"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"
Discussion
I've lost the post where someone put up a pic of their kids made by IVF, telling me off for wishing they were not here or some such.
What I said when asked about IVF was that the destruction of embryos in order to make a baby, because it is the destruction of a human beginning, is nothing to be celebrated, unlike the baby that eventually comes.
Please tell me how you read that as a condemnation of your kids? it plainly means nothing of the sort unless completely misunderstood.
What I said when asked about IVF was that the destruction of embryos in order to make a baby, because it is the destruction of a human beginning, is nothing to be celebrated, unlike the baby that eventually comes.
Please tell me how you read that as a condemnation of your kids? it plainly means nothing of the sort unless completely misunderstood.
ChrisGB said:
joe_90 said:
ChrisGB said:
joe_90 said:
ChrisGB said:
A. When I pay health insurance in two of the countries I have lived in, I have to pay for other people's contraception and abortion, things I think are evil. I
You think contraception is evil? actually evil? describe evil?Some people first have sex on there wedding night, and discover they are not sexually compatable, which is for almost most people a very important part of a relationship...
Also, loads of babies never make it full term, some leave us very late on, is that (I dread to say it) gods plan or gods abortion? Could he not save them?
Miscarriage is a natural death. I would blame God the same way I blame him if my 95 year old gran dies.
CBR JGWRR said:
I read that as saying he wouldn't blame God actually...
CBR, you are right. Sorry about that Chris. I didn't have my glasses on (can't find them) and have blurringly read through ten pages of this subject and must have mistookingly thought you meant that you were blaming God for miscarrige. My apologies. I am off to bed now. 
MadOne said:
CBR JGWRR said:
I read that as saying he wouldn't blame God actually...
CBR, you are right. Sorry about that Chris. I didn't have my glasses on (can't find them) and have blurringly read through ten pages of this subject and must have mistookingly thought you meant that you were blaming God for miscarrige. My apologies. I am off to bed now. IainT said:
ChrisGB said:
IainT said:
ChrisGB said:
How do you get to deism and just stop there? What do you deduce about your deus from the fact of its being the reason for deism?
I only get to Deism as a possibility that cannot be discounted as it cannot have any evidence that contradicts it. However a lack of contradicting evidence is not proof for a Deity.What we do have is a proven and self-doubting, sceptical, approach we call science that manages to do a number of things that Theism demonstrably does not do:
Theism is not a rival to science. In scientific discourse you will test measure repeat etc. How could you possibly apply this to the "non-natural"? We are talking about completely different categories. Your evidence will be argument, philosophy, logic, not experiment, and it demonstrably is sufficient in the right hands.
ChrisGB said:
I feel the frustration when I read this that I intend but perhaps fail to create when I say there is nothing more irrational than the belief that the natural is all there is. Is it a huge gap in imagination?
Ah, so my inability to accept your stunning arguments is my own lack of imagination rather than the paucity of your case? There are plenty of things more irrational than the belief that the natural is all there is. Belief in the supernatural for starters. If there were a reality outside of the natural we can only have two cases:1) It can interact with reality.
2) It cannot interact with reality.
If case 1 is true then there would be evidence available to examine. If case 2 is true then it is utterly irrelevant to us - we cannot gain knowledge of it.
ChrisGB said:
I haven't got why deism is a possibility but theism not? in other words, what characteristics would you have to ascribe to this deus for it to be a possibility?
If you can start talking of it, and I think you must for it to really be a possibility, you are in fact beginning theology, not deology. I mean for example that if you have the possiblity of a deity starting things off, you would have to posit that such a possibility would require said deity to possess the ability to act, etc... What is the deity acting on? Is creation already there and the deity starts it unfolding, or is the deity the creator from nothing? etc. etc. As soon as decisions are made in an effort of logical consistency, how are you not doing exactly what a theist does in natural theology?
I've already stated that I see no evidence to support either Deistic or Theistic thinking but it's at least possible, within our current knowledge to see that some external actor could have created the universe. Only in that it cannot be discounted, not that it's anything other than vanishingly unlikely.If you can start talking of it, and I think you must for it to really be a possibility, you are in fact beginning theology, not deology. I mean for example that if you have the possiblity of a deity starting things off, you would have to posit that such a possibility would require said deity to possess the ability to act, etc... What is the deity acting on? Is creation already there and the deity starts it unfolding, or is the deity the creator from nothing? etc. etc. As soon as decisions are made in an effort of logical consistency, how are you not doing exactly what a theist does in natural theology?
