|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/21/2010 07:08:12 PM · #1426 |
Originally posted by photoMAD:
Just one quick point--because i do so hate angry debate. |
It*does* get lively in here. I don't believe anyone really hates one another though. Just try not to take it personally.[/quote]
That's my job......8>)
Originally posted by photoMAD:
In a national survey, people were asked to describe Christians with 3 adjectives. The overwhelming majority... i think it was close to 95% gave Christians these 3: hypocritical, judgmental, and anti-homosexual. |
I don't think that comes as much of a surprise to most of us outsdie the faith. I have met a few people I wouldn't necessarily tag like that, but anti-gay, unfortunately doesn't seem to be negotiable for most from what I've seen and heard.
Originally posted by photoMAD:
I was very sad when I heard this statistic because it reveals a basic failure among Christians. We are so set in defending our beliefs, throwing the Bible at people, shoving "truth" down people's throats, and telling them that they're "sinners who need a savior or they're going to hell" that we completely forget the whole point of the gospel and how to actually witness. There is a HUGE difference between people and issues. Issues need to be addressed with truth, but people need to be treated with love and respect and kindness and mercy. We need to stop telling people how to live and start showing them if we ever want those statistics to change. |
I hope your thoughts and feelings, especially the part about treating others with love and respect stay with you.
I think one of the issues that Christians don't consider is that there are many good people out there who simply do not share their faith. And though its anathema for Christians to consider, these people have good lives, do good things, and are comfortable in their chosen faiths, or lack thereof, and that automatically creates an obstruction when someone tries to tell them that they're basically going to hell in a handbasket if they don't shape up and get with the program.
Respect for others' beliefs just never seems to be one of the things that Christians even consider, and that's really destructive to anything approaching relationships of any kind. There are many people out there who have good morals and values, who are humanitarians, do great things, and also countless others who are just regular folks who again, are decent human beings who simply are not Christians, and a great deal of them by choice. They feel that there's neither anything missing, or wrong, with their lives. The inference that there is constantly creates problems.
Originally posted by photoMAD:
If Christians treated everyone the way Christ tells us to, I would hope that those 3 adjectives would be changed to loving, caring, and gracious. |
That'd be a welcome change, sad as it is to genuinely mean that.
Originally posted by photoMAD:
In closing, thanks everyone for the nice comments about my photography. I wish I had time to do more and pursue it as much as I want to. Unfortunately, school takes up most of my time. |
Well, don't neglect your commitments in life, but you have a gift in your photography. I don't think you were meant to not use it!
|
|
|
|
02/21/2010 08:26:37 PM · #1427 |
| I just finished watching this debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox and I realized that it would be wise for me to leave the debating up to the experts and redirect my time and thoughts back to my studies. Thanks to everyone for the engaging discussions. |
|
|
|
02/21/2010 08:28:47 PM · #1428 |
Well, it seems like a non sequitur to go all the way back to Shannon's long post, but I'm going to. I've given it a little thought and want to respond.
Shannon, of course, gives an accurate representation of the way some people live most of their life and everybody probably lives a portion. There is a large body of people of all worldviews who never bother to question their belief. In this country we most often bump into the armchair Christian, but I'm sure there are armchair Hindus, Buddhists, and even armchair atheists. However, intelligent people also exist who question their beliefs and seek answers and think about things. They, also, fall among all worldviews. I'm sure every person on this thread qualifies (as evidenced that they are here) and even the peripheral readers care enough to follow along. The important point is to understand that both the intellectually lazy and honest fall across the spectrum and so it is fallacious to point out one segment of people or one sect of believers as being somehow more prone or more immune to this.
The sneeze analogy also only goes so far as the investment required to say "God bless you!" is negligible. Would we continue a similarly odd practice if it involved giving someone a twenty every time they sneezed? I doubt it. Do religious worldviews require an investment more than our wishes of good health when someone reaches for their hanky? The answer is pretty obviously yes.
