One of the things I've come across most often with theists has to do with feelings. They think someone declaring to be an atheist has to be a completely rational, cold person who makes some kind if calculated decision on all matters.
This is an implied question from someone who likes his opium, and can't imagine life without it. You may need to delve into the river of rehab and wellness vocabulary to build the foundations of a bridge of communication with this person.
One of the things I've come across most often with theists has to do with feelings. They think someone declaring to be an atheist has to be a completely rational, cold person who makes some kind if calculated decision on all matters.
Though feelings are the core of belief, they are pretty much the same for anyone that grew up in a normal caring family. I do admit my empathy reaches to a much smaller number of people. I will help strangers after making my cold calculated risk analysis. ;-)
Theists are more empathetic, they just go on with how their empathy is of a better quality because theism put more goodness into their actions.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here. .
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
Creationist:
"Yeah, I was being a little fictitious about feather evolution, so many ideas have been proposed, which was really my point that you obviously missed. "
Professor:
But in the past couple of decades the only game in town has been the work of Rob Prum at Yale, based on developmental biology in conjunction with the new fossil record evidence of feathers in some dinosaurs. But you didn't need to read *that* science did you?
The thing is though, there's natural, that we understand, and there's natural that we don't understand, but we can observe it.
Magnets I don't understand, but they still stick to my fridge.
God's super-unnatural, because we don't understand it and can't observe it.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
Tero wrote:Theist:
God is not necessarily supernatural.
Atheist:
Indeed.
Or maybe He's micro-supernatural, but not macro-supernatural.
This made me titter -- and then I realised it was the knowing chuckle of a nerd, so I stopped, and was ashamed.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here. .
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
Question #1: If the Bible is (mostly) true (that is, if Yahweh exists more or less as described, etc.), why does the Universe we inhabit look and behave so radically different from the Cosmos described in the Bible?
To unpack this a little: in the Bible, snakes and donkeys can talk (at least sometimes), seas stand on end, Egyptian sorcerers can turn inanimate staffs into living snakes, faithful believers can call down fire from the sky, or raise people from the dead, or guzzle poison with no ill effects. The Biblical Cosmos was created to serve as a setting for the relationship drama between Yahweh and human beings, with a portrayed total history of a few thousand years from Beginning to End. The celestial bodies were created "for seasons and for days and years" and "to give light upon the Earth" (Gen. 2:14-18), with the stars apparently as an afterthought (v. 16b). The sky is a solid dome with windows in it which, when opened, allow "the waters above the Firmament" to pour through as rain; the rain stops when the windows are closed (Gen. 7:11, 8:2).
That is not the Universe we live in. It is as different from the Universe we actually observe as is the world of Dungeons and Dragons.
Question #1: If the Bible is (mostly) true (that is, if Yahweh exists more or less as described, etc.), why does the Universe we inhabit look and behave so radically different from the Cosmos described in the Bible?
To unpack this a little: in the Bible, snakes and donkeys can talk (at least sometimes), seas stand on end, Egyptian sorcerers can turn inanimate staffs into living snakes, faithful believers can call down fire from the sky, or raise people from the dead, or guzzle poison with no ill effects. The Biblical Cosmos was created to serve as a setting for the relationship drama between Yahweh and human beings, with a portrayed total history of a few thousand years from Beginning to End. The celestial bodies were created "for seasons and for days and years" and "to give light upon the Earth" (Gen. 2:14-18), with the stars apparently as an afterthought (v. 16b). The sky is a solid dome with windows in it which, when opened, allow "the waters above the Firmament" to pour through as rain; the rain stops when the windows are closed (Gen. 7:11, 8:2).
That is not the Universe we live in. It is as different from the Universe we actually observe as is the world of Dungeons and Dragons.