Let me put it to you another way - if Theism is ever to be shown to have a basis in rationality there is no chance that it'd be the god as described in the Bible. I've seen nothing to indicate that any of the other religions have anything better to offer.
Let me ask you this questions Chris. You're Catholic, why are you so certain that your god is the real one or even your faith the right way to salvation?
Show me the logical fallacy.
You seem to write in a civil way on the whole so why the aggression here? I said a gap in imagination. I understand the weirdness of "non-natural" to an atheist, "non-natural" is incomprehensible but plausible to me. I don't think the difference is in our willingness to accept arguments, but in our worldview, which is a product to an extent of our imagining the world a certain way.
The God of Christianity can and does interact with reality. Take the Mass, every day in every city, bread and wine become body and blood. That is a direct divine intervention. You cannot "test" it scientifically, so your scenarios above are inadequate. You will take inability to test as evidence of absence? Take care with that.
Theism is rational. If it weren't, show me the illogic in how I deal with the how come question. I think you have to show that it is a question that cannot be asked to show that theism is irrational. Bertrand Russell's way to do that was to say: You can't ask that. Full stop.
Happy to repeat my reasons for belief. Will you back up your prior claim: the Theist view is so full of holes at to be dismissed with close to complete certainty. I really can't see how you have done that. All you have said is that theism does not have evidence the way scientific method backs up scientific method, which to me is to state the obvious but say nothing useful about theism. Is there nothing in your life that you have based on argument, thought, reasoning rather than strictly scientific research? How did you decide on the one person to spend the rest of your life with? What sort of scientifically repeatable experiment gave you certainty there? There is no trust, conviction, faith even in such a decision and promise? Is it all purely and narrowly "scientific"? Tomorrow though!
ChrisGB said:
The God of Christianity can and does interact with reality. Take the Mass, every day in every city, bread and wine become body and blood. That is a direct divine intervention. You cannot "test" it scientifically, so your scenarios above are inadequate. You will take inability to test as evidence of absence? Take care with that.
How can something that is taken to happen, in every sense except being verifiable, really be taken as having happened?Either the scenarios are inadequate, or it never happened.
Thanks Mr Occam, I'm done with your razor, you can have it back now.
bikemonster said:
How can something that is taken to happen, in every sense except being verifiable, really be taken as having happened?
Either the scenarios are inadequate, or it never happened.
Thanks Mr Occam, I'm done with your razor, you can have it back now.
It is blood and flesh, honest, however it is SO magic that it can't be tested to give that as a result. When tested it is cunningly disguised as wafers and wine. Either the scenarios are inadequate, or it never happened.
Thanks Mr Occam, I'm done with your razor, you can have it back now.
How terribly convenient. I am still curious how you know that the wafer and wine turn into blood. In fact I am still curious how you know anything about anything related to this God. Is the bible the inerrant word of God? If so, is that where you get your information? Of not, why is your God allowing his word to be twisted, and error ridden?
TheHeretic said:
It is blood and flesh, honest, however it is SO magic that it can't be tested to give that as a result. When tested it is cunningly disguised as wafers and wine.
Perhaps it really is happening, but this is one of those things that you're not supposed to take literally.It's a mystery!
ChrisGB said:
I've lost the post where someone put up a pic of their kids made by IVF, telling me off for wishing they were not here or some such.
What I said when asked about IVF was that the destruction of embryos in order to make a baby, because it is the destruction of a human beginning, is nothing to be celebrated, unlike the baby that eventually comes.
Please tell me how you read that as a condemnation of your kids? it plainly means nothing of the sort unless completely misunderstood.
While I don't agree with a lot of what you say (come on, sex is fun What I said when asked about IVF was that the destruction of embryos in order to make a baby, because it is the destruction of a human beginning, is nothing to be celebrated, unlike the baby that eventually comes.
Please tell me how you read that as a condemnation of your kids? it plainly means nothing of the sort unless completely misunderstood.
), there's a lot of twisting and deliberate misinterpreting going on on this thread....it's not my view per se and I'm really just playing Devil's Advocate here, but does anyone think that the advances in science/healthcare is in danger of diluting the human gene pool...?
