earth moves around the sun' is a proven fact. Please continue avo"

woah, woah, hold on there, cowboy. you claim the earth moves around the sun is proven fact. thats a stretch for me. dont get me wrong, i BELEIVE the earth orbits the sun (i think orbit was the word you were looking for) but our senses are not perfect, as many optical illusions can prove to you; all that is truly fact is that your mind exists and that its receiving stimulus that you interpret as reality.

> avogadro wrote

you did in the thread i pwned you in>

First, you didn't pwn me, and second you only think I defended an ought. You cooked it yourself just like you did in this thread.

> i dont understand your problem with that. the church doesnt say Jesus was born on December 25th; christians just celebrate Jesus's birth on December 25th.

If you read it again, I didn't say I had a problem with it, was just talking about it. I said wasn't entirely familiar with the circumstances ("I believe") so wasn't passing judgement. Only talking.

>>"Is it not un-Christian like to abandon one's morals in order to gain favour with other people."

>starting traditions of celebrations at convenient times isnt abandoning one's morals.

I was talking about the slavery thing. A Christian man would presumably have better morals that a slave-driver/owner; yet he abandons those morals and provides instructions on how to keep slaves in order to popular with slave owners or prevent bad things happening to himself. Does that sound very Christain-like?

>>"hahahaha. 'Murder is wrong' is a personal opinion, just as 'God exists' is a personal opinion"

> wow, im amazed you said that. so beleiving or not beleive in God is no different then beleiving or not beleiving Murder exists?

WTF AVO!!!! Where did you get this dribble from? Why did you put the words "Murder" and "exists" together????? SERIOUSLY WHAT THE @#$%#$(%U!!!! A COMPLETE and TOTAL warping of the line. I'll try to break it down so you can see why I'm reacting in this way.

(edit: Just so know, I did respect your opinion on the slave-ownership quote, even though I disagreeed with it. I want you to remember this because I'm not trashing you here because of differing view points. I'm trashing it because I genuinely thought this when I read your post)

1. You said it's not possible to prove "Murder is wrong" just like it's not possible to prove that "God exists". Part of your wider discussion as to why it is quite possible to believe that God exists.

2. I agreed with you, partially. It is not explictly possible to prove that "murder is wrong" there is no test of such thing. It's a personal opinion that most, but not all, people just happen to share. I said this is similar to "God exists" in that it is a personal opinion that a great number of people just happen to share; but they can not prove it.

3. You somehow went and broke these things ('murder is bad' and 'God exists') apart and rejoined them together and said "believing/not believing in God is like beliving/not believing in the existence of murder". WTF!? What belony. We were talking about murder being right or wrong, not it's existence!!!!!!!!!!!!

> woah, woah, hold on there, cowboy. you claim the earth moves around the sun is proven fact. thats a stretch for me. dont get me wrong, i BELEIVE the earth orbits the sun (i think orbit was the word you were looking for) but our senses are not perfect, as many optical illusions can prove to you; all that is truly fact is that your mind exists and that its receiving stimulus that you interpret as reality.

We have telescopes and satelites and spaceships and all sorts of instruments. How is it not proven that we orbit around the sun? You can not so much as prove that gravity exists despite the fact that you can pick up and drop a rock 1000 times and it will never float away. (edit: well actually I suppose all those calculations done by many people over a long period of time would contribute to gravity, even though it's not a test. Nevermind. Gravity is not the topic of discussion)

>(i think orbit was the word you were looking for)

Thanks, sometimes the particular word I am looking for escape me.