On Rant, we love to nitpick. The assumed way the argument works is if you can point out a minute detail that is wrong, the whole argument falls apart. Of course this is false. Take the apostle's creed. Creeds were written to unite the church and prevent fragmentation of belief. The encouraging part to me, again, is that the creed is very relevant two millenia later. (I agree with Shannon we shouldn't quibble about the exact date. The roots of the creed go back to the second century.) Some part of the Church (and never a minority) has held these beliefs since the earliest generations of believers.
For example, encyclopedia Brittanica says "The doctrine that Mary was the sole natural parent of Jesus is based on the infancy narratives contained in the Gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke. It was universally accepted in the Christian church by the 2nd century, was enshrined in the Apostles̢۪ Creed, and, except for several minor sects, was not seriously challenged until the rise of Enlightenment theology in the 18th century. It remains a basic article of belief in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches." Now we do need to allow some dissemination of information among the earliest believers. Did everybody know about the Virgin birth who counted themselves as Christian? Perhaps not. But this is different than saying people rejected the Virgin birth. Likewise, both Matthew and Luke mention the Virgin birth and were written in the first century. To summarize, if you divided all Christians who have existed into groups of "believe in the Virgin birth", "do not believe in the Virgin birth", and "never heard of the Virgin birth", the second would be overwhelmed by the first.
I don't think it is necessary to go over each and every statement in the Creed. I will quickly point out that Shannon has mistaken "catholic" for "Catholic". The first means "universal" while the second is a short proper name for the Roman Catholic Church.
In one way I am going to push back somewhat. Shannon feels many of these beliefs simply do not stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Most people on this thread (and most Christian to atheist converts) are inquisitive and want to know how things work exactly. There is nothing wrong with this, but it bears reminding that every worldview (including all represented here) have a level beyond which they fail scrutiny. They develop problems or one is forced to answer "I do not know." Christianity is no different, BUT I will reject the trap where people require a "Goldilocks answer". That is, someone asks a question and when an answer is given it is rejected outright as being either too complex or too simple. The simple answers cannot reveal the intricate detail of how things work and the complex answers are merely rationalization (or it is claimed). This makes me ask what type of answer would actually change one's mind? If the answer is "none", then the question (or intention) is dishonest.
Shannon dismisses a physical resurrection as too simple (he claims Paul believed in a spiritual one), but any answer "doesn't make sense" as being too complex. On one level, the simple answer is "I don't know." On the other hand, I believe in a physical resurrection. Jesus physically rose from the dead. His body was gone. We, too, will experience a similar fate. It seems obvious it has not happened yet, and most escatological views would consider that to occur at the end of time. Does this mean when someone dies they don't go to heaven immediately? Perhaps. Will it seem like that to the dead person? Unlikely. We cannot account for time asleep, how much more might we not account for time we are dead. So it's entirely possible the thief will enter heaven "today" (ie. in what seems like "today" to him) and yet he isn't there now. It should come as no surprise that an interface between timespace and something else might be messy. In the end, I expect I will have a body. Will it be the exact one I have now? I actually doubt it and I plan on being cremated anyway. Is God somehow powerless to raise me if my body has been destroyed? No. However, I do not know exactly what things are going to be like. It defies understanding in the same way quantum physics does. Is this too complex and merely rationalization? I bet I'll be accused of it.
Anyway, thanks for the long post. Best in a while. Hopefully the reply is viewed in the same light. |
|
|
|
02/21/2010 08:31:18 PM · #1429 |
Originally posted by photoMAD:
In a national survey, people were asked to describe Christians with 3 adjectives. The overwhelming majority... i think it was close to 95% gave Christians these 3: hypocritical, judgmental, and anti-homosexual. |
That 95% number is particularly astounding when you consider how many of the respondents must consider themselves Christans ... |
|
|
|
02/21/2010 08:41:11 PM · #1430 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On Rant, we love to nitpick. The assumed way the argument works is if you can point out a minute detail that is wrong, the whole argument falls apart. Of course this is false. |
Yep! Like this. Saying that's the assumed way for all of us.
NOT!!! Most of us are smarter than that.
ETA: Part of the problem with this little diversion is that one of you was emphatically stating that everything written in the bible was absolute truth, and infallible. In that case, even one minute wrong detail does make the whole argument fall apart. Then the backpedaling would start.
Message edited by author 2010-02-21 20:43:53.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2010 10:27:54 PM · #1431 |
Originally posted by photoMAD:
Hello Everyone [etc] |
Now you get the grump's-eye view.
I don't go along with everyone congratulating this young woman for being erudite, or restrained, or self-deprecating or what have you--such attributes have nothing to do with the quality of an individual or their intellectual powers. Instead, I'm merely shocked and saddened that someone young has again fallen prey to the worst aspects of our culture: idolizing faith and disparaging logic and reason, abandoning critical thinking, and turning away from rational pursuits in favour of self-indulgent fantasies. Worse, the exhortation to "witness" (read proselytize), instead of engaging in reasoned debate.
This followed closely by one member's astounding and oft-repeated assertion that "unbelievers" (atheists, I guess) are merely those who "put man first and god second" or some such drivel. Yep, that's it--atheists are just stubborn Christians who really believe in god but just want to "put him second". Oh, the arrogance.
And all of it is wrapped up in language that would have you thinking that Christians are a persecuted minority on this continent.
I think it's a sad day. Nothing is going to get our culture out of this vacuum of reason until reason becomes a virtue and faith a vice. |
|
|
|
02/21/2010 10:34:38 PM · #1432 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... The assumed way the argument works is if you can point out a minute detail that is wrong, the whole argument falls apart. Of course this is false. |
To expand on what Jeb stated, I actually thought the opposite is true. While reading your statments, these were my thoughts:
"How can you still believe, when SO MANY points have been refuted (and not just the 'minute details')? How can you continue to follow this system when it requires a constant never-ending stream of justifications / rationalizations? It isn't the minutiae that makes or breaks the case for xtianity, but the entire 'big picture'. When I finally stopped making excuses in support of religion, I no longer felt a need for it at all."
One thing that has helped me is thinking on a larger scale. When I believed, thoughts centered around how religion & faith affected me/us (ie, xtians). Now, I think about how things affect EVERYONE (instead of just this elite member's only club). Therefore, it is no longer necessary for me to judge someone on what they are (race/gender/orientation/religion/etc). Rather, I consider only how they treat others. This has also led to my not feeling inferior to anyone (due to status/income/position/job). Its been very enlightening, to say the least. Not surprisingly, I treat people with more respect than I ever did before. |
|
|
|
02/21/2010 10:48:22 PM · #1433 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... The assumed way the argument works is if you can point out a minute detail that is wrong, the whole argument falls apart. Of course this is false. |
To expand on what Jeb stated, I actually thought the opposite is true. While reading your statments, these were my thoughts:
"How can you still believe, when SO MANY points have been refuted (and not just the 'minute details')? How can you continue to follow this system when it requires a constant never-ending stream of justifications / rationalizations? It isn't the minutiae that makes or breaks the case for xtianity, but the entire 'big picture'. When I finally stopped making excuses in support of religion, I no longer felt a need for it at all." |
The reason is because I know what the other side of the fence looks like and it has a never-ending stream of justifications /rationalization as well. Perhaps I'm more comfortable with this set and you are more comfortable with that set, but it's not like the questions without answers suddenly stop. The only way that happens is if you stop asking the questions.
That's the way I look at it at least.
But the argument I was making is really being borne out as we speak. Two people choose to mention one line out of a thousand words and it's all we will talk about for a while until the rest of the post is completely forgotten. All one needs to do is pick one sentence, refute it, and the rest is forgotten.
Message edited by author 2010-02-21 22:51:56. |
|
|
|
02/21/2010 10:51:11 PM · #1434 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The reason is because I know what the other side of the fence looks like and it has a never-ending stream of justifications /rationalization as well. |
Do you really know, though? Also, what are some examples of justifications that people have (and for what)? I can't really think of anything that can compare to the gymnastics required to accept that, for example, the bible was actually authored by a god. |
|
|
|
02/21/2010 10:52:52 PM · #1435 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The reason is because I know what the other side of the fence looks like and it has a never-ending stream of justifications /rationalization as well. |
What justifications of non-belief are you referring to?
ETA: Too slow.
Message edited by author 2010-02-21 22:53:21.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2010 10:58:45 PM · #1436 |
| Cool, was that a yanko? Maybe a reverse-yanko? |
|
|
|
02/21/2010 11:01:32 PM · #1437 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The reason is because I know what the other side of the fence looks like and it has a never-ending stream of justifications /rationalization as well. |
No, it's quite apparent that you don't or you wouldn't have made this ridiculous statement in the first place.
It's not even "The other side" because there are so many other ways to live outside your worldview as a Christian, and to lump them all in as this purported other side is ridiculous, and ignorant. But as long as the us or them mentality prevails, I guess you'll always see it that way. Don't forget, there are people who just don't accept your God, as well as those who need no God, and don't believe in one anyway.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But the argument I was making is really being borne out as we speak. Two people choose to mention one line out of a thousand words and it's all we will talk about for a while until the rest of the post is completely forgotten. All one needs to do is pick one sentence, refute it, and the rest is forgotten. |
Okay......then stick to one point, and don't bitch when people jump on the salient point or two, and surround it with drivel. You were the one who decided on this picking flyshit from pepper attitude, and then you say it's a general attitude. It isn't, but you choose to ignore a rather large portion of what's put forth in the same breath that you accuse the others of in this discussion. As a matter of fact, you seem to perpetually whine that the discussion doesn't go the way YOU think it should.
Too bad.....you don't get to decide that.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2010 11:08:55 PM · #1438 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The reason is because I know what the other side of the fence looks like and it has a never-ending stream of justifications /rationalization as well. |
No, it's quite apparent that you don't or you wouldn't have made this ridiculous statement in the first place.
It's not even "The other side" because there are so many other ways to live outside your worldview as a Christian, and to lump them all in as this purported other side is ridiculous, and ignorant. But as long as the us or them mentality prevails, I guess you'll always see it that way. Don't forget, there are people who just don't accept your God, as well as those who need no God, and don't believe in one anyway.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But the argument I was making is really being borne out as we speak. Two people choose to mention one line out of a thousand words and it's all we will talk about for a while until the rest of the post is completely forgotten. All one needs to do is pick one sentence, refute it, and the rest is forgotten. |
Okay......then stick to one point, and don't bitch when people jump on the salient point or two, and surround it with drivel. You were the one who decided on this picking flyshit from pepper attitude, and then you say it's a general attitude. It isn't, but you choose to ignore a rather large portion of what's put forth in the same breath that you accuse the others of in this discussion. As a matter of fact, you seem to perpetually whine that the discussion doesn't go the way YOU think it should.
Too bad.....you don't get to decide that. |
A truly valiant effort on your part Jeb but didn't you say something a while back about
MUST........RESIST.......SNARKY.......POST.....
Hehehehe... This is much much better than TV.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/21/2010 11:25:56 PM · #1439 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The reason is because I know what the other side of the fence looks like and it has a never-ending stream of justifications /rationalization as well. Perhaps I'm more comfortable with this set and you are more comfortable with that set, but it's not like the questions without answers suddenly stop. The only way that happens is if you stop asking the questions. That's the way I look at it at least. |
My bad... I wasn't aware that you had ever been an agnostic or atheist 'non-believer'.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But the argument I was making is really being borne out as we speak. Two people choose to mention one line out of a thousand words and it's all we will talk about for a while until the rest of the post is completely forgotten. All one needs to do is pick one sentence, refute it, and the rest is forgotten. |
But that is precisely our point... that you (et al) can't or won't grasp our entire premise. We keep pointing out that the collective system of xtianity is horrendously flawed (and unnecessary), yet you want to refute individual items on their own merit. Sometimes, it feels like you are fighting so hard just to prove you are right, that you don't even care about the actual issues. Mostly, it seems xtians want so bad to NOT have been wrong their entire lives & are therefore unwilling to accept alternate beliefs as plausible. Pride is a dangerous beast, regardless which position one holds. |
|
|
|
02/21/2010 11:28:03 PM · #1440 |
| I'm sure I'm gonna get a bunch of one-sentence paragraphs in response, but I have to say Jeb that I know about the existence of all these other positions, but their are either not represented or are many notches below atheism in rationality (in my view). I can hardly keep the four or five atheists satisfied with posts, so I can't do it all. |
|
|
|
02/21/2010 11:33:03 PM · #1441 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Cool, was that a yanko? Maybe a reverse-yanko? |
I think it's just validation that you asked a good question. :P
|
|
|
|
02/21/2010 11:35:12 PM · #1442 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
But that is precisely our point... that you (et al) can't or won't grasp our entire premise. We keep pointing out that the collective system of xtianity is horrendously flawed (and unnecessary), yet you want to refute individual items on their own merit. Sometimes, it feels like you are fighting so hard just to prove you are right, that you don't even care about the actual issues. Mostly, it seems xtians want so bad to NOT have been wrong their entire lives & are therefore unwilling to accept alternate beliefs as plausible. Pride is a dangerous beast, regardless which position one holds. |
Well, try this link on for size: 10 questions for the atheist. Ignore the trappings of it being a Christian site and read the text. Are you comfortable with all these topics? If it were down to you and me, do you think you could hold together your worldview as a cohesive, collective system? or would it be a bunch of "I don't knows"?
I have not been an atheist or an agnostic, but surely you can give me credit for having talked to them. I've talked to atheists and agnostics for literally a decade or more. Long, every day, conversations. In two years of alt.atheism.moderated I was the only non-atheist they would tolerate for any period of time. I know the points and counterpoints of all these questions already. Nobody is providing anything new and upsetting. I understand the ins and outs of each position and at the end of the day I am most comfortable with the one I am in. I'm not claiming that means you aren't comfortable where you are, but I am not here out of ignorance.
Look the link and points over and tell me when you want to start going down them together.
Louis and Richard can look at the same link as well. It addresses their question as well. I think it is well written.
Message edited by author 2010-02-21 23:37:01. |
|
|
|
02/21/2010 11:56:16 PM · #1443 |
1. Creation - Not applicable. Reason being, I don't base my life around an answer to this question so it's moot.
2. Order - See above.
3. Abiogenesis - See above.
4. Transcendent Principles - See above.
5. Morality - I disagree with the assumption that morality can only exist with a divine author. I think we already had this discussion.
6. Meaning - A lot of things hold meaning to me but I don't base my life over the belief that I was put on this earth for a specific purpose.
7. The Mind - Again I reject the premise. Having a soul or creator doesn't change anything in regards to free will. If anything it hinders it.
8. Supernatural Experiences - Again I reject the premise and the assumptions the author lays out.
9. Case for Christ - Umm really?
10. Rational Faith - How does this even apply to me the non-believer? No I don't condemn Christians for their belief. Now only if Christians and other religious folks put an end to this condemning business world peace might actually be attainable.
