Peter Pan v Jesus: A comparison

DeletedUser

I know David. Just sayin....
jesus_toast.jpg
 

DeletedUser

He was middle eastern (Israeli). Darker skinned, but not white or black.
 

DeletedUser

I'm sorry, but I just can't let that lay.

The Schroedinger Cat paradox is "nothing like" your comparative. Or, more correctly stated, it "might" not be like your comparative.

The foundation to the paradox has a dependency that the cat "exists" AND that both states are observable, observed, simultaneously when the door is opened.

Now "if" the cat doesn't exist, then this paradox in quantum theory simply is not applicable. If the cat does exist, but is not visible "by any means," then there is nothing to observe, and again the paradox is not applicable, at least in the context of observation and measureable multiplicity.

I'm sorry David, but throwing out a paradox of quantum mechanics to illustrate a religious argument only really works if the audience hasn't already had at least a modicum of study in quantum theory. And my apologies in advance if I offended you. Your comparative "can" be viable if a particular idol of a belief both exists and is measureable/visible AND undergoes a state of change when the door is opened. However, considering there are many who have "opened" that door, a present lack of any measureable or visible evidence denotes non-existence.

A belief is no longer a belief, if it is evidentiary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

not really a religious argument more of a lame attempt at a bad parallel. Look agnostics are at worst ambivalent about the existence of the Divine. Where an Atheist Says there definitely is no and a person of faith says there definitely the agnostic says there May Be. Now as such my parallel stands up somewhat. An Agnostic can hold these two concepts in his mind without the one negating the other until there is observable proof. Just as the cat is both alive and dead until it is observed. The concept that observation dictates what is "real" is a long standing part of some philosophies (Plato's Cave for one example) so my dragging a thought experiment into this is not so far-fetched


I don't have a problem with faith or people believing in something Divine. I do however take exception to those who try to cram the divine into manmade structures and books and claim to "Know the Will of God" for that is sheer arrogance and egotism. There is a big wonderous universe out there and the forces that rule it and shape it are beyond our total comprehension ATM....Seems pretty divine to me but as for Heaven Hell and the rest of that rot......I'll wait till I open the box.
 

DeletedUser

Ah, okay. When placed at the crossroads of athiesm on one path and belief in the divine on the other, yes --- evidence is necessary for an agnostic to divert from the center. Considering this, an agnostic cannot readily steer off said path, not because he's stubbornly undecided, but because there is no means to provide evidence of existence or non-existence. So, in many respects, an agnostic has the greatest position for which to argue, the greatest means to shed light, the greatest ability to convert.
 

DeletedUser

JR said:
I do belive the whole "evolutionist" terms has been covered already, but I am not surprised you fail to grasp this, as you have failed to grasp anything else thus far.

I don't belive in any god not because I dislike rules, but because it doesn't make any sense.
I rather approve of rules myself, as long as they make sense.
Neither do I have much of a problem with people telling me I am doing things wrong, if they got a reason for saying so. Doing "wrong" and "sinning" are two completely diffrent terms. Christians do not have a monopoly on ethics, or rules at all.

I take it you love hearing how you deserve hell?

Lastly; I applaud you for getting one thing right though.
We would hate a being like that god of yours, simply because he is a total *******.
Click to expand...

You proved my point. Let me ask you, JR, if the rules that you've made for yourself become inconvenient do you get rid of them? Rules made up because they seem to make sense to you are no rules at all.

Hellstromm said:
That's nice, so you like being told you do things wrong, eh? Well, that would explain all those priest molestations.
Click to expand...
Listen, "flaming idiot," I am not a Catholic. How many darn times do I have to say this?! Catholicism is false Christianity. There, I said it for you too now, Hellstromm.

You guys really are stupid. Don't you know that the Pope believes in evolution? Why would you people keep on assuming that I am a Catholic?
 

DeletedUser

Hellstromm said:
I prefer to think of agnosticism as the recognition that not believing, in and of itself, constitutes a belief (a belief in the absence of), but that believing constitutes dancing with potentially imaginary butterflies. Given the choice, an agnostic would prefer not to make a fool of himself but will still take pictures to see if butterflies actually show up on the negatives.
Click to expand...

I use the word agnostic to describe myself but certainly not because I don't want to,er, "not make a fool of myself".

If trying to clarify my position, you could say I am an apathetic agnostic.

I consider it so unlikely that there are any gods (especially gods such as humans conceive them) that it might as well be considered a positive assertion but if I am wrong it that view, it seems very evident that any possible gods would not be worth considering anyway. They must either involve themselves in our lives in such a way that we have no knowledge of it and without knowledge, we would obviously have no power to do anything about that, or they must have better things to do with their time just as we do with our own.

So all that is left, when the question of god/s is such a pointless one, is a term which epistemologically precise.

Epistemology has far greater relevance to human life than "god/s" do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Justin Michael said:
Listen, "flaming idiot," I am not a Catholic. How many darn times do I have to say this?! Catholicism is false Christianity. There, I said it for you too now, Hellstromm.

You guys really are stupid. Don't you know that the Pope believes in evolution? Why would you people keep on assuming that I am a Catholic?
Click to expand...
Justin, at no time did I state you were a Catholic, nor was I singling out that particular denomination in any of my posts. There are Protestant, Methodist, and other Christian faith denominations who have committed great sins. My comment was posted facetiously, but a priest is not of Catholic denomination alone. To use Catholics as a shield denotes you believe yourself "better" than others, that you are worthy of throwing the first stone. Are you truly without sin? Is your particular denomination and, for that matter, are all your priests such of such puritan faith they would be incapable of the crimes for which they were charged? (on the by, I find it interesting how you state what you are not, but repeatedly fail to indicate what you are. One could come to the conclusion you are trying to hide an embarrassment)

In any event, it would be nice if you could afford to argue the positions presented that showed you to be blatantly ignorant of the topics you so readily presented in defense of your arguments. I'm aware there is no means to do so, without further presentation of ignorance. Considering such, conceding would be a more appropriate route.
 

DeletedUser

Hellstromm said:
(on the by, I find it interesting how you state what you are not, but repeatedly fail to indicate what you are. One could come to the conclusion you are trying to hide an embarrassment)
Click to expand...

In this post, after many of us trying repeatedly to get answers on their denomination, Virginia stated "I'm a John 3:3er, :p (Born-again Christian or Anabaptist)". Virginia and JM "grew up together", so in the absence of any other indication, I'll assume JM is the same.

Although, based on my knowledge of anabaptism, they seem very unlike anabaptists to me.
 
nashy19

nashy19

Nashy (as himself)
Hellstromm said:
Ah, okay. When placed at the crossroads of athiesm on one path and belief in the divine on the other, yes --- evidence is necessary for an agnostic to divert from the center. Considering this, an agnostic cannot readily steer off said path, not because he's stubbornly undecided, but because there is no means to provide evidence of existence or non-existence. So, in many respects, an agnostic has the greatest position for which to argue, the greatest means to shed light, the greatest ability to convert.
Click to expand...

But the default standpoint is disbelief anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top