Edited by NobleGuy on Thursday 3rd May 08:28
NobleGuy said:
ChrisGB said:
I've lost the post where someone put up a pic of their kids made by IVF, telling me off for wishing they were not here or some such.
What I said when asked about IVF was that the destruction of embryos in order to make a baby, because it is the destruction of a human beginning, is nothing to be celebrated, unlike the baby that eventually comes.
Please tell me how you read that as a condemnation of your kids? it plainly means nothing of the sort unless completely misunderstood.
While I don't agree with a lot of what you say (come on, sex is fun What I said when asked about IVF was that the destruction of embryos in order to make a baby, because it is the destruction of a human beginning, is nothing to be celebrated, unlike the baby that eventually comes.
Please tell me how you read that as a condemnation of your kids? it plainly means nothing of the sort unless completely misunderstood.
), there's a lot of twisting and deliberate misinterpreting going on on this thread.bikemonster said:
TheHeretic said:
It is blood and flesh, honest, however it is SO magic that it can't be tested to give that as a result. When tested it is cunningly disguised as wafers and wine.
Perhaps it really is happening, but this is one of those things that you're not supposed to take literally.It's a mystery!
CBR JGWRR said:
NobleGuy said:
ChrisGB said:
I've lost the post where someone put up a pic of their kids made by IVF, telling me off for wishing they were not here or some such.
What I said when asked about IVF was that the destruction of embryos in order to make a baby, because it is the destruction of a human beginning, is nothing to be celebrated, unlike the baby that eventually comes.
Please tell me how you read that as a condemnation of your kids? it plainly means nothing of the sort unless completely misunderstood.
While I don't agree with a lot of what you say (come on, sex is fun What I said when asked about IVF was that the destruction of embryos in order to make a baby, because it is the destruction of a human beginning, is nothing to be celebrated, unlike the baby that eventually comes.
Please tell me how you read that as a condemnation of your kids? it plainly means nothing of the sort unless completely misunderstood.
), there's a lot of twisting and deliberate misinterpreting going on on this thread.NobleGuy said:
CBR JGWRR said:
NobleGuy said:
ChrisGB said:
I've lost the post where someone put up a pic of their kids made by IVF, telling me off for wishing they were not here or some such.
What I said when asked about IVF was that the destruction of embryos in order to make a baby, because it is the destruction of a human beginning, is nothing to be celebrated, unlike the baby that eventually comes.
Please tell me how you read that as a condemnation of your kids? it plainly means nothing of the sort unless completely misunderstood.
While I don't agree with a lot of what you say (come on, sex is fun What I said when asked about IVF was that the destruction of embryos in order to make a baby, because it is the destruction of a human beginning, is nothing to be celebrated, unlike the baby that eventually comes.
Please tell me how you read that as a condemnation of your kids? it plainly means nothing of the sort unless completely misunderstood.
), there's a lot of twisting and deliberate misinterpreting going on on this thread.CBR JGWRR said:
NobleGuy said:
CBR JGWRR said:
NobleGuy said:
ChrisGB said:
I've lost the post where someone put up a pic of their kids made by IVF, telling me off for wishing they were not here or some such.
What I said when asked about IVF was that the destruction of embryos in order to make a baby, because it is the destruction of a human beginning, is nothing to be celebrated, unlike the baby that eventually comes.
Please tell me how you read that as a condemnation of your kids? it plainly means nothing of the sort unless completely misunderstood.
While I don't agree with a lot of what you say (come on, sex is fun What I said when asked about IVF was that the destruction of embryos in order to make a baby, because it is the destruction of a human beginning, is nothing to be celebrated, unlike the baby that eventually comes.
Please tell me how you read that as a condemnation of your kids? it plainly means nothing of the sort unless completely misunderstood.
), there's a lot of twisting and deliberate misinterpreting going on on this thread.CBR JGWRR said:
The text is suggestive enough. Certainly, a picture would add nothing except eye candy.
(If you interpret it in one particular way, it mentions smashed back doors, smashed front doors, oral sex for both partners, and the act of doing things with one's hand and her lady garden.)
Hmmm, maybe this believer lark isn't so dry after all, although eye candy could maybe seal it for me (If you interpret it in one particular way, it mentions smashed back doors, smashed front doors, oral sex for both partners, and the act of doing things with one's hand and her lady garden.)
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff