PDA

View Full Version : More Hating on Christianity



Junebug68
06-13-2008, 10:57 AM
They hate what they don't understand.


John Gauger (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-26-08 02:04 AM
Original message
Why are believers so attached to their beliefs?
I just apologized to my Catholic friend for saying that Christian morality is similar to Pavlovian conditioning.

What on earth is wrong with Christian morality???


She is one of my closest and dearest friends, and I would never want to hurt her in any way, so of course I had to apologize for insulting her. But what bothers me is that she said, "I can't believe you would say that." I was telling her about the "Do animals undergo an afterlife" thread (in which I think I pretty thoroughly demolished the idea of an afterlife - there just isn't any logical way of determining who goes and who doesn't go)

He clearly doesn't understand the concept of faith.


wherein someone suggested that animals cannot sin. One of the other guys asked about dogs who maul children, and my friend said that dogs know the difference between right and wrong. Of course, they do not, they know what actions they will be rewarded for and what actions they will be punished for. In this I said Christian morality, the basis of which is a future state of rewards and punishments, is similar to Pavlovian conditioning. Now, I'm sorry that I made her angry, I love her and all that, but I'm not sorry for the simple act of making that statement. Because it's true. I understand that it's not good, but it's true, and the problem is not with my stating it. I don't feel I should have had to apologize for saying that.

So now I can't talk to her about religion any more.

Arrogant fool.


and-justice-for-all (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-26-08 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. believers so attached to their beliefs..
IMO, because they think that actual life is miserable, that they only live to die and hope to be rewarded when they are dead.

Religion to me, is very sad. You only get one shot at life, so you better make the most of it because you will not get another chance. I would not want to live under a state of paranoia, thinking that there is an invisible man in the sky that grants wishes and answers prayers. That is just living a lie and being very naive.

Living this one chance under a form of slavery is indeed very sad to me. Being bound to some dark age nonsense is like living in the past and saying that there is not hope for this life, like being mad that you were ever born in the first place.

Your comparison to religion and Pavlovian conditioning is correct.


WillBowden (1000+ posts) Sun Apr-27-08 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. Because they are frightened little children... Afraid of the dark. That there's something under the bed. The boogeyman is real.


ozone_man (1000+ posts) Thu Jun-12-08 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
9. How else can you get the masses to vote against there best interests? By the promises of rewards in heaven. Religion is the opiate of the masses.

I think Pavlovian conditioning is pretty accurate. The reasons for the conditioning are less obvious. I think it's always been a conspiracy between church and state to maintain power by controlling the masses.


Anyone got a tinfoil hat for this guy?

Seriously, how exactly are they hurt so much by other's beliefs that they feel they need to not only make fun of them but try to destroy them as well?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=263x32300

BSR
06-13-2008, 11:05 AM
Just unreal. They mock your entire belief system, then are shocked you are a bit offended by it. You call them the "democrat party" and they fucking explode. :rolleyes:

Gingersnap
06-13-2008, 11:14 AM
Conditioning is a technique in which a reward is always offered for a behavior until the behavior is ingrained and then the rewards become sporadic.

Faith is not dependent on rewards (even of an interior nature) and this is what makes faith heroic in the classical sense. It is a transcendent experience that manifests even when you are punished for having it.

I can't wait until the DUmmies actually meet real life people who aren't Christian but who do have faith. What will they do? How will they mock them? It will be most amusing.

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 11:23 AM
Just unreal. They mock your entire belief system, then are shocked you are a bit offended by it. You call them the "democrat party" and they fucking explode. :rolleyes:

I'm not shocked that people are offended when I mock Christianity and other religions. I expect to be hated for mocking religion.

BSR
06-13-2008, 11:36 AM
I'm not shocked that people are offended when I mock Christianity and other religions. I expect to be hated for mocking religion.

I dont hate you for mocking my religion. Im sad for you. Im comfortable in my relationship with the Lord that there is nothing you can say or do to anger me when my faith is involved. Mock all you want, Jesus knew that it was going to happen.

Luke 6:22-23

22 What blessings await you when people hate you and exclude you and mock you and curse you as evil because you follow the Son of Man. 23 When that happens, be happy! Yes, leap for joy! For a great reward awaits you in heaven. And remember, their ancestors treated the ancient prophets that same way.

Molon Labe
06-13-2008, 12:02 PM
I'm not shocked that people are offended when I mock Christianity and other religions. I expect to be hated for mocking religion.

I don't hate anyone for mocking religion. I'm a Christian and I can often times see why people are turned off...however; faith in something is no different than faith in nothing or the self. So why should we actually mock anyone?

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 12:17 PM
I don't hate anyone for mocking religion. I'm a Christian and I can often times see why people are turned off...however; faith in something is no different than faith in nothing or the self. So why should we actually mock anyone?

Having faith in oneself is a lot different from having faith in God because having faith in oneself, unlike having faith in God, usually does not involve believing extravagant claims. For instance, I have faith in my ability to cook eggs because I've eaten evidence of my ability to cook eggs. Conversely, I don't have faith in God because I've never come across any evidence that God exists.

Gingersnap
06-13-2008, 12:28 PM
Having faith in oneself is a lot different from having faith in God because having faith in oneself, unlike faith in God, usually does not involve believing extravagant claims.

Really? Have you actually looked around at the people who have faith in themselves lately? I see a lot of checks being written that will never be cashed. :D

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 12:34 PM
Really? Have you actually looked around at the people who have faith in themselves lately? I see a lot of checks being written that will never be cashed. :D

Yes. I spent a little bit of time yesterday and today arguing with people at DU who are convinced that they can predict Barack Obama's future by considering the positions of stars and planets.

People who think I'm too harsh on Christianity should watch me unload on the pagans and the New Age mystics.

dixierat
06-13-2008, 12:38 PM
Having faith in oneself is a lot different from having faith in God because having faith in oneself, unlike having faith in God, usually does not involve believing extravagant claims. For instance, I have faith in my ability to cook eggs because I've eaten evidence of my ability to cook eggs. Conversely, I don't have faith in God because I've never come across any evidence that God exists.


I'm not particularly religious, but I do believe in a higher power. I guess one would call it God. And I see the evidence of that power all around me, every dya.

:cool:

Rebel Yell
06-13-2008, 12:42 PM
Terms or phrases that show up in every thread on religion on at least three different forums:

God
Faith
Christianity
Jesus
mocking
offended
The Night Owl

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 12:43 PM
I'm not particularly religious, but I do believe in a higher power. I guess one would call it God. And I see the evidence of that power all around me, every dya.

:cool:

You believe that you see evidence of God all around you. What you are describing as evidence is not evidence in any verifiable or even testable sense.

dixierat
06-13-2008, 12:47 PM
You believe that you see evidence of God all around you. What you are describing as evidence is not evidence in any testable or verifiable sense.


How do you know? You just assume a lot about the universe and the way it works with no real evidence. Then you take pleasure in ridiculing people who don't believe as you do. I've seen you do that many times on different forums. It makes me wonder what your purpose is in harassing people so. Do you not believe that people have the right to believe in whatever they wish? Do you believe that everyone should believe as you do?

It makes no sense to me, TNO.

:cool:

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 12:52 PM
How do you know? You just assume a lot about the universe and the way it works with no real evidence. Then you take pleasure in ridiculing people who don't believe as you do. I've seen you do that many times on different forums. It makes me wonder what your purpose is in harassing people so. Do you not believe that people have the right to believe in whatever they wish? Do you believe that everyone should believe as you do?

It makes no sense to me, TNO.

:cool:

I don't claim to know that what you consider to be evidence of God is or is not that. You are the one claiming to know that you have seen evidence of God. All I'm saying is that what you consider to be evidence of God is not verifiable or even testable.


Do you not believe that people have the right to believe in whatever they wish? Do you believe that everyone should believe as you do?

Of course I believe that people should have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. Just because I challenge or mock what some people believe doesn't mean I want to impose my way of thinking on them. The world would be a sterile place if everyone thought the same way.

Rebel Yell
06-13-2008, 12:54 PM
How do you know? You just assume a lot about the universe and the way it works with no real evidence. Then you take pleasure in ridiculing people who don't believe as you do. I've seen you do that many times on different forums. It makes me wonder what your purpose is in harassing people so. Do you not believe that people have the right to believe in whatever they wish? Do you believe that everyone should believe as you do?

It makes no sense to me, TNO.

:cool:


He reminds me of this little twirp I knew not long after I got out of high school. We all thought he'd became an atheist because he was angry that he was gay. We happened to be at the same get together one night, and the booze and dope was flowing regular. He decided to tell us how there was no God, and me and my buddy didn't care. But then he was gonna show us why, and proceed to start with his, "Bring it on God, Fuck God, and such." Me and Scott stood up and asked him if he seriously thought there wa no God. He said he geniuinely believed it. I told him that was his business, but we do. And if he said that shit again, I guaranteed that by the time I finished beating the shit out of him, he would call out to him.

BSR
06-13-2008, 12:55 PM
I don't claim to know that what you consider to be evidence of God is or is not that. You are the one claiming to know that you have seen evidence of God. All I'm saying is that what you consider to be evidence of God is not verifiable or even testable.

Either is the belief that aliens exist, however many in the "Scientific Community" believe they exist through their "faith" that we are not alone in the Universe.

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 12:56 PM
He reminds me of this little twirp I knew not long after I got out of high school. We all thought he'd became an atheist because he was angry that he was gay. We happened to be at the same get together one night, and the booze and dope was flowing regular. He decided to tell us how there was no God, and me and my buddy didn't care. But then he was gonna show us why, and proceed to start with his, "Bring it on God, Fuck God, and such." Me and Scott stood up and asked him if he seriously thought there wa no God. He said he geniuinely believed it. I told him that was his business, but we do. And if he said that shit again, I guaranteed that by the time I finished beating the shit out of him, he would call out to him.

Are you talking about Scott of NU?

dixierat
06-13-2008, 01:00 PM
I don't claim to know that what you consider to be evidence of God is or is not that. You are the one claiming to know that you have seen evidence of God. All I'm saying is that what you consider to be evidence of God is not verifiable or even testable.



Of course I believe that people should have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. Just because I challenge or mock what some people believe doesn't mean I want to impose my way of thinking on them. The world would be a sterile place if everyone thought the same way.


So you're just being an asshole towards folks whose beliefs you find go against yours?

:cool:

Rebel Yell
06-13-2008, 01:07 PM
Are you talking about Scott of NU?

no, I don't know anyone from any of these boards personally. Sometimes I forget I'm talking to people that don't know me and my friends.

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 01:11 PM
Either is the belief that aliens exist, however many in the "Scientific Community" believe they exist through their "faith" that we are not alone in the Universe.

We don't have evidence that life exists on planets other than Earth, but our presence in the Universe proves that the existence and prevalence of life in the Universe is a matter of probability. Consider the Drake Equation as explained by Carl Sagan...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_v99FSTYc

BSR
06-13-2008, 01:21 PM
We don't have evidence that life exists on planets other than Earth, but our presence in the Universe proves that the existence and prevalence of life in the Universe is a matter of probability. Consider the Drake Equation as explained by Carl Sagan...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_v99FSTYc

Try and talk around it as much as you want, but the fact still remain. We have zero proof of life existing and you and/or the Scientific community believe in alien life forms existing with no shred of evidence. You are a hypocrite to mock people who have faith in God, yet you believe in E.T.

Quote whoever you want. Provided whatever graphical statists you want. Its all bullshit, since none of it can be proven. It all boils down to faith.

BSR
06-13-2008, 01:31 PM
And again I got sucked into a debate on religion, when I said I wont do it.. I need to be more careful about this.:mad:

Junebug68
06-13-2008, 01:39 PM
Having faith in oneself is a lot different from having faith in God because having faith in oneself, unlike having faith in God, usually does not involve believing extravagant claims. For instance, I have faith in my ability to cook eggs because I've eaten evidence of my ability to cook eggs. Conversely, I don't have faith in God because I've never come across any evidence that God exists.

Did you ever think that you've never come across evidence because you never wanted to? That you couldn't or wouldn't recognize it because you don't want it to be real?

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 01:44 PM
Try and talk around it as much as you want, but the fact still remain. We have zero proof of life existing and you and/or the Scientific community believe in alien life forms existing with no shred of evidence. You are a hypocrite to mock people who have faith in God, yet you believe in E.T.

Quote whoever you want. Provided whatever graphical statists you want. Its all bullshit, since none of it can be proven. It all boils down to faith.

Did you not watch the video of Carl Sagan explaining the Drake Equation? Sagan clearly indicated that there is a chance that we might be alone in the Universe.

Like Carl Sagan, I don't claim to know that aliens exist. I just think that the presence of life on Earth strongly suggests that life may exist on planets other than Earth. Religious people, however, claim to know that God exists and often won't even consider the possibility that it does not.

I don't have any problem wth people engaging in speculation about God's existence. In fact, I'm completely in favor of that sort of speculation. I just don't think that people should base belief systems on speculation.

LogansPapa
06-13-2008, 01:49 PM
I can say with great certainty that when the last Communist nation falls to Democracy - installed there by our benevolent society, there will still be about 3 billion human beings living under various forms of communism, under the guise of Christianity.

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 02:12 PM
I can say with great certainty that when the last Communist nation falls to Democracy - installed there by our benevolent society, there will still be about 3 billion human beings living under various forms of communism, under the guise of Christianity.

In his book God is not Great, Christopher Hitchens makes a very compelling argument that totalitarianism and religion are derived from the same impulses...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3RZUAQSn98
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkIibyNwWrk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTx50ECJSEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir6eCTpNEWc

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 02:15 PM
Did you ever think that you've never come across evidence because you never wanted to? That you couldn't or wouldn't recognize it because you don't want it to be real?

If evidence of God cannot be supplied, I would be willing to settle for a theory of God.

jinxmchue
06-13-2008, 02:15 PM
In his book God is not Great, Christopher Hitchens makes a very compelling argument that totalitarianism and religion are derived from the same impulses...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3RZUAQSn98
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkIibyNwWrk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTx50ECJSEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir6eCTpNEWc

Hitchens is a drunken buffoon. I could down a few glasses of scotch and write a book about how atheists and anarchists are cut from the same cloth, too.

Molon Labe
06-13-2008, 02:21 PM
In his book God is not Great, Christopher Hitchens makes a very compelling argument that totalitarianism and religion are derived from the same impulses...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3RZUAQSn98
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkIibyNwWrk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTx50ECJSEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir6eCTpNEWc

I used to like Hitchens. He is sometimes very eloquent. Now he's just become a Neo-con talking boy. Sad really. At least his brother has not lost his mind.
He doesn't come across as a happy atheist at all.

jinxmchue
06-13-2008, 02:21 PM
If evidence of God cannot be supplied, I would be willing to settle for a theory of God.

Define what you would accept as evidence.

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 02:22 PM
Hitchens is a drunken buffoon. I could down a few glasses of scotch and write a book about how atheists and anarchists are cut from the same cloth, too.

I haven't seen any evidence that Mr. Hitchens is a drunk. Whether he is a buffoon or not is a matter of opinion.

Molon Labe
06-13-2008, 02:24 PM
I haven't seen any evidence that Mr. Hitchens is a drunk. Whether he is a buffoon or not is a matter of opinion.

Even leftist, who used to claim him, know he is an alcoholic. It's really legendary.

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 02:28 PM
Define what you would accept as evidence.

Scientific evidence...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 02:33 PM
Even leftist, who used to claim him, know he is an alcoholic. It's really legendary.

Some of us on the left still like to claim Mr. Hitchens even though he denies having any ideological affiliation. :D

Gingersnap
06-13-2008, 02:53 PM
I'm almost ready to slap a REL tag on this and move it to Sprots. If we had Sports back.

Molon Labe
06-13-2008, 02:59 PM
Having faith in oneself is a lot different from having faith in God because having faith in oneself, unlike having faith in God, usually does not involve believing extravagant claims. For instance, I have faith in my ability to cook eggs because I've eaten evidence of my ability to cook eggs. Conversely, I don't have faith in God because I've never come across any evidence that God exists.

For me the book and film Contact, by Sagan, was influential. Ellie the main character concludes there isn't evidence for god and there isn't evidence against him. That the overwhelming majority of people on earth believe in a higher being should make one pause that they are all ignorant or deserving of mockery. In the end her experience lacks evidence and is mocked although it was quite real to her.

I cannot argue the extravagant claims issue as I don't particularly believe many of them either. What is usually portrayed in the media is the extravagance you speak of....unfortunately.

You may be familiar with a lot of bunk lately called Quantum physics theory that deal with evolutionary thought that would argue that your eggs weren't really cooked and you didn't really taste them. It was just your perception of that. (What the bleep do we know anyway?)

BSR
06-13-2008, 03:34 PM
I'm almost ready to slap a REL tag on this and move it to Sprots. If we had Sports back.

Slap a REL tag on it, then slap a SPORTS tag on it, then chuck it in to General.

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 05:00 PM
For me the book and film Contact, by Sagan, was influential. Ellie the main character concludes there isn't evidence for god and there isn't evidence against him.

The fact that the existence of God cannot be disproven is a good argument against strong atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism), which I have always considered to be suspect, but it is also a poor argument in favor of belief.

Sonnabend
06-13-2008, 05:44 PM
For those that believe and have faith, no proof is necessary.For those who do not believe and have no faith, no proof will suffice.

You're here on sufferance, Owl. Dont push it.

LogansPapa
06-13-2008, 05:58 PM
Sanction or permission implied or given by failure to prohibit; tacit consent; tolerance.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-13-2008, 06:38 PM
Having faith in oneself is a lot different from having faith in God because having faith in oneself, unlike having faith in God, usually does not involve believing extravagant claims. For instance, I have faith in my ability to cook eggs because I've eaten evidence of my ability to cook eggs. Conversely, I don't have faith in God because I've never come across any evidence that God exists.

And yet you live.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-13-2008, 06:47 PM
The fact that the existence of God cannot be disproven is a good argument against strong atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism), which I have always considered to be suspect, but it is also a poor argument in favor of belief.


And yet your SCIENCE is based on FAITH also.

Sonnabend
06-13-2008, 07:31 PM
Conversely, I don't have faith in God because I've never come across any evidence that God exists.

There is plenty of evidence.

That you fail to see it means not that the evidence is not there, but that you are blind to it. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Even if the proof was laid before you, you would deny it. You're the type that demands evidence and because said evidence doesn't fit your worldview and preconceptions and prejudices, do what all DUers and their ilk do..stick your fingers in your ears and go lalalalalala.....

One thing you can never lay claim to, Owl, is an open mind. You will never listen, never learn, never admit you are wrong, or may be wrong, are a narrowminded git..and as I seem to recall, you've been banned repeatedly elsewhere for your attitude.

Got news for you, Owl..you haven't had different experiences on different forums and with different people..you've had the same experience again and again and again and have failed to learn from it.

DON'T waste time with us over proof of God...when you show that you are prepared to listen and to keep an open mind, we may be ready to talk. I am always ready to discuss things with people who are prepared to listen..I have no time for the likes of you.

You and your cohort Gore and Pitt and the rest of them suffer from one singular fault..one major malfunction, one fatal flaw that makes them hypcrites, liars, fools and buffoons.

It is why I, and so many others, refuse to listen to his diatribes and propaganda, and it is why I have very little patience with people like you.

Your patented, repeated and pathological inability to utter the following words

I may be wrong.

Sod off, swampy.

MrsSmith
06-13-2008, 08:13 PM
Having faith in oneself is a lot different from having faith in God because having faith in oneself, unlike having faith in God, usually does not involve believing extravagant claims. For instance, I have faith in my ability to cook eggs because I've eaten evidence of my ability to cook eggs. Conversely, I don't have faith in God because I've never come across any evidence that God exists.

You are surrounded by evidence that God exists. Your life, every life, is evidence. The planets, the stars, the universe, evidence. That you're able to think and reason...and reject Him, all evidence. You are merely blind to the facts. However, your blindness is only temporary...someday, you will see.

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 09:04 PM
You are surrounded by evidence that God exists. Your life, every life, is evidence. The planets, the stars, the universe, evidence. That you're able to think and reason...and reject Him, all evidence. You are merely blind to the facts. However, your blindness is only temporary...someday, you will see.

I am surrounded by what you believe to be evidence that God exists not what has been shown to be evidence that God exists.

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 09:12 PM
Your patented, repeated and pathological inability to utter the following words

I may be wrong.

You have the wrong idea about me. I am not claiming to be certain that God does not exist. I feel almost certain that God does not exist, but I fully acknowledge that I might be wrong.

I suspect that the believers are the ones who are unwilling to acknowledge that they might be wrong. Perhaps I should ask them if they are...

Believers,

Are any of you willing to admit that God might not exist?

Sonnabend
06-13-2008, 09:21 PM
You have the wrong idea about me.

Horseshit. I have seen your crap for years. I know you all too well.


I am not claiming to be certain that God does not exist. I feel almost certain that God does not exist, but I fully acknowledge that I might be wrong.

I suspect that the believers are the ones who are unwilling to acknowledge that they might be wrong. Perhaps I should ask them if they are...

We don't need proof.You seem to demand it.


Believers, Are any of you willing to admit that God might not exist

I certainly am, except for the fact I know He does.

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 09:25 PM
And yet your SCIENCE is based on FAITH also.

I have faith in science. And why shouldn't I? Science has a far better track record than religion. Many scientific claims have been proven. No religious claims have ever been proven. As Christopher Hitchens likes to point out, the theologians and religionists still have all their work ahead of them.

Molon Labe
06-13-2008, 09:27 PM
You have the wrong idea about me. I am not claiming to be certain that God does not exist. I feel almost certain that God does not exist, but I fully acknowledge that I might be wrong.

I suspect that the believers are the ones who are unwilling to acknowledge that they might be wrong. Perhaps I should ask them if they are...

Believers,

Are any of you willing to admit that God might not exist?

Yes. And I'm a Christian. I struggle with this all the time.
Not an easy thing to admit.
At the same time, if God does exist..... and you meet him....? HMMM

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 09:28 PM
I certainly am, except for the fact I know He does.

Doublethink.

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 09:29 PM
At the same time, if God does exist..... and you meet him....? HMMM

No worries...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X94YffpUryo

LibraryLady
06-13-2008, 09:31 PM
Why don't you guys just ignore this a**hole. He is just playing you.

If he's wrong, he's going to Hell.

If he's right, he's already in Hell.

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 09:32 PM
Why don't you guys just ignore this a**hole. He is just playing you.

I am not playing. I am very serious about this stuff.

John
06-13-2008, 09:47 PM
Having faith in oneself is a lot different from having faith in God because having faith in oneself, unlike having faith in God, usually does not involve believing extravagant claims. For instance, I have faith in my ability to cook eggs because I've eaten evidence of my ability to cook eggs. Conversely, I don't have faith in God because I've never come across any evidence that God exists.




I get into this discussion all the time on more technical boards wherein quite a few members believe religion is anti-science. Sometime the perception of anti-science rings true, like zealots pushing to get creationism taught in the classroom and such, but a majority of the "science" crowd sees all believers as if they belong to that crowd of zeolots. In truth science and religion can co-exist, when empirical evidence falls short things become a matter of faith.

Think about all matter, energy and space in existence. Our scientific community recognizes the big bang theory as authoritive and there is empirical evidence to support it. However, there is no empirical evidence to describe the conditions of the universe prior to the big bang. That is where physical science, mathematics, causality, and every other human concept runs out. We can't go back any further, yet we got here somehow? The existence of matter is in itself a miracle. Anti-religious people might say there are giant membranes moving about 11th dimensional space and whenever they collide a universe is formed. Religious people, even those who work in the sciences, see the whole of existence as evidence of God. He may not even be a self aware sentient being, He could be as far beyond human comprehension as verifying membrane theory through experiment. He might not even know mankind exists, but He is still the creator of matter and the universe and that makes Him God.

The fact is, matter, energy and even 3 dimensional space itself don't spontaneously spring into existence out of nowhere and we have plenty of science to back this up. So, why are we here?

The Night Owl
06-13-2008, 10:13 PM
I get into this discussion all the time on more technical boards wherein quite a few members believe religion is anti-science. Sometime the perception of anti-science rings true, like zealots pushing to get creationism taught in the classroom and such, but a majority of the "science" crowd sees all believers as if they belong to that crowd of zeolots.

I have no problem with Creationism being taught in classrooms as long as it isn't presented as science. I think that students should be made aware of the various beliefs people around the world subscribe to.


In truth science and religion can co-exist, when empirical evidence falls short things become a matter of faith.

Religion and science can coexist, but we should remain clear about which is which. Some want to blur the distinction.


Think about all matter, energy and space in existence. Our scientific community recognizes the big bang theory as authoritive and there is empirical evidence to support it. However, there is no empirical evidence to describe the conditions of the universe prior to the big bang. That is where physical science, mathematics, causality, and every other human concept runs out. We can't go back any further, yet we got here somehow? The existence of matter is in itself a miracle. Anti-religious people might say there are giant membranes moving about 11th dimensional space and whenever they collide a universe is formed. Religious people, even those who work in the sciences, see the whole of existence as evidence of God. He may not even be a self aware sentient being, He could be as far beyond human comprehension as verifying membrane theory through experiment. He might not even know mankind exists, but He is still the creator of matter and the universe and that makes Him God.

The fact is, matter, energy and even 3 dimensional space itself don't spontaneously spring into existence out of nowhere and we have plenty of science to back this up. So, why are we here?

An excellent post.

We don't know how or why the Universe came to be, but just because we don't know how or why the Universe came to be doesn't mean that we should embrace the God of the Gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_Gaps).

As I indicated earlier, I'm not against people engaging in speculation regarding that which science cannot explain. What I'm against is the construction of elaborate belief systems based entirely on speculation. I just don't see any reason for it.

Phillygirl
06-13-2008, 10:32 PM
I get into this discussion all the time on more technical boards wherein quite a few members believe religion is anti-science. Sometime the perception of anti-science rings true, like zealots pushing to get creationism taught in the classroom and such, but a majority of the "science" crowd sees all believers as if they belong to that crowd of zeolots. In truth science and religion can co-exist, when empirical evidence falls short things become a matter of faith.

Think about all matter, energy and space in existence. Our scientific community recognizes the big bang theory as authoritive and there is empirical evidence to support it. However, there is no empirical evidence to describe the conditions of the universe prior to the big bang. That is where physical science, mathematics, causality, and every other human concept runs out. We can't go back any further, yet we got here somehow? The existence of matter is in itself a miracle. Anti-religious people might say there are giant membranes moving about 11th dimensional space and whenever they collide a universe is formed. Religious people, even those who work in the sciences, see the whole of existence as evidence of God. He may not even be a self aware sentient being, He could be as far beyond human comprehension as verifying membrane theory through experiment. He might not even know mankind exists, but He is still the creator of matter and the universe and that makes Him God.

The fact is, matter, energy and even 3 dimensional space itself don't spontaneously spring into existence out of nowhere and we have plenty of science to back this up. So, why are we here?

The unmoved mover theory. Always sort of grabbed me. The thing I never understood is those that believe creationism or intelligent design is the antithesis of evolution. Evolution only tells us how we got to where we are, it doesn't tell us how we began. Intelligent Design certainly makes some sense, whether it's from a scientific or a theological perspective.

I am not terribly religious, but found myself having to attend a "prayer breakfast" for local community leaders a few years back. The main speaker was a Christian who apparently had some serious credentials in science. I am even less scientific than I am religious. But his presentation, while certainly going over my head, focused on the faulty science with regards to global warming as well as discussion of evolution from a religious perspective. Fascinating stuff...but again, well over my head from both aspects of it.

St. Thomas Aquinas made a lot of sense to me in a format that I could follow. I'll have to reread his 5 proofs soon as it's been awhile.

MrsSmith
06-13-2008, 10:43 PM
I am surrounded by what you believe to be evidence that God exists not what has been shown to be evidence that God exists.

Yet...you're going to die someday, man.

MrsSmith
06-13-2008, 10:46 PM
I have faith in science. And why shouldn't I? Science has a far better track record than religion. Many scientific claims have been proven. No religious claims have ever been proven. As Christopher Hitchens likes to point out, the theologians and religionists still have all their work ahead of them.

No religious claims have ever been proven?? What? :confused: What "religious claims" have never been proven?

Sonnabend
06-13-2008, 11:18 PM
Doublethink.

Faith. Understanding. Strength. Hope.

nacho
06-14-2008, 12:48 AM
Fuck DU, it looks like you can't even post about being religious HERE without ridicule.

Phillygirl
06-14-2008, 01:21 AM
Fuck DU, it looks like you can't even post about being religious HERE without ridicule.

Just by the resident rude atheist. And nobody takes him seriously anyway. We just let him stick around as an experiment regarding emotional i.q..

John
06-14-2008, 05:22 AM
I have no problem with Creationism being taught in classrooms as long as it isn't presented as science. I think that students should be made aware of the various beliefs people around the world subscribe to.

I agree whole heartedly with a few caveats... Membrane, string, or other unverifiable 'field theories' pertaining to the the creation should not be taught as science as well. These ideas, of which many subscribe, are often presented as a science....as if they were a real science! Yet these ideas are clearly not science. On the scientific food chain, these "theories" are merely hypotheses, a figment of some man's imagination until further demonstrated. If one can figure out a way to demonstrate 'Brane theory, then I suppose one would likely receive the Nobel prize for a start. However, these 'scientific' theories are given much more respect than religious theories while at the same time bringing just as much empirical evidence to the table.

A theory that consists of; "Some people from the 159th dimension brought matter into the 3rd and a quarter of it multiplied and dissolved into its mass times light squred energy.", should carry just as much weight within the scientific community as Membrane theory. Therefore "God created the heavens and the earth", plus "God is known as He who Is" should corral the same[ respect in scientific circles. After all, both hypotheses are supported by the same amount of virtually non-existent evidence.




Religion and science can coexist, but we should remain clear about which is which. Some want to blur the distinaction.


Since when, according to the educational community, did the origin of an idea lay claim to its relevancy? Why is the idea that states "The universe was created when two membranes collided", given so much credit while another idea that states, "Some all powerfull creature willed existence into creation", is not given the same credit. Either are uniformly un-verifiable, and as such each are merely hypothesis of equal status; yet the scientific community would preach the latter as science and the former as fantastical. It makes no sense at all when given that each argument has exactly zero 3D and 1 Time evidence to offer!

In short, if we should place a distinction between religion and scientific flights of 'might-be-true' fancy then we should group them in the same boat.





An excellent post.

We don't know how or why the Universe came to be, but just because we don't know how or why the Universe came to be doesn't mean that we should embrace the God of the Gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_Gaps).


Perhaps we should all embrace the "I dont''know" philosiphy, because that's all we really have. It just so happens that all mathematical, philosophical, and scientific philosophies break down completely when faced with the creation of matter and third dimensional space, and that's all without mentioning time! That means that I'm just as perfectly justified in embracing my intelligent design philosiphy as you are in embracing your 'brane', string, or other 'scientific' creation hypothesis. We're both here, and the 'how&why (causality)' is in inexplicable.



As I indicated earlier, I'm not against people engaging in speculation regarding that which science cannot explain. What I'm against is the construction of elaborate belief systems based entirely on speculation. I just don't see any reason for it.

Now you see that 'Brane' theory, or string theory, or any other theory is just an elaborate belief system designed to describe an existence prior to energy, matter, time and 3D space. An omnipotent being known as God is just as good an explanation as any other theory because my theory, my faith, is just as unprovable as yours.

LibraryLady
06-14-2008, 08:15 AM
I am not playing. I am very serious about this stuff.

Sure you are. You've been playing the "prove it" game on the Internet for years.

Till a greater power thumps you on the head, you'll just give people a hard time

movie buff
06-14-2008, 09:10 AM
Not surprising at all. The DUmmies have long hated anyone who believes in God (Other than the sweet, loving Muslims, of course), this is just another one of the many such threads bashing believers.
The comparison the OP in that thread made is quite inaccurate, as many of you have pointed out.
As someone hoping to get into the ministry, I'm proud of my faith, and I deeply pity those DUmmies who are too arrogant, ignorant, and blind to see the Truth.

hampshirebrit
06-14-2008, 11:53 AM
Hitchens is a drunken buffoon. I could down a few glasses of scotch and write a book about how atheists and anarchists are cut from the same cloth, too.

Sorry, Jinx, but I cannot agree with you on this...not the first, at least.

As to the second, then give it a try. You write pretty well, and maybe scotch-assissted writing could help you write the best selling counter-polemic against "God Is Not Great".

True, Hitch does like a drink, but he makes very cogent arguments against religion, with or without the help of scotch.

I have yet to see Hitchens bested in a debate on this subject.

IanMartins
06-14-2008, 12:16 PM
I'm an atheist too. As long as people believe in gods, we're stuck in the middle ages as far as I'm concerned. The worst thing that the GOP ever did was to affiliate religion with capitalism, and letting the democrats affiliate socialism with progressivism. As long as socialism is portrayed as the "modern" political system, and capitalism as the "old fashioned" one, we're doomed to spiral further towards collectivism every year. I support the GOP despite the "religious right" because I have a stronger distaste for nanny-state collectivists, hippies and anarchists.

The Night Owl
06-14-2008, 01:11 PM
Just by the resident rude atheist. And nobody takes him seriously anyway. We just let him stick around as an experiment regarding emotional i.q..

Perhaps you'll take me seriously when I figure out how to levitate above Notre Dame cathedral the way your hero Thomas Aquinas is said to have.

The Night Owl
06-14-2008, 01:15 PM
Sorry, Jinx, but I cannot agree with you on this...not the first, at least.

As to the second, then give it a try. You write pretty well, and maybe scotch-assissted writing could help you write the best selling counter-polemic against "God Is Not Great".

True, Hitch does like a drink, but he makes very cogent arguments against religion, with or without the help of scotch.

I have yet to see Hitchens bested in a debate on this subject.

In case you're interested, an audiobook of Christopher Hitchens reading God is not Great is available at YouTube...

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?p=r&user=AudioBooksR4U&page=3

nacho
06-14-2008, 01:18 PM
Sorry, Jinx, but I cannot agree with you on this...not the first, at least.

As to the second, then give it a try. You write pretty well, and maybe scotch-assissted writing could help you write the best selling counter-polemic against "God Is Not Great".

True, Hitch does like a drink, but he makes very cogent arguments against religion, with or without the help of scotch.

I have yet to see Hitchens bested in a debate on this subject.

I have. He was cut to ribbons by Douglas Wilson in 2007. Particularly when it came to the hopelessly unstable notion of "evolved morality." As for his book, sorry but with idiotic proclamations like, "Nothing optional is ever made punishable unless those who do the prohibiting have a repressed desire to participate," I cannot really take him seriously. But maybe that's because I have a repressed desire not to wear a helmet on a motorcycle or something. Lol.

Molon Labe
06-14-2008, 01:34 PM
Sorry, Jinx, but I cannot agree with you on this...not the first, at least.

As to the second, then give it a try. You write pretty well, and maybe scotch-assissted writing could help you write the best selling counter-polemic against "God Is Not Great".

True, Hitch does like a drink, but he makes very cogent arguments against religion, with or without the help of scotch.

I have yet to see Hitchens bested in a debate on this subject.

Hitchens is a very formidable debater. I still respect him despite some difference of late.

MrsSmith
06-14-2008, 01:38 PM
I'm an atheist too. As long as people believe in gods, we're stuck in the middle ages as far as I'm concerned. The worst thing that the GOP ever did was to affiliate religion with capitalism, and letting the democrats affiliate socialism with progressivism. As long as socialism is portrayed as the "modern" political system, and capitalism as the "old fashioned" one, we're doomed to spiral further towards collectivism every year. I support the GOP despite the "religious right" because I have a stronger distaste for nanny-state collectivists, hippies and anarchists.

The fact is that belief does not affect God. He'll be there, running the show, regardless of how many remain blind. Capitalism, freedom and Christianity all go hand-in-hand...the more we lose any of the three, the more we lose of the other two.

The Night Owl
06-14-2008, 01:44 PM
Now you see that 'Brane' theory, or string theory, or any other theory is just an elaborate belief system designed to describe an existence prior to energy, matter, time and 3D space. An omnipotent being known as God is just as good an explanation as any other theory because my theory, my faith, is just as unprovable as yours.

The corollary of your argument that the God hypothesis is as good as any other is my argument that no one has any reason to believe the God hypothesis to be true. In essence, you're making an argument in favor of agnosticism, not belief... which is fine by me because I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist.

hampshirebrit
06-14-2008, 01:45 PM
I have. He was cut to ribbons by Douglas Wilson in 2007. Particularly when it came to the hopelessly unstable notion of "evolved morality." As for his book, sorry but with idiotic proclamations like, "Nothing optional is ever made punishable unless those who do the prohibiting have a repressed desire to participate," I cannot really take him seriously. But maybe that's because I have a repressed desire not to wear a helmet on a motorcycle or something. Lol.

Nacho, I would really like to see this, if you have a link to it.

If Wilson really cut him to ribbons, then he should be heard.

In the meantime, I leave you with this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6379618149058958603&q=hitchens&ei=UgJUSN67Bo-ciAL2oP33Dg&hl=en

Not a debate, but an excellent polemic on the issue of freedom of speech and how it bumps against religion.

MrsSmith
06-14-2008, 01:46 PM
And a repeat for NTO...



Originally Posted by The Night Owl
I have faith in science. And why shouldn't I? Science has a far better track record than religion. Many scientific claims have been proven. No religious claims have ever been proven. As Christopher Hitchens likes to point out, the theologians and religionists still have all their work ahead of them.

No religious claims have ever been proven?? What?

What "religious claims" have never been proven?

The Night Owl
06-14-2008, 01:52 PM
And a repeat for NTO...

No religious claims have ever been proven?? What?

What "religious claims" have never been proven?

Was I not clear? No religious claims have ever been proven.

MrsSmith
06-14-2008, 01:53 PM
Was I not clear? No religious claims have ever been proven.

I see, in other words, you can't think of any either. OK.

Elspeth
06-14-2008, 03:00 PM
I see, in other words, you can't think of any either. OK.

I think it depends on what you mean by religious claim. If a religion (like Catholicism) claims that gluttony, sloth, lust, rage, etc. are bad for the human soul, one can say that modern psychology has demonstrated that these things--especially in excessive amounts--can cause destructive behavior, mental breakdowns, and negative results for family & friends (and society in general). In this sense of "claim," the claim has some empirical validation.

If a religion claims that its founder or its family existed--ie, Christian tradition makes it clear that Jesus had a family including a brother/cousin James--and there is historical evidence for this claim (eg. the mentions of James by Josephus, the Jewish historian of the 1st century), then this "claim" can be said to be proven as well, or at least to have some validation.

However, if a religion claims, as most versions of Christianity do, that there is a heaven and a hell in an eternal afterlife, there has been no proof of this claim at all. At best, there have been suggestive "visions" on the part of saint-like persons (Hildegard von Bingen or Jacinta (one of the Fatima children who died young), who both had visions of a heavenly and hellish realm) or by non-saints who have had "near death experiences," in which they go through some sort of tunnel toward a light and maybe see relatives, friends or pets who have passed on. But whether these experiences are mere brain functions or more than that is not proven and probably not even provable. And even if these experiences were more than mere brain function, there is no way to scientifically validate their connection to a Christian afterlife.


So, in conclusion, if a religious claim is historical or psychological/sociological, it can be tested scientifically and shown to be correct or not correct. But if a religious claim is one that cannot now (or perhaps ever) be empirically tested, then it is unprovable and a matter of faith, not fact. In this last sense, many religious claims DO remain unproven. That is why religions require faith on such matters.

nacho
06-14-2008, 03:31 PM
Nacho, I would really like to see this, if you have a link to it.

If Wilson really cut him to ribbons, then he should be heard.

In the meantime, I leave you with this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6379618149058958603&q=hitchens&ei=UgJUSN67Bo-ciAL2oP33Dg&hl=en

Not a debate, but an excellent polemic on the issue of freedom of speech and how it bumps against religion.

I'll be sure to both view your vid and try to find a link to the Hitchens debate and post it tonight. I have some meetings but I won't forget.

IanMartins
06-14-2008, 04:47 PM
The fact is that belief does not affect God. He'll be there, running the show, regardless of how many remain blind. Capitalism, freedom and Christianity all go hand-in-hand...the more we lose any of the three, the more we lose of the other two.

A fact is something that is scientifically proven -- what you speak of is blind superstition. Being told that you are born with a great sin, that taking pride in your achievements is an equally great sin, and that the only way to cleanse yourself from this sin is to live in servitude, sacrifice yourself to others and die for some unknown purpose, is anti-freedom.

The notion that you cannot have capitalism without religion is absurd -- the virtue of capitalism is based on cold hard facts, while religion is the opposite. Religion and collectivism are remnants from the dark ages, and they stifle the human spirit. Capitalism is the ethical ideal, because it is the only social system that leaves man free to live by the use of his own mind -- by his reason.

hampshirebrit
06-14-2008, 05:14 PM
I'll be sure to both view your vid and try to find a link to the Hitchens debate and post it tonight. I have some meetings but I won't forget.

I thank you for that, sir, and, at the risk of overloading folks here, I would like to post this new one as well.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=891776135764757633&q=hitchens&ei=hANUSJnXCJXiiQL2vbiCBQ&hl=en

A debate between Hitchens and the Reverend Al Sharpton. This is a gem, at once informative and entertaining, one that I think will well repay the the measly hour and a half time investment that it requires to do it justice.

I have to say that the good reverend acquitted himself and your cause very well indeed, far better than previous encounters lead me to believe he would.

This was an unexpectedly good humoured debate, well moderated as one would expect, and with some excellent points being made, very elloquently, from both sides.

It may not prove my position ... but I do think that it disproves Jinx's original claim. A drunken buffoon would not be capable of sustaining a debate of this nature, or even takiing part in it.

Sonnabend
06-14-2008, 05:24 PM
Was I not clear? No religious claims have ever been proven.The Bible speaks of a census, one was conducted by Augustus. Mentioned in the Res Gestae Divi Augusti.

PROVED

The Bible speaks of Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judea. He was a real man, lived and died (killed by Tiberius in retaliation for his negilgence in allowing Judea to become unstable)

PROVED

The Bible mentions Herod, he lived, known as Herod Antipas.He was one of many such rulers placed in Judea to govern the Roman protectorate

PROVED

The Bible mentions Rome in detail, well the letters of Pliny the Elder, governor of Bithynia and Pontus, specifically refers to Christianity as distinct and separate from Judaism. Suetonius does as well. As does Claudius in his role as Pontiff...he and Herod were friends.

PROVED

MrsSmith
06-14-2008, 06:18 PM
A fact is something that is scientifically proven -- what you speak of is blind superstition. Being told that you are born with a great sin, that taking pride in your achievements is an equally great sin, and that the only way to cleanse yourself from this sin is to live in servitude, sacrifice yourself to others and die for some unknown purpose, is anti-freedom.

The notion that you cannot have capitalism without religion is absurd -- the virtue of capitalism is based on cold hard facts, while religion is the opposite. Religion and collectivism are remnants from the dark ages, and they stifle the human spirit. Capitalism is the ethical ideal, because it is the only social system that leaves man free to live by the use of his own mind -- by his reason.

A scientifically accepted fact is something that is scientifically proven...until some other scientist disproves it. Museums and libraries are full of disproven scientific "facts." It takes a huge amount of faith to believe that any specific scientifically "proven" "fact" is an actual fact.

If Christianity bore any resemblence to your opinion of it, you'd probably be right. As it is, you've definitely missed the facts.

You can have capitilism without religion, what you can't have is the freedom to be capitalistic without the freedom granted through Christianity...which is why Western civilization is mostly capitalistic.

God has been around for far longer than "the dark ages," so obviously a relationship with Him is not a remant from the dark ages...and all freedoms are granted through Him, by Him, as our founding fathers understood. If you have trouble wtih this concept, try spending some time reading the leftist plans for our country. Without Him in control, those who seek control are determined to force all people into the life they choose for us. While there are a great many people who fear "theocracy," the worst the Christian right has done is seek to have our laws remain the way they were 50 years ago. The leftists, on the other hand, are determined to force the entire country to change to meet their demands...and are working frantically through our court system to impose a system of laws that no legislature would ever write. The freedoms we have today are directly attributable to our Christian heritage.

MrsSmith
06-14-2008, 06:20 PM
The Bible speaks of a census, one was conducted by Augustus. Mentioned in the Res Gestae Divi Augusti.

PROVED

The Bible speaks of Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judea. He was a real man, lived and died (killed by Tiberius in retaliation for his negilgence in allowing Judea to become unstable)

PROVED

The Bible mentions Herod, he lived, known as Herod Antipas.He was one of many such rulers placed in Judea to govern the Roman protectorate

PROVED

The Bible mentions Rome in detail, well the letters of Pliny the Elder, governor of Bithynia and Pontus, specifically refers to Christianity as distinct and separate from Judaism. Suetonius does as well. As does Claudius in his role as Pontiff...he and Herod were friends.

PROVED

Among many... :)

Josh McDowell wrote an 850 page book full of evidence for Christianity. Of course, many people will continue to deny those facts by simply choosing to remian ignorant.

MrsSmith
06-14-2008, 06:22 PM
I think it depends on what you mean by religious claim. If a religion (like Catholicism) claims that gluttony, sloth, lust, rage, etc. are bad for the human soul, one can say that modern psychology has demonstrated that these things--especially in excessive amounts--can cause destructive behavior, mental breakdowns, and negative results for family & friends (and society in general). In this sense of "claim," the claim has some empirical validation.

If a religion claims that its founder or its family existed--ie, Christian tradition makes it clear that Jesus had a family including a brother/cousin James--and there is historical evidence for this claim (eg. the mentions of James by Josephus, the Jewish historian of the 1st century), then this "claim" can be said to be proven as well, or at least to have some validation.

However, if a religion claims, as most versions of Christianity do, that there is a heaven and a hell in an eternal afterlife, there has been no proof of this claim at all. At best, there have been suggestive "visions" on the part of saint-like persons (Hildegard von Bingen or Jacinta (one of the Fatima children who died young), who both had visions of a heavenly and hellish realm) or by non-saints who have had "near death experiences," in which they go through some sort of tunnel toward a light and maybe see relatives, friends or pets who have passed on. But whether these experiences are mere brain functions or more than that is not proven and probably not even provable. And even if these experiences were more than mere brain function, there is no way to scientifically validate their connection to a Christian afterlife.


So, in conclusion, if a religious claim is historical or psychological/sociological, it can be tested scientifically and shown to be correct or not correct. But if a religious claim is one that cannot now (or perhaps ever) be empirically tested, then it is unprovable and a matter of faith, not fact. In this last sense, many religious claims DO remain unproven. That is why religions require faith on such matters.

Of course, you realize that a huge amount of scientific "fact" is unproven, yet solidly believed by those with faith in science. On the other hand, all religious claims are proved, or disproved, within moments of death. Billions of people now know...

LogansPapa
06-14-2008, 06:56 PM
You can have capitilism without religion, what you can't have is the freedom to be capitalistic without the freedom granted through Christianity...which is why Western civilization is mostly capitalistic.

Even in Utah? :rolleyes: Try getting Net 30 in that state without giving to the Mormons. Try again.

hampshirebrit
06-14-2008, 07:57 PM
Fuck DU, it looks like you can't even post about being religious HERE without ridicule.

Not true at all.

The good thing about CU is that you and I can post our views and discuss and debate them intelligently.

CU is no echo chamber. I have had many a good discussion here on this matter, robust but not ridiculous. There are a number of good people in the opposing side to mine that give (nearly) as good as they get from me.

And if it comes to ridicule, then you may ridicule me, and I may ridicule you, and neither of us will be banned, not for that, anyway.

Not like DU at all, I think you will agree.

