Fun talk:Gods Christians don't believe in
(→Utterly Pointless) |
(→Structure) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Also, should this be opened with the Dawkins "one more" quote, to give the innocent reader some context? '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"><big>ħ</big>uman</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 21:43, 4 June 2008 (EDT) | Also, should this be opened with the Dawkins "one more" quote, to give the innocent reader some context? '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"><big>ħ</big>uman</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 21:43, 4 June 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | :Done '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"><big>ħ</big>uman</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 15:28, 5 June 2008 (EDT) | ||
== Addition == | == Addition == | ||
Revision as of 19:28, 5 June 2008
I can't do it but you should replace "Yaweh" with the Hebrew Yud-Hei-Vav-Hei. Lyra § talk 22:56, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Utterly Pointless
This whole argument is complete nonsense.
I only live in one house. Does that mean I'm nearly homeless? ColorlessTalk 18:41, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- You're missing the point, my friend. Certain Christians are adamant that their belief in God is the one and only correct belief, but, for much the same reasons that atheists do not believe in the list of gods on the right, these Christians don't believe in the list of gods on the left, yet utterly fail to see the contradiction when they call atheists 'evil', 'misguided', say that they're going to Hell, or anything else of a negative nature. Zmidponk 19:39, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- Gods and religions are not interchangable, and the idea of some Christians seeing alternate viewpoints as misguided is a completely different issue. ColorlessTalk 19:58, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- I only drive 3 or 4 vehicles, and I am almost rideless, so, yes. If one has 6 or 7 houses, one is far from homeless. With only one house, one is a fire or eviction or foreclosure away from homelessness. ħuman
21:42, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- A more accurate comparison might be "you're only married to one person, therefore you're only one step away from being single". It just doesn't work. The whole quantifying thing misses the point completely. ColorlessTalk 21:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- Ironically, I can counter that, too. If I am only sleeping with one person, I am one step away from accidental celibacy. If I am sleeping with three or four, one of them going away is less of a problem. I think the Dawkins quote up front might clarify this thing a bit. Also, we need a shoutout to wherever someone found it, I think? ħuman
21:53, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- No, the point was being attached to someone you love. ColorlessTalk 21:54, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- Oh, then substitute love for sex in my example. I would suspect it would be very rare for anyone to only have one person they love that they are attached to though. In that case, they would, of course, be one loss away from complete lovelessness. ħuman
22:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- "Substitute love for sex"??? I don't even know where to begin with that. Are you seriously suggesting that a perfectly sincere believer would believe in every single religion possible? You must see that this makes no sense. ColorlessTalk 22:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- I'm afraid "substituting love for sex" is one of the dangers of a long marriage. ("I don't have a sexual partner, I'm a married man!" - Alas Smith & Jones) :(
GenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 23:08, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- I believe in every god on this list equally, yah. No problem. And I meant substituting the words love for sex, of course, although my unclarity added to the hilarity of this discussion, luckily. Jellyblob, I completely fail to see the sequitur in your comment. Please clarify? And, answer my point about loving "people". Is marriage somehow exactly equal to love (meaning "is and only is")? Do not parents love their chilluns, friends love friends (etc., etc.)? ħuman
00:30, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
- Simple answer: no.
- Dawkins' argument, unless I'm missing some hidden meaning, was that theists are "nearly" atheists because the number of Gods they don't believe in is almost identical to the atheist's -- why not go one step further? This is a misleading way of looking at the situation because religious belief systems are all unique. The fact that any given person only subscribes to one of them is completely irrelevant, and nonsensical as an argument. It implies that the pinacle of religious belief (not atheism) would be believing whole-heartedly in every single religion. Jellyfish!That isn't science, that's Pac-Man! 10:27, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
- I believe in every god on this list equally, yah. No problem. And I meant substituting the words love for sex, of course, although my unclarity added to the hilarity of this discussion, luckily. Jellyblob, I completely fail to see the sequitur in your comment. Please clarify? And, answer my point about loving "people". Is marriage somehow exactly equal to love (meaning "is and only is")? Do not parents love their chilluns, friends love friends (etc., etc.)? ħuman
- I'm afraid "substituting love for sex" is one of the dangers of a long marriage. ("I don't have a sexual partner, I'm a married man!" - Alas Smith & Jones) :(
- "Substitute love for sex"??? I don't even know where to begin with that. Are you seriously suggesting that a perfectly sincere believer would believe in every single religion possible? You must see that this makes no sense. ColorlessTalk 22:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- Oh, then substitute love for sex in my example. I would suspect it would be very rare for anyone to only have one person they love that they are attached to though. In that case, they would, of course, be one loss away from complete lovelessness. ħuman
- No, the point was being attached to someone you love. ColorlessTalk 21:54, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- Ironically, I can counter that, too. If I am only sleeping with one person, I am one step away from accidental celibacy. If I am sleeping with three or four, one of them going away is less of a problem. I think the Dawkins quote up front might clarify this thing a bit. Also, we need a shoutout to wherever someone found it, I think? ħuman
- A more accurate comparison might be "you're only married to one person, therefore you're only one step away from being single". It just doesn't work. The whole quantifying thing misses the point completely. ColorlessTalk 21:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- I only drive 3 or 4 vehicles, and I am almost rideless, so, yes. If one has 6 or 7 houses, one is far from homeless. With only one house, one is a fire or eviction or foreclosure away from homelessness. ħuman
- Gods and religions are not interchangable, and the idea of some Christians seeing alternate viewpoints as misguided is a completely different issue. ColorlessTalk 19:58, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- Indeed. I guess this is rather clever on a certain level, if a little unoriginal, but the major flaw is that if a Christian actually believed in all those deities, he or she wouldn't be a Christian in the first place. Bit of Catch-22, maybe? --AKjeldsenPotential fundamentalist! 10:38, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Structure
Wouldn't it be better if the "section breaks" in the table were between lettres d'alphabetrix? Also, the last one doesn't line up right, and Yahweh is not in alpha-order. ħuman
21:41, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- Done and done. ħuman
00:25, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Also, should this be opened with the Dawkins "one more" quote, to give the innocent reader some context? ħuman
21:43, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- Done ħuman
15:28, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Addition
I'm afraid to say, if you were to list all the things Christians believed (religious) alongside those of atheists, the discrepancies would be huge. ;) Lyra § talk 00:14, 5 June 2008 (EDT)