Message edited by author 2010-02-21 23:57:28.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2010 11:57:28 PM · #1444 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
But that is precisely our point... that you (et al) can't or won't grasp our entire premise. We keep pointing out that the collective system of xtianity is horrendously flawed (and unnecessary), yet you want to refute individual items on their own merit. Sometimes, it feels like you are fighting so hard just to prove you are right, that you don't even care about the actual issues. Mostly, it seems xtians want so bad to NOT have been wrong their entire lives & are therefore unwilling to accept alternate beliefs as plausible. Pride is a dangerous beast, regardless which position one holds. |
Well, try this link on for size: 10 questions for the atheist. Ignore the trappings of it being a Christian site and read the text. Are you comfortable with all these topics? If it were down to you and me, do you think you could hold together your worldview as a cohesive, collective system? or would it be a bunch of "I don't knows"?
I have not been an atheist or an agnostic, but surely you can give me credit for having talked to them. I've talked to atheists and agnostics for literally a decade or more. Long, every day, conversations. In two years of alt.atheism.moderated I was the only non-atheist they would tolerate for any period of time. I know the points and counterpoints of all these questions already. Nobody is providing anything new and upsetting. I understand the ins and outs of each position and at the end of the day I am most comfortable with the one I am in. I'm not claiming that means you aren't comfortable where you are, but I am not here out of ignorance.
Look the link and points over and tell me when you want to start going down them together.
Louis and Richard can look at the same link as well. It addresses their question as well. I think it is well written. |
(BEFORE reading your link, I'll simply state that I am not atheist, but agnostic... "I don't know" is a familiar phrase & I'm perfectly ok with it. Personally, I don't agree with either side completely, though I much prefer NOT judging others based on refutable texts & side more with atheists 99% of the time.)
Ok, having read the questions, I would have no problem discussing them individually with you sometime (despite their being written to support the christian view and are incredibly 'loaded'.) I will look again tomorrow, but have to get up for work in a few hours. Also, have you looked at any of the responses therein? |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 12:07:42 AM · #1445 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The sneeze analogy also only goes so far as the investment required to say "God bless you!" is negligible. Would we continue a similarly odd practice if it involved giving someone a twenty every time they sneezed? |
Sure. We spend enormous amounts of money on invented traditions like diamond engagement rings and Halloween (even though very few people actually believe the dead rise from the grave around then). Of course any historical religion now regarded as myth would also include all the apparently wasted resources of people who sacrificed their time, money and lives to the cause.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"The doctrine that Mary was the sole natural parent of Jesus... was universally accepted in the Christian church by the 2nd century... and not seriously challenged until the rise of Enlightenment theology in the 18th century. |
Exactly my point. It was just accepted and people didn't seriously stop to question the Biblical contradictions for 17 centuries (actually 15-16, depending upon when that story was added to the Bible).
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I will quickly point out that Shannon has mistaken "catholic" for "Catholic". The first means "universal" while the second is a short proper name for the Roman Catholic Church. |
Please, spare us. The Creed was written under the auspices of the Roman Catholic church, and likely by Ambrose— the Bishop of Milan. The broader use of the term catholic to refer to other denominations did not appear until after the Reformation (loooong after the Creed was written), so this argument would be like claiming the word "gay" in an 19th century book meant homosexual.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
every worldview (including all represented here) have a level beyond which they fail scrutiny. They develop problems or one is forced to answer "I do not know." Christianity is no different..." |
I'm not sure I buy, "I don't know" as a failure of scrutiny. If we don't know which germ causes a new disease or exactly when the first compound eye developed, that doesn't mean either theory fails scrutiny. We don't claim to know. The difference is that religion does claim to know, which makes it very different. Issues such as why we require salvation or what happens after death are among the most basic questions of religion, and are supposedly explained in exquisite detail by your favorite flavor of ancient reference material.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This makes me ask what type of answer would actually change one's mind? |
The same things that would change one's mind in any aspect of reality. What would make you believe in Bigfoot or Zeus? Ideally empirical evidence, but at the very least a rational explanation that isn't circular, contradictory or self-referencing.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We cannot account for time asleep, how much more might we not account for time we are dead. So it's entirely possible the thief will enter heaven "today" (ie. in what seems like "today" to him) and yet he isn't there now. |
You're going to play the time card here? Seriously? Luke says Jesus will be in paradise today. Matthew says he went to Hell for three days and then ascended. I don't think even you would dispute the Bible's contention that the body disappeared and he ascended shortly after crucifixion, so we're very clearly talking about a human timescale here. The Bible makes other proclamations of specific times, such as Jesus being promised the throne of David and reigning over the house of Jacob... which did not happen, nor is it now possible. Timescales and alternate dimensions are among the mental gymnastics I referred to earlier where people try to reconcile issues like Jesus' promise that some of his followers will not taste death before he comes again, and even the order of creation in Genesis (creating night and day - and plants- before creating the sun). This is not a matter of complexity. The gospels (and Paul) declare that the faithful will be resurrected in the same manner as Jesus (who assures a very short timeframe), so if he was physically resurrected, then his most faithful followers CANNOT still be buried. The Bible basically makes this point non-negotiable, and it's the sort of problem that many believers simply haven't considered. Jesus's tomb was empty, so when we say a recently-deceased loved one is "looking down on us" or "in a better place," then that casket better darn well be empty, too. It cannot be otherwise according to the 'word of God'... unless nobody has ever been righteous enough to get through security.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hopefully the reply is viewed in the same light. |
"A" for effort, even if the result appears to support what I was saying. Bless you. I have no doubt that you are sincere in your beliefs, but I have yet to see you back up any religious claim without resorting to deflection or fallacy.
It comes down to this... few will fault you for believing whatever you want, but understand that it IS just a belief. People rarely ever really confront their own beliefs because religion tends to be discussed within the company of those who share similar views (our friends, families and churches). That's why beliefs tend to hold geographic (and inherited) boundaries... indicative of folk tales rather than objective truth. A few, like Charlemagne, have ensured the success of their favored sects by putting disbelievers to death and spreading their influence over a large area for several generations. Once a belief is accepted by a large community for a few generations, we tend to look for support for what everyone around us "knows" rather than seek objective truth (the behavior of the children in that Texas polygamy sect was a case study in this effect). Here on the internet though, we step outside of our self-reinforcing environment and face people who don't necessarily share our "accepted" beliefs. As long as we speak in generalizations, there's no problem— PhotoMad expressed her general belief, and we're [mostly] OK with that. It's when you start claiming specific details as fact, or asserting that your personal belief applies to others, that you'll get called on it... and this inevitably leads to some awkward posts and frustration as you try to support an assumed truth without a foundation of evidence or logic. It frequently won't make sense to anyone who hasn't already bought off on the idea (a concept that you've repeatedly acknowledged), and that's not very persuasive.
Far from than the simplistic "choice" Johnnyphoto seems to think people make, I believe (<-- note the honest acknowledgement that it's a personal opinion) that those who have rejected the prevailing wisdom of their environment are often those who have spent the most effort actually studying the matter with critical thought rather than searching for reassurance (the difference between trying to understand truth and trying to understand meaning having already assumed truth) because it's much more difficult to be a contrarian. As such, the disbeliever has already stepped out of the self-reinforcing environment and may find it easier to address specific questions with a coherent answer since many of the same questions were already considered along the way. Just my nickel... keep the change. ;-) |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 12:08:36 AM · #1446 |
Originally posted by yanko:
1. Creation - Not applicable. Reason being, I don't base my life around an answer to this question so it's moot.
2. Order - See above.
3. Abiogenesis - See above.
4. Transcendent Principles - See above.
5. Morality - I disagree with the assumption that morality can only exist with a divine author. I think we already had this discussion.
6. Meaning - A lot of things hold meaning to me but I don't base my life over the belief that I was put on this earth for a specific purpose.
7. The Mind - Again I reject the premise. Having a soul or creator doesn't change anything in regards to free will. If anything it hinders it.
8. Supernatural Experiences - Again I reject the premise and the assumptions the author lays out.
9. Case for Christ - Umm really?
10. Rational Faith - How does this even apply to me the non-believer? No I don't condemn Christians for their belief. Now only if Christians and other religious folks put an end to this condemning business world peace might actually be attainable. |
For a moment I'm going to be channeling the spirit of Louis and speak in assertive, blunt words (so forgive me), but if you think that you can answer those questions in a sentence each, you are a fool. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 12:12:14 AM · #1447 |
I seemed to remember you were agnostic Ross. :) Most of the time agnostics are either closet atheists or deists. Perhaps true agnosticism has a different set of difficulties. The system may be internally coherent because there is so little to it, but the question becomes, to what end? What is the use of the position? It doesn't claim to any truth, but rather just says it cannot know the truth.
Message edited by author 2010-02-22 00:17:00. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 12:27:04 AM · #1448 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
1. Creation - Not applicable. Reason being, I don't base my life around an answer to this question so it's moot.
2. Order - See above.
3. Abiogenesis - See above.
4. Transcendent Principles - See above.
5. Morality - I disagree with the assumption that morality can only exist with a divine author. I think we already had this discussion.
6. Meaning - A lot of things hold meaning to me but I don't base my life over the belief that I was put on this earth for a specific purpose.
7. The Mind - Again I reject the premise. Having a soul or creator doesn't change anything in regards to free will. If anything it hinders it.
8. Supernatural Experiences - Again I reject the premise and the assumptions the author lays out.
9. Case for Christ - Umm really?
10. Rational Faith - How does this even apply to me the non-believer? No I don't condemn Christians for their belief. Now only if Christians and other religious folks put an end to this condemning business world peace might actually be attainable. |
For a moment I'm going to be channeling the spirit of Louis and speak in assertive, blunt words (so forgive me), but if you think that you can answer those questions in a sentence each, you are a fool. |
I guess you didn't actually read a word of my post did you? If you did you might have gotten the distinct impression that I wasn't trying to answer them because they have little to do with how I live my life as a non-believer. Perhaps you should ask what questions the non-believer feels are important to their choices rather than posing ones the believer thinks are relevant.
Message edited by author 2010-02-22 00:28:43.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2010 12:43:48 AM · #1449 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I guess you didn't actually read a word of my post did you? If you did you might have gotten the distinct impression that I wasn't trying to answer them because they have little to do with how I live my life as a non-believer. Perhaps you should ask what questions the non-believer feels are important to their choices rather than posing ones the believer thinks are relevant. |
You don't think the questions of where did I come from? where am I going? what is my meaning? what is right and wrong? are important? You are a strange duck if that's true as these questions have followed humanity from time immemorial.
You'd think a system founded in scientific thinking could answer fundamental questions of our origins or meaning. Shannon busted Christianity for not being clear about such fundamental things as life after death and salvation, but I'd think these would be similar bedrock positions for the materialist atheist.
But I'll give you a go. What questions ARE important?
Message edited by author 2010-02-22 00:45:50. |
|
|
|
02/22/2010 12:45:23 AM · #1450 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
I would have no problem discussing them individually with you sometime (despite their being written to support the christian view and are incredibly 'loaded'.) |
What he said. Many of them demonstrate ignorance and/or logical fallacies (surprise, surprise). For an obvious example, look no further than question 1: "The overwhelming consensus of science is that the entire cosmos (including space and time) came into existence at a finite point in the past."
The statement is patently false and demonstrates a lack of comprehension of the theory. Space is expanding at every point, so an observer anywhere in the universe sees himself at the center of expansion. Current cosmological theories do NOT assume a single point of infinite density. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/11/2025 07:56:46 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/11/2025 07:56:46 PM EDT.
|