IanMartins
06-14-2008, 08:11 PM
A scientifically accepted fact is something that is scientifically proven...until some other scientist disproves it. Museums and libraries are full of disproven scientific "facts." It takes a huge amount of faith to believe that any specific scientifically "proven" "fact" is an actual fact.

The scientist that disproves something, does so through cold hard facts that can be percieved by our senses -- not through speaking to an imaginary friend. Such breakthroughs are only made possible through the work of the previous scientists that initiated the research on the subject in the first place, and there will no doubt be future scientists who will be able to give us an even deeper understanding on how the world works, based on the research of our current day scientists. It takes no faith to believe in science -- only reason, and the courage to look at the world objectively and fearlessly.


You can have capitilism without religion, what you can't have is the freedom to be capitalistic without the freedom granted through Christianity...which is why Western civilization is mostly capitalistic.

Most of western civilization may have property rights, but it does not have true capitalism -- only mixed economy. The USA was largely capitalistic from about 1870-1920, and Hong Kong has a strong degree of capitalism now, but there isn't presently any fully capitalistic society.

On what grounds do you believe that we must be denied the freedom of capitalism unless we're religious? Because we're not capable of being moral without it? In that case, speak for yourself. I'm strictly moral myself, though obviously my moral code differs from yours on some accounts. Morality is found in philosophy, and in common sense -- its not something to be enforced upon us through the threat of eternal damnation in some hell.


God has been around for far longer than "the dark ages," so obviously a relationship with Him is not a remant from the dark ages...and all freedoms are granted through Him, by Him, as our founding fathers understood. If you have trouble wtih this concept, try spending some time reading the leftist plans for our country. Without Him in control, those who seek control are determined to force all people into the life they choose for us. While there are a great many people who fear "theocracy," the worst the Christian right has done is seek to have our laws remain the way they were 50 years ago. The leftists, on the other hand, are determined to force the entire country to change to meet their demands...and are working frantically through our court system to impose a system of laws that no legislature would ever write. The freedoms we have today are directly attributable to our Christian heritage.

The freedoms you have today are the results of the Age of Reason and the classical liberalism which your Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson in particular, stood for. The same Thomas Jefferson that said that you should question even the existence of God, as well as George Washington and John Adams, who wrote in plain words that the United States were not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. Note how the Declaration of Independence refers to your rights as "self evident" rather than "sacred" -- that's what they are. Self evident. We aren't born into bondage -- not to other men, and not to any deities. We are born as owners of our own lives, with the right to seek our own happiness.

I'm fully aware of the liberal fascism that's threatening the USA, but am also fully convinced that it cannot be combatted with old-fashioned mysticism -- and as long as capitalism is tied down with such mysticism, it will be that much harder to present it as the truly progressive and moral system of government. The Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/), the Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/), the Adam Smith Institute (http://www.adamsmith.org/) and the Von Mises (http://www.mises.org/) Institute are all advocates of the form of capitalism that I stand for -- I advice you to take a look at them, as well as the Capitalism Magazine (http://www.capmag.com/) and the Free Capitalist (http://freecapitalist.com/). All are largely atheist organizations. Here's a site (http://capitalism.org/tour/index.htm) that does a decent job presenting the morality behind capitalism as a philosophy.

The Night Owl
06-14-2008, 08:24 PM
The Bible speaks of a census, one was conducted by Augustus. Mentioned in the Res Gestae Divi Augusti.

PROVED

The Bible speaks of Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judea. He was a real man, lived and died (killed by Tiberius in retaliation for his negilgence in allowing Judea to become unstable)

PROVED

The Bible mentions Herod, he lived, known as Herod Antipas.He was one of many such rulers placed in Judea to govern the Roman protectorate

PROVED

The Bible mentions Rome in detail, well the letters of Pliny the Elder, governor of Bithynia and Pontus, specifically refers to Christianity as distinct and separate from Judaism. Suetonius does as well. As does Claudius in his role as Pontiff...he and Herod were friends.

PROVED

The list you posted is a list of historical details, not religious claims. One need not be religious to accept the validity of historical details in the Bible.

What I'm arguing is that no religious claims, which are claims about the supernatural, have ever been proven. For instance, the Christian claim of the virgin birth of Jesus has never been proven.

You still have all your work ahead of you. :D

The Night Owl
06-14-2008, 08:28 PM
On the other hand, all religious claims are proved, or disproved, within moments of death. Billions of people now know...

You believe that all religious claims are proven after death. You don't really know that they are.

The Night Owl
06-14-2008, 08:44 PM
I thank you for that, sir, and, at the risk of overloading folks here, I would like to post this new one as well.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=891776135764757633&q=hitchens&ei=hANUSJnXCJXiiQL2vbiCBQ&hl=en

A debate between Hitchens and the Reverend Al Sharpton. This is a gem, at once informative and entertaining, one that I think will well repay the the measly hour and a half time investment that it requires to do it justice.

The Christopher Hitchens versus Al Sharpton debate is entertaining, but I found the following debates to be far more substantive...

Christopher Hitchens versus Dinesh D'Souza...

http://www.tkc.edu/debate/

Christopher Hitchens versus Marvin Olasky...

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1284,The-Future-Forum-Presents-Christopher-Hitchens-and-Marvin-Olasky,Future-Forum-Christopher-Hitchens

The Christopher Hitchens versus Shmuley Boteach debate was interesting, but listening to Botech for any significant span of time always makes me feel like I've been yelled at for hours...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ

IanMartins
06-14-2008, 09:17 PM
The Bible speaks of a census, one was conducted by Augustus. Mentioned in the Res Gestae Divi Augusti.

PROVED

The Bible speaks of Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judea. He was a real man, lived and died (killed by Tiberius in retaliation for his negilgence in allowing Judea to become unstable)

PROVED

The Bible mentions Herod, he lived, known as Herod Antipas.He was one of many such rulers placed in Judea to govern the Roman protectorate

PROVED

The Bible mentions Rome in detail, well the letters of Pliny the Elder, governor of Bithynia and Pontus, specifically refers to Christianity as distinct and separate from Judaism. Suetonius does as well. As does Claudius in his role as Pontiff...he and Herod were friends.

PROVED

Just because the Bible contains many historical facts does not mean that the supernatural occurances related therein are also accurate. In fact, the inclusion of supernatural events in the Bible render it useless as a historical document. Once you mix fact with fantasy, it becomes impossible to know where one begins and the other ends. So in reality, you can't believe any of it unless it can be independently verified elsewhere. There may have in fact been a Herod and a Pontius Pilot, even a Jesus. So what? That does not prove either the existence of God or the truth of the Bible as a whole.

nacho
06-15-2008, 03:13 AM
So here is the 2007 Wilson/Hitchens debate, hosted by Christianity Today: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html

I also watched the Hitchens U. Toronto video. I agree with the basic premise. It's about government PC policies more than religion cracking down on dissenters. And, to go further, is meant to "protect" minority religions far more than the majority one. Overall the quote from, I think, Augustine springs to mind, that heretics are good for religion because they make people actually read their Bibles. (I know I must have butchered that but think I kept the message in tact.)

Quite late now, so I'll be shuffling off to bed. I'll be back Sunday afternoon.

Sonnabend
06-15-2008, 03:28 AM
There may have in fact been a Herod and a Pontius Pilate, even a Jesus. So what? That does not prove either the existence of God or the truth of the Bible as a whole.

Not "there may have"...there WAS, thank you.

Pilate is mentioned in several places and by several historians , and the Res Gestae Divi Augusti not a work of fantasy, its his own writings on his career.

The RGDA is a standard and mandatory ancient history text. Herod Agrippa and Herod Antipas were real people and they lived and they died and their lives and careers were chronicled. Herod Agrippa (of the same family ) was a close friend of Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Augustus, later known as the Emperor Claudius, whose life is also chronicled by the Delphi Oracle in her verse of the seven Hairy Ones.

The census and taxation are matters of historical fact, Christs birth is historical fact, the life and death of several of his followers are matters of historical fact, the Sanhedrin was real, the occupation of Judea by Rome's legions was no fantasy.

There is no "may have" when it comes to Roman history

IanMartins
06-15-2008, 04:06 AM
Not "there may have"...there WAS, thank you.

Pilate is mentioned in several places and by several historians , and the Res Gestae Divi Augusti not a work of fantasy, its his own writings on his career.

The RGDA is a standard and mandatory ancient history text. Herod Agrippa and Herod Antipas were real people and they lived and they died and their lives and careers were chronicled. Herod Agrippa (of the same family ) was a close friend of Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Augustus, later known as the Emperor Claudius, whose life is also chronicled by the Delphi Oracle in her verse of the seven Hairy Ones.

The census and taxation are matters of historical fact, Christs birth is historical fact, the life and death of several of his followers are matters of historical fact, the Sanhedrin was real, the occupation of Judea by Rome's legions was no fantasy.

There is no "may have" when it comes to Roman history

It does contain historical facts. My point remains: Just because the Bible contains many historical facts does not mean that the supernatural occurances related therein are also accurate. The fact that some of the people existed, does not prove either the existence of God or the truth of the Bible as a whole. The Qur'an contains historical facts, yet you don't believe in the supernatural aspects of it. "The Inconventient Truth" contains some historical facts, yet you don't believe in the supernatural aspects of that either. You also don't believe in Michael Moore documentaries, despite the many authentic persons that are portrayed in it. Extend the same common sense to the Bible.

Sonnabend
06-15-2008, 05:03 AM
"The Inconventient Truth" contains some historical facts, yet you don't believe in the supernatural aspects of that eitherGores film contains no fact and it is all fantasy. The words panic merchant come to mind.


You also don't believe in Michael Moore documentaries, despite the many authentic persons that are portrayed in itExchange "dont" believe for "recognise Moore as a blatant and pathological liar" and you've got it


Extend the same common sense to the Bible.There is no comparison to the propaganda of Moore's mockumentaries and the many truths in the Bible.

Oh meant to add, Christs conviction at the hands of the Sanhedrin,his crucifixion and burial are also historical fact.

John
06-15-2008, 05:40 AM
The corollary of your argument that the God hypothesis is as good as any other is my argument that no one has any reason to believe the God hypothesis to be true. In essence, you're making an argument in favor of agnosticism, not belief... which is fine by me because I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist.

I am by no means making an argument in favor agnosticism, unless you consider the acceptance of never knowing where the origin of the universe as an agnostic strong point. Agnostics will never deliver the answer to the origin of the universe while Christianity stands a far better chance of doing so. In all actuality the "God theory" is on equal footing with every other pre-existence theory under every standard of review, even though it is ignored by the scientific community as a whole. At the same the time, the agnostics have no theory, nor will they ever have one. Reality came from somewhere, and the agnostic principle that 'it's always been here' is as mythological as Orpheus and Eurydice. Everything we know about physics suggests otherwise.

As an agnostic you are lost. Not in the biblical sense of lost, but lost in life. You live in the here and now, but have no ambition to know where you came from, nor where it is that you are going. I for one don't mind that behavior. Continue living in the moment until that moment has ended. However, when you get bored, don't feel it's necessary to interrupt those who have genuine concerns about matters of science and faith. Your ideas and philosiphy have no place among the circles of community that think about things other than themselves. So go away and be agnostic, just stop trying to be agnostic at someone. It's a pretty lame offensive weapon that only leads back to "you don't know and can't guess anything".

IanMartins
06-15-2008, 08:34 AM
Gores film contains no fact and it is all fantasy. The words panic merchant come to mind.

Exchange "dont" believe for "recognise Moore as a blatant and pathological liar" and you've got it

There is no comparison to the propaganda of Moore's mockumentaries and the many truths in the Bible.

Oh meant to add, Christs conviction at the hands of the Sanhedrin,his crucifixion and burial are also historical fact.

I share your sentiment regarding Gore and Moore -- if only you were capable of extending the same critical thinking to your own brand of blind, unreasonable superstiton. Regarding the crucification of Jesus, I stand by what I've already said: Just because the Bible contains some historical facts does not mean that the supernatural occurances related therein are also accurate. It doesn't prove either the existence of God or the truth of the Bible as a whole.

The Night Owl
06-15-2008, 09:37 AM
I am by no means making an argument in favor agnosticism, unless you consider the acceptance of never knowing where the origin of the universe as an agnostic strong point. Agnostics will never deliver the answer to the origin of the universe while Christianity stands a far better chance of doing so. In all actuality the "God theory" is on equal footing with every other pre-existence theory under every standard of review, even though it is ignored by the scientific community as a whole...

Arguing that the God hypothesis is correct is the theistic position. Arguing that the God hypothesis is merely possible, but not necessarily correct, is the agnostic position. In arguing that the God hypothesis is on equal footing with any other hypothesis pertaining to the origin and nature of the Universe, you are taking the agnostic position, which is to hold the view that the existence and nonexistence of God are both possibilities.

Believers don't believe that the existence of God is merely possible. They believe that the existence of God is a fact.


At the same the time, the agnostics have no theory, nor will they ever have one. Reality came from somewhere, and the agnostic principle that 'it's always been here' is as mythological as Orpheus and Eurydice. Everything we know about physics suggests otherwise.


Agnostics don't claim to know that reality has always been here.


Continue living in the moment until that moment has ended. However, when you get bored, don't feel it's necessary to interrupt those who have genuine concerns about matters of science and faith.

I can assure you that I don't believe my presence here to be necessary.

Sonnabend
06-15-2008, 06:29 PM
I can assure you that I don't believe my presence here to be necessary.

I'd say more than one forum has agreed with you. Mind you, you probably had little choice at the time, coming as it did with a "BANNED" message attached to it.


I share your sentiment regarding Gore and Moore -- if only you were capable of extending the same critical thinking to your own brand of blind, unreasonable superstition.

I dont expect you to believe. I do expect you to at least be respectful of the beliefs of others.

For reasons that I do not intend to go into, (there is a Biblical parable about swine and pearls that comes to mind), to me my faith is neither unreasoning nor is it superstition. Nor is it so to billions of others.


Regarding the crucification of Jesus, I stand by what I've already said: Just because the Bible contains some historical facts does not mean that the supernatural occurances related therein are also accurate. It doesn't prove either the existence of God or the truth of the Bible as a whole.

You seem to not understand English. I don't need proof (oh it has been provided to me, but I didnt ask for it, the message was sent regardless) and I have no intention of trying to prove it to you.

You and Owl are the same..even if the proof was standing right in front of you, you would not listen.

The Bible strangely enough, even had you in mind, when it told the story of Doubting Thomas.Thomas, even when faced with Christ standing in front of him, did not accept what he saw with his own eyes.

For those that believe, no proof is necessary.
For those that do not, no proof will ever suffice.

Not interested in wasting time on you.

The Night Owl
06-15-2008, 06:50 PM
I dont expect you to believe. I do expect you to at least be respectful of the beliefs of others.

Should I expect you to be respectful of liberalism? I don't think so. Respect is defined as high regard for someone or something. Asking you or any conservative to hold liberalism in high regard is asking too much. Similarly, asking me to hold religious beliefs in high regard is asking too much.

I feel no need or desire to be respectful of that which I consider to be both untrue and more harmful than beneficial. I will tolerate religion, but don't ask me to respect it because I don't and I won't pretend that I do.

IanMartins
06-15-2008, 07:08 PM
I dont expect you to believe. I do expect you to at least be respectful of the beliefs of others.

While I cannot respect blind belief in something as archaic as gods, I can certainly tolerate it -- as long as the people with such beliefs show tolerance towards me as well. In a thread devoted to the ridicule of atheism, I will defend reason and tell you what I think of your mysticism -- regardless of how "politically incorrect" it may seem to you. I believe this is a correct assessment of the current situation:

http://www.freethinker.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/addiscartoon.jpg


You and Owl are the same..even if the proof was standing right in front of you, you would not listen.


The Bible strangely enough, even had you in mind, when it told the story of Doubting Thomas.Thomas, even when faced with Christ standing in front of him, did not accept what he saw with his own eyes.

Clearly you fail to grasp the fact that, if you believe something which flies in the face of all logic, you alone have to provide evidence for its existence.

Sonnabend
06-15-2008, 07:35 PM
Should I expect you to be respectful of liberalism? I don't think so.

Not on a conservative site, no, you want that, go to DU.Here, I will mock liberalism all I like.


Respect is defined as high regard for someone or something. Asking you or any conservative to hold liberalism in high regard is asking too much. Similarly, asking me to hold religious beliefs in high regard is asking too much.

Go preach on DU and see how long you last.We have been MORE than tolerant of you. Abuse that privilege and CU will join the long list of sites you have been banned from.


I feel no need or desire to be respectful of that which I consider to be both untrue and more harmful than beneficial. I will tolerate religion, but don't ask me to respect it because I don't and I won't pretend that I do.

Then be prepared to be hammered, because a great deal of members here do believe, and find your tone and you..obnoxious and offensive. Posting here is a privilege, not a right.

One that can be removed at any time. When you stay in a home, offend your host and out you go.

Sonnabend
06-15-2008, 07:41 PM
While I cannot respect blind belief in something as archaic as gods, I can certainly tolerate it -- as long as the people with such beliefs show tolerance towards me as well.

How very...liberal of you. You sign on to a conservative site, and start attacking the faith of the members here. What's your DU name?


In a thread devoted to the ridicule of atheism, I will defend reason and tell you what I think of your mysticism -- regardless of how "politically incorrect" it may seem to you. I believe this is a correct assessment of the current situation:

That cartoon is cute. It's a lie, which is par for the course. No one here is saying anything of the kind, yet here you are telling me that my faith is "superstition" and "mysticism"...I don't have to prove a bloody thing to you, nor do I intend to try. My points have been made above.

LogansPapa
06-15-2008, 07:50 PM
http://www.freethinker.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/addiscartoon.jpg

Buaaahaaahaaaa!:p

Phillygirl
06-15-2008, 07:53 PM
While I cannot respect blind belief in something as archaic as gods, I can certainly tolerate it -- as long as the people with such beliefs show tolerance towards me as well. In a thread devoted to the ridicule of atheism, I will defend reason and tell you what I think of your mysticism -- regardless of how "politically incorrect" it may seem to you.

Actually, this thread is devoted to the lack of tolerance towards those with faith. You have done well to prove the point.

IanMartins
06-15-2008, 08:17 PM
How very...liberal of you. You sign on to a conservative site, and start attacking the faith of the members here. What's your DU name?

Because I don't blindly conform to everything the stereotypical conservative is supposed to be like, I'm a democrat? No, I'm an objectivist and a capitalist, meaning I differ from you on religion and some social issues, and am ideologically opposed to the collectivism of the democrats. I generally get along with conservatives since they tend to be independent-minded and in favor of free markets, and most have the sense to let their faith be a private matter.

You claim that *I* initiated the attack? This thread in itself is an attack -- I merely defend my own reason, as any self-respecting person would.


That cartoon is cute. It's a lie, which is par for the course. No one here is saying anything of the kind, yet here you are telling me that my faith is "superstition" and "mysticism"...I don't have to prove a bloody thing to you, nor do I intend to try. My points have been made above.

As soon as I criticized religion, as you have criticized atheism, I was told to "show respect". How exactly is the cartoon a lie?

You certainly don't have to prove anything to me -- as long as you keep your faith to yourself. As long as you actively try to present the Bible as truth however, and as long as you keep preaching on about how I "fail to see Jesus" -- yes, I'm going to excercise my ability to think critically, and expect you to provide me with cold hard evidence. If you're not going to, let's leave it at that and end this discussion.

LogansPapa
06-15-2008, 08:22 PM
You certainly don't have to prove anything to me -- as long as you keep your faith to yourself.



Outstanding.:)

Phillygirl
06-15-2008, 08:28 PM
Perhaps you'll take me seriously when I figure out how to levitate above Notre Dame cathedral the way your hero Thomas Aquinas is said to have.

Doubtful. I've read your work.

Sonnabend
06-16-2008, 07:18 AM
You certainly don't have to prove anything to me -- as long as you keep your faith to yourself.I will discuss my faith on this board when,. where and how I choose.

Word to the wise, son, don't give me orders.


As long as you actively try to present the Bible as truth however, and as long as you keep preaching on about how I "fail to see Jesus" -- yes, I'm going to excercise my ability to think critically, and expect you to provide me with cold hard evidence.Another lie.

I never said anything of the kind. Show me where I said anything like "how you "fail to see Jesus".

Mate, don't put words in my mouth, or I'll put my boot somewhere you wont like. Quote me honestly or keep thy mouth shut.


If you're not going to, let's leave it at that and end this discussion.Even if the proof stood in front of you and dotted you on the nose, you would not see it...so I wont bother.

IanMartins
06-16-2008, 09:25 AM
I will discuss my faith on this board when,. where and how I choose.

And I take the liberty to advocate reason when, where and how I choose. When you believe in something that flies in the face of reason, you alone have the responsibility to provide evidence for its existence if you expect anyone capable of critical thinking to take you seriously. That is the harsh reality of life.


I never said anything of the kind. Show me where I said anything like "how you "fail to see Jesus". Mate, don't put words in my mouth, or I'll put my boot somewhere you wont like. Quote me honestly or keep thy mouth shut.

On the previous page, you referenced how your Bible had me in mind when telling the story of "Doubting Thomas". That even when "faced with Christ standing in front of me, I would not accept him".

In the very post that I'm responding to, you said "even if the proof stood in front of you and dotted you on the nose, you would not see it". It's clear that the "proof" that you have in mind here, is Jesus.


Even if the proof stood in front of you and dotted you on the nose, you would not see it...so I wont bother.

Thanks, that's all I'm asking. If you cannot provide me with evidence to support your supernatural belief, don't bother preaching it to me.

Sonnabend
06-16-2008, 10:09 AM
And I take the liberty to advocate reason when, where and how I choose. When you believe in something that flies in the face of reason, you alone have the responsibility to provide evidence for its existence if you expect anyone capable of critical thinking to take you seriously. That is the harsh reality of life.You have no idea what the words "harsh reality" are or what they really mean. Trust me on that.

I have the "responsiblilty to prove it""...no I don't. I will speak of my fath when, and where, and how I choose and I do not have any "responsbility " to prove jack shit to you.

You're sounding more and more like a DUmmie.


On the previous page, you referenced how your Bible had me in mind when telling the story of "Doubting Thomas". That even when "faced with Christ standing in front of me, I would not accept him".LIAR.

These are my EXACT words. Misquoting me is a BAD IDEA.


The Bible strangely enough, even had you in mind, when it told the story of Doubting Thomas. Thomas, even when faced with Christ standing in front of him, did not accept what he saw with his own eyes.For those that have faith and believe, no proof is necessary.
For those that have no faith and do not believe, no proof will ever suffice.

In the very post that I'm responding to, you said "even if the proof stood in front of you and dotted you on the nose, you would not see it". It's clear that the "proof" that you have in mind here, is Jesus.It is? You read minds too, do you? I do not waste my time with idiots like you because no matter what the proof was, regardless of what it was, you would not listen.

One cannot educate a closed mind
.

Thanks, that's all I'm asking. If you cannot provide me with evidence to support your supernatural belief, don't bother preaching it to me.Its called freedom of speech, its the freedom I have to say on this board what I choose, I am in good company, and if you dont like it....too bad. You're going to find it tough..a lot of very strong Christians here, myself amongst them.

I do not preach to anyone, nor will you find anywhere that I did.

I said I believe
I do.
I said I have faith.
I do.
I said I don't have to prove it to you.
I don't.

FlaGator
06-16-2008, 10:26 AM
Yes. I spent a little bit of time yesterday and today arguing with people at DU who are convinced that they can predict Barack Obama's future by considering the positions of stars and planets.

People who think I'm too harsh on Christianity should watch me unload on the pagans and the New Age mystics.

You are not harsh on Christianity, you are ignorant of Christianity. There is a difference. I can't get angry with you for you views on Christianity because it's like taking a blind man to a museum and then getting upset with him because he doesn't appreciate the art work. This is not your fault. You were born blind and you will remain blind until the Lord decides to open your eyes.

I was blind like you until a couple of years ago. Then I was allowed to see and I saw a whole extension of reality that I was not aware of. The old world was there but a new world opened up to me. I truly feel sorry for you and those like you who are unable to feel the existence of something greater than this temporal world and to have a relationship with a caring and loving God. You say you rely on yourself but you do so because you believe that you have no one else to rely on and that is what is really sad. You have no purpose in life because to you life is just lived and then you die. All that you have accumulated is gone like so much dust in the wind. What is it like to have nothing to hope for? I can't remember what it felt like. Perhaps you can remind me so that I can appreciate even more the new life Jesus Christ gave to me.

LogansPapa
06-16-2008, 10:40 AM
You are not harsh on Christianity, you are ignorant of Christianity. There is a difference. I can't get angry with you for you views on Christianity because it's like taking a blind man to a museum and then getting upset with him because he doesn't appreciate the art work. This is not your fault. You were born blind and you will remain blind until the Lord decides to open your eyes.

Funny, the Muslims say the identical thing about their God. Is this the true basis of our war on them?

FlaGator
06-16-2008, 10:51 AM
Funny, the Muslims say the identical thing about their God. Is this the true basis of our war on them?

I am not concerned with the Muslims. I am not at war with them. They, like you can believe what ever they choose to believe. I will pray that God removes the veil from their eyes just as I pray that he removes the veil from yours. However, until that event happens you will do as you will do. I can convince no one of the existence of God, I can plant seeds. If God chooses to grow those seeds so be it. If he sets a fire in your heart for Christ then you and I will be spiritual brothers. Until such a time you will just be someone I call my friend.

Sonnabend
06-16-2008, 10:58 AM
Funny, the Muslims say the identical thing about their God. Is this the true basis of our war on them?

We are at war with those who would harm us.
We are at war with those who kill and maim without conscience
We are at war with those who would impose their twisted worldview on the free world.
We are at war with those who want nothing more than to see us dead.

We are not at war with those who seek a peaceful life and who live within our laws.
We are not at war with women and children, nor do we make war on women and children.

We are not at war with every Muslim, and we never have been.

And here you are with yet another lie saying we are.

You are pathetic.

IanMartins
06-16-2008, 11:23 AM
You have no idea what the words "harsh reality" are or what they really mean. Trust me on that.

Another accusation without any reasoning to it. On what grounds to you, who substitute reality for blind faith, tell me that I do not know the meaning of harsh reality? As you know nothing about my background, making such an accusation is blind folly.


I have the "responsiblilty to prove it""...no I don't. I will speak of my fath when, and where, and how I choose and I do not have any "responsbility " to prove jack shit to you.

When Al Gore claims that we are in a climate crisis, and that the planet will suffer from global warming unless we sacrifice ourselves to the "greater good" of environmentalism, does he not have the responsibility to prove this to us? Does Michael Moore not have the responsibility to prove that socialized health care is better than private health care, when he keeps shoving his views in our face? They are liberals and do not take the responsibility to provide us with evidence for their wild theories, but instead resort to lies and subterfuge. As a republican/a grown up, you should know better and take it upon yourself to provide evidence for what you're advocating. If you're not able to provide evidence, you should let your views be a private matter. You can certainly forfeit all responsibility and keep making baseless claims about the supernatural, but don't expect anyone outside your church to take you seriously.


LIAR.

These are my EXACT words. Misquoting me is a BAD IDEA.

You're forcing yourself to misinterpret me, and you're misrepresenting me. If I was quoting your exact words, I would have put them inside a quote-box with your name on it. I was telling you that you made a reference to the biblical lore while telling me that it was written for people like myself. Clearly, you were relating me to "Doubting Thomas".


For those that have faith and believe, no proof is necessary.
For those that have no faith and do not believe, no proof will ever suffice.

One piece of proof should suffice. I would analyze it with an open mind.


It is? You read minds too, do you? I do not waste my time with idiots like you because no matter what the proof was, regardless of what it was, you would not listen.

No, I used my reasoning to identify the analogy that you were presenting to me. Resorting to namecalling will get you nowhere, and neither will the inability to provide me with a single piece of logic that support your claims.


One cannot educate a closed mind.

Sadly that is often the case. I've found that most of the people with such closed minds are the people who are indoctrinated as a child, when their mind and reason are at their most vulnerable. When you have an open mind, you look at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature.


Its called freedom of speech, its the freedom I have to say on this board what I choose, I am in good company, and uif you dont like it....too bad. You're going to find it tough..a lot of very strong Christians here, myself amongst them.

True, that is to be expected at a conservative site. You'll find I have solidly conservative views on all issues but religion however, as religion is the only part of the American conservative ideology that is based on faulty logic. I have faith (no pun intended...) that the conservative movement will become increasingly secular in the time to come -- as long as there is no evidence supporting your brand of religion, the younger generations will become increasingly atheist in this relatively modern age. Because of this, capitalism is doomed as long as it's weighted down with religion.

You certainly have the freedom of speech to advocate your religion, just as I have the freedom of speech to advocate reason.

The Night Owl
06-16-2008, 11:27 AM
You have no purpose in life because to you life is just lived and then you die. All that you have accumulated is gone like so much dust in the wind. What is it like to have nothing to hope for? I can't remember what it felt like. Perhaps you can remind me so that I can appreciate even more the new life Jesus Christ gave to me.

My belief that existence is finite compels me to try to make the most of what little time I have in this Universe. I suspect that people who believe in an afterlife aren't making the most of their time on Earth simply because they are convinced that they're getting a new and eternal life after death.

Sonnabend
06-16-2008, 11:41 AM
I suspect that people who believe in an afterlife aren't making the most of their time on Earth simply because they are convinced that they're getting a new and eternal life after death.

On the contrary, those that believe have fuller, richer lives and accept that death is as natural as life, and that the final curtain holds no fear, as we will be going home. My faith has meant more to my life and made me appreciate so much more around me..so in fact those who believe make MORE of their time on earth as they see it with a new depth and feeling..and appreciation for the glory they behold.

FlaGator
06-16-2008, 11:52 AM
My belief that existence is finite compels me to try to make the most of what little time I have in this Universe. I suspect that people who believe in an afterlife aren't making the most of their time on Earth simply because they are convinced that they're getting a new and eternal life after death.

What do you consider not making the most of their time on Earth? The way I see it is if some one is enjoying the life that they have, aren't they in fact living life to the fullest? Because I believe in an afterlife doesn't imply that I am sitting around waiting for it to happen. That would be pretty boring now wouldn't it? I spend my time educating myself in the history and beliefs of my faith, but I also study mathmatics and computer data processing because I'm a software designer. I learn about graphics because I design web pages. I play guitar in a blues band and I generally make the most of my time. I am never bored. God gave me a brain and He expects me to use it for His glory. Just because I'm not over indulging on alcohol on a regular basis or having sex with every woman I can talk in to my bed doesn't mean that I am not living life to the fulliest. When ever I hear someone say that Christians are missing out on things it seems to be these vices that they are referring to. What do you feel that I can not do as a Christian that I can do as an unbeliever?

I think that you are misinformed in your concepts of how people who look foward to eternal life in the presence of God live their lives. Our faith tells us we should help others less fortunate than ourselves via our time and our money and skills. We should try to make our little corner of the world a little better place and to live life in such a way that unbelievers are attacted to it. Jesus tells us to shine like a city on a hill so that others will see and want to know about the light. As Christians we tell them the good news and invite them to live in the light. Whether they choose to or not is entirely up to God. The life a a believer should be the best example and proof of the existence of God. Even if you view a Christian life and don't believe you shouldn't be able to say that we are unhappy or that we are sitting around waiting to die.

Sonnabend
06-16-2008, 11:56 AM
When Al Gore claims that we are in a climate crisis, and that the planet will suffer from global warming unless we sacrifice ourselves to the "greater good" of environmentalism, does he not have the responsibility to prove this to us?

Let me guess, you're an AGW alarmist as well.


As a republican/a grown up, you should know better and take it upon yourself to provide evidence for what you're advocating. If you're not able to provide evidence, you should let your views be a private matter

You really dont like people publically talking about faith, do you?


You can certainly forfeit all responsibility and keep making baseless claims about the supernatural, but don't expect anyone outside your church to take you seriously.

This meme about needing proof again. Why do you need proof? As I seem to recall..a very wise man once said that "science and faith are like the shoes on your feet...you get further with both than you do with just one."

Ask all you like, I am not required to justify myself to you.

Nor will I try.

Um...oh yeah..what church would that be?


Clearly, you were relating me to "Doubting Thomas".

I said that confronted with the proof you would still not believe. i stand by that assessment.


True, that is to be expected at a conservative site. You'll find I have solidly conservative views on all issues but religion however, as religion is the only part of the American conservative ideology that is based on faulty logic.

Religion is not faith and never has been. One is not the other. Now your logic is faulty.


I have faith (no pun intended...) that the conservative movement will become increasingly secular in the time to come -- as long as there is no evidence supporting your brand of religion, the younger generations will become increasingly atheist in this relatively modern age. Because of this, capitalism is doomed as long as it's weighted down with religion.

What "brand" would that be?


You certainly have the freedom of speech to advocate your religion, just as I have the freedom of speech to advocate reason.

Frank Herbert from his book "The Dragon in the Sea".."A psychologist that has never read and understood the Bible is a workman without tools..and blind, top boot."

LogansPapa
06-16-2008, 01:02 PM
We are not at war with every Muslim, and we never have been.

And here you are with yet another lie saying we are.

You are pathetic.

And you are a phoney. If you had the power to end all of their lives in the next heart-beat are you saying you wouldn’t use it - for no more than a simple-minded revenge? Bullshit.

IanMartins
06-16-2008, 01:24 PM
Let me guess, you're an AGW alarmist as well.

Just as I do not believe that individuals are obligated to sacrifice themselves to the greater good in the name of a god, I do not believe that they are obligated to do the same in the name of the environment. There is no climate crisis -- only leftist propaganda. There is certainly heavy pollution in some areas, but the only reasonable way to deal with that is through scientific breakthroughs in alternate energy sources -- not through using special lightbulbs. Scientific breakthroughs are accellerated through capitalism.


You really dont like people publically talking about faith, do you?

I don't. I tend to ignore it, but since this is a thread about atheism/religion, I'm vocal about it here.


This meme about needing proof again. Why do you need proof? As I seem to recall..a very wise man once said that "science and faith are like the shoes on your feet...you get further with both than you do with just one."

I would rather say that science and philosophy are like the shoes on your feet. Philosophy is a product of man's ability to think, while religion is a product of the opposite.


Ask all you like, I am not required to justify myself to you.

You're not. As long as someone attempts to present their religion as truth however, I will inquire about what evidence they base their view on. Let's end this particular part of the debate -- you say you're not interested in preaching to me, and I say I'm not interested in listening unless you present me with evidence. Its a win-win situation.


Um...oh yeah..what church would that be?

The Bible says that the Church is infallible because of the Holy Spirit. This was believed to be in reference to the Catholic Church. After the Reformation, the Protestants argued that the Church mentioned in the Bible is a spiritual/abstract one that all who have faith belong to. If you don't belong to an actual church, I believe you are still part of one, according to Christianity. Replace "anyone outside your church" to "anyone not Christian", if you will.


I said that confronted with the proof you would still not believe. i stand by that assessment.

If I knew for a fact that there was a God, I would live out my life as an obedient and faithful follower -- assuming the God was a just one. I'm strongly concerned with morality, but find my morality in the field of philosophy and common sense rather than in religion.


What "brand" would that be?

I don't know which brand you subscribe to. Either baptism, lutheranism, catholicism, episcopalianism, presbyterianism, mormonism or quakerism, I would believe. There's so many its hard to keep track.


Frank Herbert from his book "The Dragon in the Sea".."A psychologist that has never read and understood the Bible is a workman without tools..and blind, top boot."

I'll counter that with a quote from Ayn Rand, the philosopher behind Objectivism:

Philosophy is the goal toward which religion was only a helplessly blind groping. The grandeur, the reverence, the exalted purity, the austere dedication to the pursuit of truth, which are commonly associated with religion, should properly belong to the field of philosophy

In order to reach your fullest potential, you need to have a firm sense of reality. This means a deep respect for facts. What is, is. Things are what they are. Truth is not obliterated by the refusal to see it. Facts are not annihilated by the pretense that they do not exist. Without rational though, you are truly a workman without tools. Having blind faith in religion means faking reality -- its an irrational shortcut to knowledge, and nothing but a placebo for the mind.

FlaGator
06-16-2008, 02:16 PM
<snip>
I would rather say that science and philosophy are like the shoes on your feet. Philosophy is a product of man's ability to think, while religion is a product of the opposite.


I would beg to differ with that. Many of the greatest philosophers of the last 2000 years have been Christian or held Christian beliefs. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas where deep thinkers as were Luther and Calvin. If you do a little historical research you will find that philosophy and religion were closely related until around the 17th century when naturalism started to become popular and divided the two. Augustine was trained in Aristotelian philosophy by some of the best minds of his time. Immanuel Kant had a strong belief in God and used philosophy and reason to deduce the existence of God. C.S. Lewis is probably one of the best of the modern philosophers who happened to use his huge mental facilities on the Christian/Theist worldview. I would hardly call Martin Luther King a person who lacked the ability for intelligent thought. Also, take a good long look at the pre-Christian era philosophers and you'll find that most had a positive out look on the existence of a god or gods.

You seem to imply that because a capable philosopher points his perception at religion and uses reason and logic to validate his or her beliefs then they are less intelligent than a strictly secular philosopher. For over a thousand years theology was considered the queen of sciences. The era of enlightenment was ushered in by theist scientists attempting to prove the existence of God. Francis S. Collins, the head of the National Human Genome Research Institute, after researching DNA became convinced that DNA was the product not of evolution but of divine design. Would you consider him as someone who is lacks critical thinking skills?

The Night Owl
06-16-2008, 02:47 PM
I would beg to differ with that. Many of the greatest philosophers of the last 2000 years have been Christian or held Christian beliefs. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas where deep thinkers as were Luther and Calvin. If you do a little historical research you will find that philosophy and religion were closely related until around the 17th century when naturalism started to become popular and divided the two. Augustine was trained in Aristotelian philosophy by some of the best minds of his time. Immanuel Kant had a strong belief in God and used philosophy and reason to deduce the existence of God. C.S. Lewis is probably one of the best of the modern philosophers who happened to use his huge mental facilities on the Christian/Theist worldview. I would hardly call Martin Luther King a person who lacked the ability for intelligent thought. Also, take a good long look at the pre-Christian era philosophers and you'll find that most had a positive out look on the existence of a god or gods.

You seem to imply that because a capable philosopher points his perception at religion and uses reason and logic to validate his or her beliefs then they are less intelligent than a strictly secular philosopher. For over a thousand years theology was considered the queen of sciences. The era of enlightenment was ushered in by theist scientists attempting to prove the existence of God. Francis S. Collins, the head of the National Human Genome Research Institute, after researching DNA became convinced that DNA was the product not of evolution but of divine design. Would you consider him as someone who is lacks critical thinking skills?

A good post. I certainly don't think that people of faith lack critical thinking skills but the fact that many highly rational people have faith does not mean that having faith is rational.

No human is completely rational. Our brains just don't give us the ability to be completely rational. Consider the fear of flying. Even though people who have a fear of flying know that the fear is irrational, most who have it are unable to shake it completely.

FlaGator
06-16-2008, 03:28 PM
A good post. I certainly don't think that people of faith lack critical thinking skills but the fact that many highly rational people have faith does not mean that having faith is rational.

No human is completely rational. Our brains just don't give us the ability to be completely rational. Consider the fear of flying. Even though people who have a fear of flying know that the fear is irrational, most who have it are unable to shake it completely.

Thank you for the compliment. I didn't think that you were questioning the thinking skills of Christians. That post was answering IanMartins comments. I like to consider myself fairly intelligent and since I became a believer I have found no evidence to dispute my faith. I converted to Christianity 2 years ago. Before that I professed to be a Taoist. Since God opened my eyes, I've read quite a bit concerning the history of Christianity and a lot of the Christian philosophers and ministers. Right now I'm reading a lot of C. H. Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards and really enjoy their views and writings. God did not make Christians to be ignorant people. He called us to faith so that we could glorify Him and one of the best ways to glorify God is to speak intelligently concerning His character, His will and His gift of salvation. When I became a Christian the first thing I wanted to know was what God expected of me so I read the Bible and when Christ spoke of the things one has to do to demostrate his or her love of God I know that that is how I had to live my life. I take that whole love your neighbors and pray for your enemies stuff to heart. God tells me to be truthful and not argumentative so that is what I strive to be. He tells me that I am to help an enemy as quickly as I help a friend. That I have found is a very good teaching because when you help an enemy you both tend to discover that you have more things in common than you have things separating you. God loves me so I should love you in gratitude to God. When you wrong me I should forgive you because I have wronged God and he forgives me. Christianity is really simple once you can see it. It's hard to live but it's not that hard to understand what God expects of a person.

BSR
06-16-2008, 03:55 PM
And you are a phoney. If you had the power to end all of their lives in the next heart-beat are you saying you wouldn’t use it - for no more than a simple-minded revenge? Bullshit.


you honestly believe all christians want to kill all muslims?

LogansPapa
06-16-2008, 04:15 PM
you honestly believe all christians want to kill all muslims?

As with the padres of the missions in early California, I believe that most devout Christians would do almost anything to convert them, or lacking that - have them put to the sword to ‘save their poor souls from eternal damnation.’

BSR
06-16-2008, 04:16 PM
As with the padres of the missions in early California, I believe that most devout Christians would do almost anything to convert them, or lacking that - have them put to the sword to ‘save their poor souls from eternal damnation.’

That's sad. Im sorry you are so misguided. Maybe you should actually attend a local Christian church some time.

InspiredHome
06-16-2008, 04:20 PM
It's not our duty to convert. Just to spread the gospel. A forced conversion is no true conversion. It's the Holy Spirit that regenerates the heart.

LogansPapa
06-16-2008, 04:21 PM
That's sad. Im sorry you are so misguided. Maybe you should actually attend a local Christian church some time.

It's sad - for sure.

But that doesn’t erase history and all the fine "traditions" held therein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade

BSR
06-16-2008, 04:25 PM
It's sad - for sure.

But that doesn’t erase history and all the fine "traditions" held therein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade


So your trying to hold all of Christians accountable today for the deeds that were done long before anyone of us were born? Can you point out the news article of statistics of people being forcefully converted to Christianity in America? Cause apparently my church hasnt gotten the memo yet.

On second thought nevermind. I am going to write on my hand "Dont debate Chrstianity" I keep getting pulled in.

FlaGator
06-16-2008, 04:26 PM
As with the padres of the missions in early California, I believe that most devout Christians would do almost anything to convert them, or lacking that - have them put to the sword to ‘save their poor souls from eternal damnation.’

And you are wrong. Only God converts. Just because the Conquistidor's said they were Christians doesn't make it so. You will know a Christian by his actions as defined by Christ. You could claim to be Japanese but that doesn't make it so does it? I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and say that some in the zealousness for Christ acted poorly but that is because the didn't truly understand the message that Christ gave them. The reason they didn't understand was that they were never Christians to begin with.

LogansPapa
06-16-2008, 04:31 PM
Can you point out the news article of statistics of people being forcefully converted to Christianity in America? Cause apparently my church hasnt gotten the memo yet.

Hmmmm……seems some young ladies in Texas might have a different perspective on that subject. Did they have a choice?

The Night Owl
06-16-2008, 04:37 PM
So your trying to hold all of Christians accountable today for the deeds that were done long before anyone of us were born? Can you point out the news article of statistics of people being forcefully converted to Christianity in America? Cause apparently my church hasnt gotten the memo yet.



According to Christians who believe in the concept of original sin, God holds all humans born after Adam and Eve accountable for sins they had no part in, does it not?

LogansPapa
06-16-2008, 04:42 PM
And if priests were not actually caught in the act - would the Church - it its fine tradition, generation after generation, remain silent (as in to condone) about their charge?

Molon Labe
06-16-2008, 04:47 PM
So your trying to hold all of Christians accountable today for the deeds that were done long before anyone of us were born? Can you point out the news article of statistics of people being forcefully converted to Christianity in America? Cause apparently my church hasnt gotten the memo yet.

On second thought nevermind. I am going to write on my hand "Dont debate Chrstianity" I keep getting pulled in.


Yup...It's futile to debate anything that requires faith. That's the concept that is diametrically opposed to reason...so it doesn't work with Mr. Spock types. Faith in the self ...faith in
God etc... no proof in either...IMO.

InspiredHome
06-16-2008, 04:57 PM
God holds individuals accountable for their own sin. Sin is missing the mark. We've got plenty of our own misgivings than to need to go borrowing other trouble.

IanMartins
06-16-2008, 05:15 PM
I would beg to differ with that. Many of the greatest philosophers of the last 2000 years have been Christian or held Christian beliefs. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas where deep thinkers as were Luther and Calvin. If you do a little historical research you will find that philosophy and religion were closely related until around the 17th century when naturalism started to become popular and divided the two.

True, however I don't recognize any of the philosophies from before the Age of Reason as particularly rational -- with the exception of Aristotelianism, which the philosophy of Objectivism (of which I am a student) is built upon. Other than Aristotle and Ayn Rand, I value the ideas of John Locke (the father of property rights, whose teachings strongly influenced the Declaration of Independence) and, to some extent, Friedrich Nietzsche (the first philosopher to advocate ethical egoism).


Immanuel Kant had a strong belief in God and used philosophy and reason to deduce the existence of God. C.S. Lewis is probably one of the best of the modern philosophers who happened to use his huge mental facilities on the Christian/Theist worldview. I would hardly call Martin Luther King a person who lacked the ability for intelligent thought. Also, take a good long look at the pre-Christian era philosophers and you'll find that most had a positive out look on the existence of a god or gods.

Yes, well Immanuel Kant is arguably the most evil person in modern history. While Hitler and Mussolini were no saints, it was the ideas of the highly influential Immanuel Kant that allowed such monsters to rise to power. An action is moral, said Kant, only if one has no desire to perform it, but performs it out of a sense of duty and derives no benefit from it of any sort, neither material nor spiritual; a benefit destroys the moral value of an action. (Thus, if one has no desire to be evil, one cannot be good; if one has, one can.) His moral commandment is: "thou shalt sacrifice, sacrifice everything, sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, as an end in itself." This is the philosophy that fascism is built upon -- it advocates complete sacrifice of the individual to the state. Its the antithesis to everything that I stand for, and the root of modern collectivism -- or liberal fascism if you will.


You seem to imply that because a capable philosopher points his perception at religion and uses reason and logic to validate his or her beliefs then they are less intelligent than a strictly secular philosopher.

Its not really a matter of intelligence -- I'm sure Immanuel Kant had a high IQ. I'm sure you do as well, judging by your writings, despite the fact that you're a mysticist. I do however say that you're not applying your intelligence in a fully rational manner. It is the rational philosophers who advocate reason that I acknowledge.

Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as "instinct", "intuition", "revelation", or any form of "just knowing". Once a philosopher mixes rationality with such irrational fantasy, he loses all credibility.


For over a thousand years theology was considered the queen of sciences. The era of enlightenment was ushered in by theist scientists attempting to prove the existence of God.

I don't agree with this. According to what I have learned, the events leading up to the Age of Enlightenment/Reason were:
- The increasing disaffection with the repressive rule of monarchs.
- The revolution of knowledge commenced by René Descartes and Isaac Newton.
- The religious wars that ravaged Europe throughout the 16th and early 17th centuries.


Francis S. Collins, the head of the National Human Genome Research Institute, after researching DNA became convinced that DNA was the product not of evolution but of divine design. Would you consider him as someone who is lacks critical thinking skills?

According to Wikipedia, he became an evangelical Christian after observing the faith of his critically ill patients and reading "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis. It doesn't come as a surprise that a Christian scientist would try to look for evidence of God in his field of science. Obviously, he failed to prove his theory that DNA was a product of divine design. I do respect and applaud him for his discoveries within the field of genetics -- I would respect him more if he had applied his reason to other aspects of his life as well.

FlaGator
06-16-2008, 05:18 PM
According to Christians who believe in the concept of original sin, God holds all humans born after Adam and Eve accountable for sins they had no part in, does it not?

Actually the concept of original sin as defined by Augustine is that no human since Adam can manage not to sin. You are born with a sinful nature and will exhibit sinful behavior and whether a new born has sinned or not he or she will. It is a certainity.

IanMartins
06-16-2008, 05:37 PM
Actually the concept of original sin as defined by Augustine is that no human since Adam can manage not to sin. You are born with a sinful nature and will exhibit sinful behavior and whether a new born has sinned or not he or she will. It is a certainity.

And further; it is sinful to take pride in your own accomplishments, and the only way to be redeemed from these sins is to die, after having lived a life bound in servitude to a deity whose existence cannot even be proven. Don't you recognize this as a very evil and oppressive outlook on life? Will you not agree that its monstrous to teach this to a young child, and in most cases use force to make him adhere to it?

Phillygirl
06-16-2008, 05:43 PM
Actually the concept of original sin as defined by Augustine is that no human since Adam can manage not to sin. You are born with a sinful nature and will exhibit sinful behavior and whether a new born has sinned or not he or she will. It is a certainity.

So far I think his premise has held true.

BSR
06-16-2008, 05:44 PM
Yup...It's futile to debate anything that requires faith. That's the concept that is diametrically opposed to reason...so it doesn't work with Mr. Spock types. Faith in the self ...faith in
God etc... no proof in either...IMO.

Its not really even that.

We have what, 14 pages here? No minds have been changed. Neither side has said "Huh, I never thought of it that way" No eyes have been opened. Its 14 pages of one side trying to up the other side. Its pointless to debate, since both sides are determined they are right.

In my heart of hearts, I know there is only one person who can open the eyes of the non-believers and that is God himself. It's my job to introduce people who don't know Jesus to him. It's there job to accept or reject him. Everyone here knows him, so its pointless to try and "change minds" only God can do that, I actually do pray for that with Loganspapa and The Night Owl. debating isn't going to do it. :)

Phillygirl
06-16-2008, 05:48 PM
Its not really even that.

We have what, 14 pages here? No minds have been changed. Neither side has said "Huh, I never thought of it that way" No eyes have been opened. Its 14 pages of one side trying to up the other side. Its pointless to debate, since both sides are determined they are right.

In my heart of hearts, I know there is only one person who can open the eyes of the non-believers and that is God himself. It's my job to introduce people who don't know Jesus to him. It's there job to accept or reject him. Everyone here knows him, so its pointless to try and "change minds" only God can do that, I actually do pray for that with Loganspapa and The Night Owl. debating isn't going to do it. :)

You are right on the debate part and the failure to change someone's mind. However I always enjoy reading some people's posts on the topic. FlaGator is one of those people. He tends to get a bit deeper into the philosophical aspect of Christianity and I usually come away with a nugget that is worth remembering. This time it was the paraphrasing of Augustine and the sinfulness of human kind. It just brought a bit of a different perspective on the issue for me.

BSR
06-16-2008, 05:52 PM
You are right on the debate part and the failure to change someone's mind. However I always enjoy reading some people's posts on the topic. FlaGator is one of those people. He tends to get a bit deeper into the philosophical aspect of Christianity and I usually come away with a nugget that is worth remembering. This time it was the paraphrasing of Augustine and the sinfulness of human kind. It just brought a bit of a different perspective on the issue for me.

Oh don't get me wrong, I like reading other perspectives. Especially other Christian perspectives, and even some non-believers. But this thread to me was about "Prove your God's existence to me" and I cant. Only he can..

Phillygirl
06-16-2008, 05:58 PM
Oh don't get me wrong, I like reading other perspectives. Especially other Christian perspectives, and even some non-believers. But this thread to me was about "Prove your God's existence to me" and I cant. Only he can..

I agree. There are some philosophical arguments about the existence of an intelligent being, but no proofs as to the existence of God as we know Him.

BSR
06-16-2008, 06:01 PM
I agree. There are some philosophical arguments about the existence of an intelligent being, but no proofs as to the existence of God as we know Him.

I see proof everyday, some others don't. That's why we have people who believe and people who don't. :)

The Night Owl
06-16-2008, 06:02 PM
Actually the concept of original sin as defined by Augustine is that no human since Adam can manage not to sin. You are born with a sinful nature and will exhibit sinful behavior and whether a new born has sinned or not he or she will. It is a certainity.

Hang on a second here. In Catholic school, I was taught that original sin means that humans are born in a state of sin.

St. Augustine, when confronted with the theological dilemma of having to explain what original sin means for infants who die before baptism, came to the conclusion that they go to Hell. So, if one subscribes to the Augustinian position that infants who die before baptism are sent to Hell, then one must assume that their fate is the result of God holding them accountable for original sin.

The Night Owl
06-16-2008, 06:19 PM
Its not really even that.

We have what, 14 pages here? No minds have been changed. Neither side has said "Huh, I never thought of it that way" No eyes have been opened. Its 14 pages of one side trying to up the other side. Its pointless to debate, since both sides are determined they are right.

In my heart of hearts, I know there is only one person who can open the eyes of the non-believers and that is God himself. It's my job to introduce people who don't know Jesus to him. It's there job to accept or reject him. Everyone here knows him, so its pointless to try and "change minds" only God can do that, I actually do pray for that with Loganspapa and The Night Owl. debating isn't going to do it. :)

I don't post with the hope of changing anyone's mind. I post because I enjoy a fight.

FlaGator
06-16-2008, 06:24 PM
Very good. A naturalist you are and probably and eventual nihlist.


True, however I don't recognize any of the philosophies from before the Age of Reason as particularly rational -- with the exception of Aristotelianism, which the philosophy of Objectivism (of which I am a student) is built upon. Other than Aristotle and Ayn Rand, I value the ideas of John Locke (the father of property rights, whose teachings strongly influenced the Declaration of Independence) and, to some extent, Friedrich Nietzsche (the first philosopher to advocate ethical egoism).

I don't recognize the 'use by' date on milk... thus I drink a lot of sour milk and fail to purchace good milk. So you close your eyes to other possibilities. Don't you find it limiting to maintain a worldview that is so shallow as to exclude all possibilities or to categorize them as irration simply because you don't understand them?


Yes, well Immanuel Kant is arguably the most evil person in modern history. While Hitler and Mussolini were no saints, it was the ideas of the highly influential Immanuel Kant that allowed such monsters to rise to power. An action is moral, said Kant, only if one has no desire to perform it, but performs it out of a sense of duty and derives no benefit from it of any sort, neither material nor spiritual; a benefit destroys the moral value of an action. (Thus, if one has no desire to be evil, one cannot be good; if one has, one can.) His moral commandment is: "thou shalt sacrifice, sacrifice everything, sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, as an end in itself." This is the philosophy that fascism is built upon -- it advocates complete sacrifice of the individual to the state. Its the antithesis to everything that I stand for, and the root of modern collectivism -- or liberal fascism if you will.

Personally I find Ayn Rands version of self agrandizing as offensive and evil. But I can see where she wold appeal to you viewpoint. The attitude of the world being about self and that reason should dictate moral code must be liberating. Reason can be used to advocate just about form of deviant behavior as easily as it can uphold high moral standards. It a very a very versatile way to justify behavior. I would say that your dislike of Kant is based more on the limits he placed on reason than the effects his philosophy had on the the likes of Hilter. The philosophies of Julien LaMettrie, Pierre Cabanis, Nietzsche and Marx had more to do with Hilter than anything Kant opined. Kant stated that reason can not provide all the answers especially those answer which may lay beyond the 5 senses. We can only know an object via our senses and if it has other qualities out side the ability to touch, taste, hear, see or smell then it must not exist. Tell that to William Herschel. He discovered that the 5 senses don't tell the whole store.




Its not really a matter of intelligence -- I'm sure Immanuel Kant, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama all have/had high IQs. I'm sure you do as well, judging by your writings, despite the fact that you're a mysticist. I do however say that you're not applying your intelligence in a fully rational manner. It is the rational philosophers who advocate reason that I admire.

Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as "instinct", "intuition", "revelation", or any form of "just knowing". Once a philosopher mixes rationality with such irrational fantasy, he loses all credibility.

I am not a mysticist by any stretch of the imagination. I am Evangelical Christian. The mysticsim sect of Christianity are the gnostics. Anyways, I do not close my eyes to possibilities. To be totally rational at all times is to be unable to think outside the box and their are instances in life that require us to think outside the box. At one point and expanding universe was not a rational veiw. Between Einstein, Hubble and George LaMaitre that rational view was shattered and their irrational view is now the norm and is considered rational.



I don't agree with this. According to what I have learned, the events leading up to the Age of Enlightenment/Reason were:
- The increasing disaffection with the repressive rule of monarchs.
- The revolution of knowledge commenced by René Descartes and Isaac Newton.
- The religious wars that ravaged Europe throughout the 16th and early 17th centuries.

Issac Newton was a very devout Christian. I read a biography where in college he keep lists of his sins so that he could ask for forgiveness when he prayed. When he could not account for a mechanism for why gravity caused a thing to fall he described it as "God's finger pushing it." Blaise Pascal was not only a mathematican but a religious philosopher. I have his book 'Pensees' which is a Christian apologetic.



According to Wikipedia, he became an evangelical Christian after observing the faith of his critically ill patients and reading "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis. It doesn't come as a surprise that a Christian scientist would try to look for evidence of God in his field of science. Obviously, he failed to prove his theory that DNA was a product of divine design. I do respect and applaud him for his discoveries within the field of genetics -- I would respect him more if he had applied his reason to other aspects of his life as well.
[/quote]

So because Collins sees evidence of a greater reality to lose respect for him. Read his book "The Language of God." He work was his work and his faith was his faith. He wasn't trying to find God in DNA but eventually he could not deny what he was seeing and his faith was reaffirmed. Earlier I made reference to the discovery of infered light. That was something that your senses could not detect and your reason could not discover but that does not make it any less real does it?

FlaGator
06-16-2008, 06:26 PM
I agree. There are some philosophical arguments about the existence of an intelligent being, but no proofs as to the existence of God as we know Him.


You knew me before my conversion and you know me now... that should be some evidence that there is something to the existence of God :)

The Night Owl
06-16-2008, 06:33 PM
So far I think his premise has held true.

Which part? The part about what happens to infants who die before being baptised? I sure hope that part hasn't held up. One thing is for certain... the Catholic Church no longer upholds repugnant Augustinian dogma regarding the fate of infants who die before being baptised. That dogma was replaced many centuries ago with the milder and more palatable concept known as Limbo. And, the concept of Limbo was just recently replaced by the idea that infants are not punished in any way in the afterlife because... big shocker... they are innocent.

FlaGator
06-16-2008, 06:45 PM
And further; it is sinful to take pride in your own accomplishments, and the only way to be redeemed from these sins is to die, after having lived a life bound in servitude to a deity whose existence cannot even be proven. Don't you recognize this as a very evil and oppressive outlook on life? Will you not agree that its monstrous to teach this to a young child, and in most cases use force to make him adhere to it?

Why should I worry about taking pride in my accomplishments. I know what they are and I am thankful that God gave me the skills to achieve them. If doing something makes me happy then I can say that I take pride in my accomplishments. If taking pride in something means shouting to the world "Look what I've done see how great and smart I am" then I guess I have no pride, but I as what point is that? I have enough self confidence not to need a pat on the back for good work. It's nice to get but it is not necessary.

Also, I don't have to wait until I die to be redeemed from my sins. I was redeemed from my sins at the moment God gave me grace and I accepted Christ as my Savior. This does not mean that I live a sinless life, it means that I try to do the best I can and when I mess up God has already forgiven me. As for my servitude, it is not a burden. It is something that I do willingly. I pray because I enjoy it. I help others because I find it fulfilling. God changed my heart a little over 2 years ago and what you call servitude and say is evil I say is showing my graditude to a God who pulled me out of the mire and changed my life. God has proven his existence to me and other Christians. If you can look beyond what your senses tell you then you might find proof of God as well. Only God and give it to you and it is His choice to do so or not. Grace is a wonderful thing if God gives it to you. How is this an oppressive outlook?

Your whole post truly shows that you have no understanding what so ever of what faith in Christ is all about. This is sad.

Phillygirl
06-16-2008, 07:08 PM
Which part? The part about what happens to infants who die before being baptised? I sure hope that part hasn't held up. One thing is for certain... the Catholic Church no longer upholds repugnant Augustinian dogma regarding the fate of infants who die before being baptised. That dogma was replaced many centuries ago with the milder and more palatable concept known as Limbo. And, the concept of Limbo was just recently replaced by the idea that infants are not punished in any way in the afterlife because... big shocker... they are innocent.

The part that says all humans are bound to sin. As for those doomed to eternal damnation...I've never really focused too much on that (for me it's like getting on the scale...I don't need the numbers to tell me if it's time to cut down on the carbs!). I worry about me and my soul and don't spend my time fretting on whether or not others are risking eternal damnation for thinking lustful thoughts or worst. I should be a better Christian and concern myself with all the souls. I'm just too busy right now as my soul keeps quite enough on my plate as it is.

As for babies...i don't know the answer, but just as knocking on wood when any mention of good fortune may come my way can't hurt...neither can baptism, in my mind.

I've never understood, though, why atheists must be rude about someone telling them that they will pray for them. I've had Muslims tell me that they will pray for me, and although I think they're probably focusing on the wrong prophet, I think it's nice that they'd take time out of their day to give me a little help upstairs. I just smile and say thank you.

Phillygirl
06-16-2008, 07:11 PM
You knew me before my conversion and you know me now... that should be some evidence that there is something to the existence of God :)

You liked Midnight Mass and the zen of Buddhism...not a bad start! :D

Sonnabend
06-16-2008, 07:12 PM
And you are a phoney. If you had the power to end all of their lives in the next heart-beat are you saying you wouldn’t use it - for no more than a simple-minded revenge? Bullshit.

Be silent, child, the adults are busy. If you cant say anything serious, then shut up. All you've done is prove that my opinion of you was correct.


I don't. I tend to ignore it, but since this is a thread about atheism/religion, I'm vocal about it here.

Deal with it.You don't like it? Doors over there.


I would rather say that science and philosophy are like the shoes on your feet. Philosophy is a product of man's ability to think, while religion is a product of the opposite.

Man, you really need help with comprehension. Faith is not religion, one is not the other.


I don't know which brand you subscribe to. Either baptism, lutheranism, catholicism, episcopalianism, presbyterianism, mormonism or quakerism, I would believe. There's so many its hard to keep track.

BZZZZT. Wrong. None of the above.And by the way, the "younger generatioon" worships at the Church of Me.


As with the padres of the missions in early California, I believe that most devout Christians would do almost anything to convert them, or lacking that - have them put to the sword to ‘save their poor souls from eternal damnation.’

..and you'd be even more stupid than I could imagine you were originally.

The Night Owl
06-16-2008, 07:29 PM
As for babies...i don't know the answer, but just as knocking on wood when any mention of good fortune may come my way can't hurt...neither can baptism, in my mind.

The idea that a supreme and supposedly benevolent being would create an infant whose destiny is to spend eternity in Hell for something it didn't do strikes me as an idea which is not worthy of anyone's consideration and yet one of Christianity's great thinkers not only considered it but believed it.

Sonnabend
06-16-2008, 07:33 PM
The idea that a supreme and supposedly benevolent being would create an infant whose destiny is to spend eternity in Hell for something it didn't do strikes me as an idea which is not worthy of anyone's consideration and yet one of Christianity's great thinkers not only considered it but believed it.

This is old news.

In this context, babies live in a state of grace, as they cannot consciously sin, and therefore go to God in a pure state.

"Suffer the children to come unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"

InspiredHome
06-16-2008, 07:44 PM
Why is it we see the same old objections over and again? And the answers we provide are not enough to satisfy the skeptic. There is and has always been enough evidence for the existence of God. Mankind is without excuse. The only thing left is willful disbelief.

