Anonymous wrote:OK, yes, thanks for reminding me of hypocrisy quote, and I'll try not to use it too much against you. I guess the only relevant thing is that you seemed to direct it right at me, and that's what riled me up.

Yes, the NT is very accepting to non-believers and strangers. And Jesus was also not bothered about the guy who did miracles in His name. For me the bottom line is really that a non-Christian celebrating Lent is welcome to get whatever he or she wants out of it.

However, the issue of nasty atheist posters is a separate issue, and I do think they need to be challenged. If it takes some frank talk, instead of sweet talk, then I don't see a problem with challenging them frankly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, some Hindus DO take offense at the cultural appropriation going on in US yoga -- sanskrit chants and whatnot. My SIL is Indian, and she told me she was quite surprised to walk into a yoga class in the US and hear Hindu prayers.

And to make matters more complicated ... yoga is not really purely Hindu anyway. The emphasis on physical postures (asana) is a new thing. There's been a lot of research on this lately, and there's evidence that the physical postures are actually derived in part from British gymnastic practices taken to India in the 19th century. When yoga came to the US, it got mixed up with all sorts of traditional US things, like the religious revivalism of the late 19th century.

Good one!...not. yet another attempt to warp history to fit the "greatness of the white man".

You do realize that Patanjali's Yoga Sutra was written before the "dawn of christ". Let's not forget that it is also in the written in Vedas, Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita. But you'll probably find some "reliable (christian) source" that says they were all copied from the bible as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I recognize OP now. She's the one pretending all atheists are sweetness and light, and then she turns around and bullies other Christians. Not exactly what the good book says.

Oh, I think the bible is very clear. "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you" (Luke 6:27-28)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingAtheist wrote:
Just to clarify, atheists don't say Christianity is a fairy tale, or that God is a fairy in the sky, but rather that there is exactly as much evidence for belief in gods as for any given fairy in the sky. While you may not like this, this is objectively true. Furthermore, the Bible is some book that some men wrote. It's a perfectly valid opinion to find it silly to believe in that with no evidence.

Sorry to break this to you, Ranting Atheist, but you've just described an agnostic not an atheist. An agnostic is uncertain about the possibility of God, but not an atheist. I know some atheists like to try to define away the distinction between agnostic and atheist, so that whether you have some or total doubt, they call you an atheist. Obviously the people who want to redefine all agnostics as atheists realize that 100% certainty that God doesn't exist is intellectually indefensible. But this has always struck me as silly, because if everybody with a even slight question about God is an atheist, then you've redefined Mother Theresa as an atheist, and you've also redefined all people who call themselves "agnostic" right out of existence by relabeling them all atheists.

Not to mention, the agnostics who would prefer to redefine doubt/agnosticism into atheism are doing a real disservice to Mother Theresa
and all the other agnostics, by calling them atheists when they would prefer to be called normal people with doubt, or just agnostics, thank you very much.

You can't claim With 100 percent certainty that there aren't green fairies dancing around me right now, it doesn't make it any lesS ridiculous. Look up "the scientific principle".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't claim With 100 percent certainty that there aren't green fairies dancing around me right now, it doesn't make it any lesS ridiculous. Look up "the scientific principle".

You make a valid philosophical point. And it cuts to the very heart of the atheist/agnostic hairsplitting. Unfortunately, PP will miss the point entirely, and rather than addressing the underlying epistemological question, will take this as a personal, below-the-belt attack on her personal beliefs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't claim With 100 percent certainty that there aren't green fairies dancing around me right now, it doesn't make it any lesS ridiculous. Look up "the scientific principle".

You make a valid philosophical point. And it cuts to the very heart of the atheist/agnostic hairsplitting. Unfortunately, PP will miss the point entirely, and rather than addressing the underlying epistemological question, will take this as a personal, below-the-belt attack on her personal beliefs.

Actually, the issue here is the way you use ad homimen attacks when you don't have a good answer! Trust me, my "belief system" can stand hearing a reasoned response instead of a silly ad hominem attack like this one.

Here, why don't you try again, go for it! Explain how your labels below make sense. Because, on the face of it, these labels DON'T make any sense:

- PERSON OF FAITH: 100% sure God (or fairies) exist. Includes Tea Party and other fundamentalists (and people who believe 100% in fairies).

- ATHEIST: 1% to 100% sure God doesn't exist. Includes Mother Theresa, people who currently call themselves agnostics and might be unhappy that you are relabeling them, Richard Dawkins, and all people who are 100% sure God doesn't exist and can ignore the intellectual failure of such a position. (Also, anybody who believes with less than 100% certainty in fairies is an "atheist.")

Anonymous wrote:"You make a valid argument" = Ranting Atheist

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't claim With 100 percent certainty that there aren't green fairies dancing around me right now, it doesn't make it any lesS ridiculous. Look up "the scientific principle".

You make a valid philosophical point. And it cuts to the very heart of the atheist/agnostic hairsplitting. Unfortunately, PP will miss the point entirely, and rather than addressing the underlying epistemological question, will take this as a personal, below-the-belt attack on her personal beliefs.

Actually, the issue here is the way you use ad homimen attacks when you don't have a good answer! Trust me, my "belief system" can stand hearing a reasoned response instead of a silly ad hominem attack like this one.

Here, why don't you try again, go for it! Explain how your labels below make sense. Because, on the face of it, these labels DON'T make any sense:

- PERSON OF FAITH: 100% sure God (or fairies) exist. Includes Tea Party and other fundamentalists (and people who believe 100% in fairies).

- ATHEIST: 1% to 100% sure God doesn't exist. Includes Mother Theresa, people who currently call themselves agnostics and might be unhappy that you are relabeling them, Richard Dawkins, and all people who are 100% sure God doesn't exist and can ignore the intellectual failure of such a position. (Also, anybody who believes with less than 100% certainty in fairies is an "atheist.")

RantingAtheist wrote:One last thing: this is usually where the discussion goes of the rails, and we get the inevitable response, "How dare you call me crazy!"