FlaGator
06-16-2008, 07:59 PM
Why is it we see the same old objections over and again? And the answers we provide are not enough to satisfy the skeptic. There is and has always been enough evidence for the existence of God. Mankind is without excuse. The only thing left is willful disbelief.

Only God can convince the unbelievers and He does that through the give of grace. We Christians we can only plant seeds.

The Night Owl
06-16-2008, 08:01 PM
Why is it we see the same old objections over and again? And the answers we provide are not enough to satisfy the skeptic. There is and has always been enough evidence for the existence of God. Mankind is without excuse. The only thing left is willful disbelief.

Considering that I have yet to come across anything which can fairly be described as evidence of God's existence, I have to assume that Christians who claim that mankind has evidence of God's existence do so to justify in their minds the idea that God casts infidels into Hell for eternity. Because the idea that God would cast someone into Hell for having reasonable doubt is so patently aburd and so obviously repugnant, that the only way that believers can justify the idea is by convincing themselves that mankind has been given ample warning of the consequences of disbelief.

BSR
06-16-2008, 08:02 PM
Only God can convince the unbelievers and He does that through the give of grace. We Christians we can only plant seeds.

This is what it all boils down too. Thank you.

The Night Owl
06-16-2008, 08:03 PM
Only God can convince the unbelievers and He does that through the give of grace. We Christians we can only plant seeds.

So, God judges unbelievers for its failure to convince them of its existence? Weird.

FlaGator
06-16-2008, 08:07 PM
Hang on a second here. In Catholic school, I was taught that original sin means that humans are born in a state of sin.

St. Augustine, when confronted with the theological dilemma of having to explain what original sin means for infants who die before baptism, came to the conclusion that they go to Hell. So, if one subscribes to the Augustinian position that infants who die before baptism are sent to Hell, then one must assume that their fate is the result of God holding them accountable for original sin.

Maybe God has some otherway of treating infants that we don't know about. However, if infant death guaranteed salvation then Christians would be all for abortion because it would guarantee salvation by killing the infant before he or she had a chance to sin. Since Christ didn't suggest this to us as a means of salvation then it must not in fact work. Salvantion is assured by only one thing, God's grace.

FlaGator
06-16-2008, 08:15 PM
So, God judges unbelievers for its failure to convince them of its existence? Weird.

God doesn't fail. Failure means imperfection and God can not be imperfect.

You miss understand but it is the heart of a paradox. Man is totally at fault for his damnation but man has nothing to do with his salvation. God judges unbelievers because they sin. God redeems believers of their sin because they believe. A believer can only believe because God chooses to give them grace. It is not via merit that God gives them grace, it is because He chooses to do so regardless of how big or little their sins were because God does not separate the difference in sin as we do. To God either you sin or you don't and since we are home we sin.

InspiredHome
06-16-2008, 08:20 PM
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'
C.S Lewis

Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Romans 1:19-21


That's my stance on the issues.

John
06-20-2008, 06:58 AM
Arguing that the God hypothesis is correct is the theistic position.

Holy hell, did you take night school! Arguing that the God hypothesis is correct is the very core of the scientific method!! Seriously, this is high schools physical science at work here!!! Of course we subscribers believe it is correct, else we wouldn't subscribe you dolt! You don't argue that a theory is incorrect because because others argue that it is only possible or plausible under X,Y,Z circumstances. You *PROVE* an alternate hypothesis to be *MORE LIKELY* than the given. You have failed to do so! For the love of all that is sacred, please review your freshmen physical science textbooks and stop wasting our time with complete B.S. Disproving a hypothesis does NOT PROVE another one. It mereley eliminates an idea from the pool.



Arguing that the God hypothesis is merely possible, but not necessarily correct, is the agnostic position.


The agnostics have no position genius. The agnostics refuse to put their philosophic Grey matter to work one way or the other. The only agnostic position is the 'I don't know, and thus won't guess" position. So somewhere, someway your idea of the scientific prowess of agnostic politicae got extremely misrepresented.



In arguing that the God hypothesis is on equal footing with any other hypothesis pertaining to the origin and nature of the Universe, you are taking the agnostic position, which is to hold the view that the existence and nonexistence of God are both possibilities.


Hello dolt! Welcome to the conversation! I'm not 'pushing' nor 'believing' any religious doctorine. My take is entirely based on scientific pedigree, regardless of personal beliefs. The simple facts, no matter how you like to portray them, line up as such:

1.) Man, human minds that is, cannot make sense of pre-existence history.
2.) Man cannot carry out current physical modes beyond the existence of the expansion of the universe.
3.) Man, even Einsten who proved time was relative, cannot currently fathom an existence beyond time which is finite according to current relativity models.

That would lead any person to believe, or hypothesize that a being who understands order of magnitude greater does exist. Perhaps, if I said a "system of science, in which all men hugged rainbows and shat energy your liberal mind could wrap around that concept. However, I'm not here to entertain your mind. I'm here to let you know that science has given more questions than it has given answers. While I widely and enthusiastically support science, you've done a piss poor, and I MEAN PISS POOR job of excluding the existence of God from your proofs.

Don't you get it? That's how the scientific method works. I don't have to prove the existence of God further than a good damn alternative. You, on the other hand, in order to prove your theory of..well, nothing and always...you have to disprove my theory of a supreme being as referenced by a frame of mere mortals.



Believers don't believe that the existence of God is merely possible. They believe that the existence of God is a fact.


All blacks have no savings, love watermelon, and have and shinny rims and grills. All Chinese people are excellent at math and music and don't understand culture, and can't pronounce 'R's. All Mexicans are day laborers who don't know any better other than to provide support for their families. Oh, and all believers see the existence of god as an indisputable fact. Only a democrat would stereotype as much as you have.




Agnostics don't claim to know that reality has always been here.


Yes they do! Agnostics claim to know nothing beyond themselves and what they can see. If it weren't for the electron tunneling microscope Agnostics still wouldn't believe in Virii or Germ theory! So when confronted with a problem as complicated as "Where did we me from?" Agnostics have one retort: "I dont' know". .




I can assure you that I don't believe my presence here to be necessary.

In reality, no one cares whether you are here or not. No body gives two shits for your condition. Yet you are here, some way somehow. When you put your mind to the task of tracing your history back before the formation of the solar system, back before the formation of the galaxy, back before time and 3D space itself existed, what solution do you come up with? How did your mind, your conciseness come to be?

Hell, you don''t even know. You don't even have an idea, a hypothesis, or a theory. According to you, everything was always here and you're just a part of it...a somehow special and unique snowflake capable of understanding beyond your peers, but still stuck in existence like everyone else.

You are a joke. Your science is a joke. You know nothing more than anyone else here. You aren't unique. You aren't a beautiful snowflake of understanding. You are just some joe with a philosophy. Take a number and get in line if you want to convert the masses to your 'reality'.

The Night Owl
06-20-2008, 08:34 AM
Hell, you don''t even know. You don't even have an idea, a hypothesis, or a theory. According to you, everything was always here and you're just a part of it...a somehow special and unique snowflake capable of understanding beyond your peers, but still stuck in existence like everyone else.

Look. Here is the problem. If your explanation for how the Universe came to be is that God created it, then the next thing you have to explain is how God came to be. If you can't explain how God came to be, then why not save a step and admit that you don't know how the Universe came to be?


The agnostics have no position genius. The agnostics refuse to put their philosophic Grey matter to work one way or the other. The only agnostic position is the 'I don't know, and thus won't guess" position. So somewhere, someway your idea of the scientific prowess of agnostic politicae got extremely misrepresented.

Agnostics consider all possibilities but don't commit to any one possibility.

LogansPapa
06-20-2008, 10:43 AM
The agnostics have no position genius. The agnostics refuse to put their philosophic Grey matter to work one way or the other. The only agnostic position is the 'I don't know, and thus won't guess" position. So somewhere, someway your idea of the scientific prowess of agnostic politicae got extremely misrepresented.

Agnostics have diamond hard positions, usually centered around being left the fuck alone.:cool:

FlaGator
06-20-2008, 01:57 PM
Agnostics have diamond hard positions, usually centered around being left the fuck alone.:cool:

Then take your own advice and stay away from the conversatoin. When you join in you are asking not to be left alone.

FlaGator
06-20-2008, 02:03 PM
Look. Here is the problem. If your explanation for how the Universe came to be is that God created it, then the next thing you have to explain is how God came to be. If you can't explain how God came to be, then why not save a step and admit that you don't know how the Universe came to be?



Agnostics consider all possibilities but don't commit to any one possibility.

You logic is very flawed. God is with out cause or He is first cause. If something caused God then that something would be God. God is infinite and thus doesn't need a cause. The universe if finite and requires a cause. The universe had a beginning God did not.



Agnostics consider all possibilities but don't commit to any one possibility.

That would make agnostics fence sitters and indecisive. As an agnostic what do you do at intersections? Just sit there considering all the possibilities?

LogansPapa
06-20-2008, 03:07 PM
Then take your own advice and stay away from the conversatoin. When you join in you are asking not to be left alone.

Point missed. Not all in the conversation are Christian. Again, more Christian arrogance showing itself. :rolleyes:

FlaGator
06-20-2008, 03:47 PM
Point missed. Not all in the conversation are Christian. Again, more Christian arrogance showing itself. :rolleyes:

Here is what you said

Agnostics have diamond hard positions, usually centered around being left the fuck alone

How did I miss the point when I pointed out that if agnostics want to be left alone then why put themselves in the line of fire by participating in discussions about beliefs? That seems like a paradox to me. You want to discuss things from a pulpit but have not have to answer questions. Talk about arrogance.

BTW, have you ever reviewed the greek to understand what agnostic means? I'll give you a hint. It doesn't mean undecided.

InspiredHome
06-20-2008, 03:55 PM
The dilemma of Proverbs 26:4-5 comes to mind.

LogansPapa
06-20-2008, 03:58 PM
BTW, have you ever reviewed the greek to understand what agnostic means? I'll give you a hint. It doesn't mean undecided.

When did I ever indicate it did? :confused: :confused:


And on the other issue - why does everyone’s reference to GOD have to be Christian to have any validity? Talk about arrogance. Why is it the Jews never try to convert me. Guess how many Hindus have knocked on my front door? My neighbor recently told some JW’s that he happened to be a Shintoist and the little old lady in this "Only True Christian" group told him, "Oh, that’s okay dear - we can’t all be saved and chosen."

:rolleyes:

FlaGator
06-20-2008, 04:10 PM
When did I ever indicate it did? :confused: :confused:


And on the other issue - why does everyone’s reference to GOD have to be Christian to have any validity? Talk about arrogance. Why is it the Jews never try to convert me. Guess how many Hindus have knocked on my front door? My neighbor recently told some JW’s that he happened to be a Shintoist and the little old lady in this "Only True Christian" group told him, "Oh, that’s okay dear - we can’t all be saved and chosen."

:rolleyes:

I don't see where I referenced particular concept of a deity in my post. You said agnostics want to be left alone. I replied with then they shouldn't participate in conversations. How did I in any way assume that every one here was a Christian?

Since the majority of people on this site who are believers tend to be Christian then what do you expect? Why would be be referencing Allah or Brahma or Buddha in a religious discussion. Also the topic of this thread was 'More Hating on Christianity' not more hating on Hinduism or Buddhism.

By the way, I simpy was curious if you knew what the word meant. No reason to be confused unless you are seeking a meaning that doesn't exist.

The Night Owl
06-20-2008, 04:17 PM
You logic is very flawed. God is with out cause or He is first cause. If something caused God then that something would be God. God is infinite and thus doesn't need a cause. The universe if finite and requires a cause. The universe had a beginning God did not.

You believe that God always existed, but you can't possibly know whether it did or not. So, when you declare that the Universe was created by a God which has always existed, all you're really doing is declaring that one hypothesis explains another.


That would make agnostics fence sitters and indecisive. As an agnostic what do you do at intersections? Just sit there considering all the possibilities.

This one is easy. When I'm at an intersection, I can determine how to navigate it by observing the various elements of it... elements which I could verify scientifically if I chose to.

LogansPapa
06-20-2008, 05:28 PM
We'll try this again - because I'm missing something:


BTW, have you ever reviewed the greek to understand what agnostic means? I'll give you a hint. It doesn't mean undecided.

When, exactly, did I indicate as an agnostic, I was undecided? Please copy and paste showing where I indicated I was unsure. Thank you.

nacho
06-20-2008, 08:32 PM
When did I ever indicate it did? :confused: :confused:


And on the other issue - why does everyone’s reference to GOD have to be Christian to have any validity? Talk about arrogance. Why is it the Jews never try to convert me. Guess how many Hindus have knocked on my front door? My neighbor recently told some JW’s that he happened to be a Shintoist and the little old lady in this "Only True Christian" group told him, "Oh, that’s okay dear - we can’t all be saved and chosen."

:rolleyes:

There is a Biblical imperative to evangelize. That isn't part of the behavior of some religions because it isn't a part of the teachings of their founders. These people aren't trying to torture you, they really believe they're helping put you in an eternal paradise. On the other hand, atheists set up "truth squads" and write endless streams of words trying to tear down all of religion for...what purpose? Both can be vexing, but only the latter have malice (not only malice, but it's more than evident it's present) in their attempts.

FlaGator
06-20-2008, 09:14 PM
We'll try this again - because I'm missing something:



When, exactly, did I indicate as an agnostic, I was undecided? Please copy and paste showing where I indicated I was unsure. Thank you.



First, you show me where I claimed you were an agnostic. Please copy and paste showing where I stated or implied that you were agnostic. I just asked if you knew what the word meant. Anything else was an erroneous conclusion on your part. I have to ponder your ability to logically draw realistic inferences based on the evidence at hand when you seem to feel that I am calling you an agnostic and I have never said anything that could be even remotely considered doing that. All your conclusions are now suspect.

FlaGator
06-20-2008, 09:49 PM
You believe that God always existed, but you can't possibly know whether it did or not. So, when you declare that the Universe was created by a God which has always existed, all you're really doing is declaring that one hypothesis explains another.

Sure I can. First in nature I can look at the structure of DNA and come to the conclusion that it appears to be a created not an accidentally derived structure. Evolutionist say that it was accidentally formed but they cannot determine the state of events that could cause it's accidental formation. We are asked to accept this on faith because they are scientists and they know things. Anyways, I can look at the multitude of seemingly chance occurrences in structure of matter and come to the conclusion that the odds are very slim that all of these could have happened by random chance. For example, the ratio of the weight of a proton to an electron is so precisely balanced that a change in the ratio by even a 10,000th of a precent would cause chemical reactions to fail and nothing larger than an atom to be formed. The weight of evidence implies that that something had a hand in the creation of the universe. That it was not random. There are many other 'accidents' that layer each other and should any one of them be tuned slightly different than it is now would cause the whole house of cards to come crashing down. There exact strength of the nuclear weak and strong force, the strength of gravity, the rotational distance the earth is from the sun. The moon being the optimum distance from the earth for life to form. The list of accidents goes on and on, I have listed only a very small subset. Looking at the evidence either reality was completely random chance or reality was created for a specific purpose. I don't believe in accidents, coincidents or luck so I am come to the conclusion things isn’t random. There is purpose behind creation.

Then I have to ask myself who or what would have done that and a strong logical possibility is a force that existed outside the universe as we know it. This is a universe that is cause and effect based. I guess you would agree with that. Something that exists in this reality can't be unless it has a cause. Walk that backwards and only one of two results can happen. Either reality goes back into infinity or at some point there was an initial cause that itself had no cause. That initial cause would be God. Now if reality stretched back to infinity then you and I would not be here and this moment we are having could never have arrived because there would be an infinite number of moments between now and infinity.

No one can prove on way or the other that God exists (and God wants it that way for now) but we can look at the evidence and come to some possible conclusions. I look at the evidence and weight it and in my scales to leans to the side of God. Apparently your scales are differently calibrated than mine.



This one is easy. When I'm at an intersection, I can determine how to navigate it by observing the various elements of it... elements which I could verify scientifically if I chose to.


OK, I have given you my reasons for the existence of God. Give me your reasons why He does not exist.

Sonnabend
06-21-2008, 11:54 AM
Continue the debate here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=994)