| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/04/2011 10:45:42 AM · #2101 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Yes. With regards to the second question, does your paradigm require the desire for salvation? If I do not have the desire for salvation, can I still have faith in Christ? |
Hmmm, I guess I would answer that by saying it's possible to fool your fellow man, but not possible to fool God. He will understand your motives and intents and will judge your faith based on that. I don't think anybody who doesn't want to live with God will be forced to if that's what you are getting after.
Hope that helps. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 10:47:03 AM · #2102 |
Sorry about the e, habit. My apologies.
I don't consider myself pious, but it has it's role in our world.
I spend my days making evidenced based decisions, so does Jason. We are both physicians, bound to science for life. I have many colleagues who are as devout as Jason. Value judgements have no role in discussions of logic, so it will be difficult for you to sound rational using your current method, despite the fact that I don't necessarily agree with Jason. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 10:50:39 AM · #2103 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Sorry about the e, habit. My apologies.
I don't consider myself pious, but it has it's role in our world.
I spend my days making evidenced based decisions, so does Jason. We are both physicians, bound to science for life. I have many colleagues who are as devout as Jason. Value judgements have no role in discussions of logic, so it will be difficult for you to sound rational using your current method, despite the fact that I don't necessarily agree with Jason. |
Absolutely no apologies needed man! Just using it an an example of the failure of our senses and perceptions, and why testing our ideas is so darn important!
At least we agree that it would be nearly impossible to sound rational trying to talk about religion when one tries to actually remove the failures of perception and senses. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 11:40:23 AM · #2104 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
it's possible to fool your fellow man, but not possible to fool God. He will understand your motives and intents and will judge your faith based on that. I don't think anybody who doesn't want to live with God will be forced to if that's what you are getting after. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The fallacy with that is you presume to know the mind of God. |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
But I will say that I've yet to accept the logic of salvation through an imperfect life (let's just use the pedophile priests as an example) just because they believe and purport to have faith. I believe that type of faith deserves the desire for salvation which, one would hope, lead to living a "good" life (like not destroying children). You linked Teresa earlier, I wonder if she led this type of life. Full of doubt and uncertainty but a true desire for salvation which bolstered her life and actions. More than respectable in my book, and requires no proof, just her prior actions. |
This really illustrates the overwhelming probability that gods were created by man to fit existing ideas of morality. People generally want the "good guys" to win and the bad guys to be punished, so we imagine our gods to fit that ideal: some escape hatch for good people who may not believe, and "judgement" for wicked works even if faith passes the entrance exam. Every religion does this, and every believer claims that god is on their side of righteousness. If you think slavery is wrong, then god is there to back you up... and the same goes if you think it's right. A terror campaign succeeds because god was willing, and fails because god was looking out for the victims. Someone on the winning Superbowl or World Series team will inevitably give credit to god as if he was a fan intervening on behalf if the right team. Tragedies are equally envisioned as divine punishment for the wicked population or calling home the good. God just happens to be on whatever side the individual believer thinks is right even when it's in direct opposition to another believer with equal conviction.
We just saw Jason try to wriggle out of the problem of salvation for people with no opportunity for faith in the "correct" concept of God because he wants to believe that a life of goodness should lead to a just conclusion. We all do. And yet the alternate path he proposes is a perfect life... just a few posts removed from his apparent incredulity that a perfect life could ever be possible in the absence of religion. We've seen people in these threads claim that Catholics aren't really Christians while others claim that only Catholics are really Christians. The reality couldn't be more obvious: whatever the religious background, the god in question is rationalized to agree with that person's existing convictions. Anything that agrees with that image is considered supporting evidence and anything that conflicts is misunderstood, misinterpreted, no longer applies or there's some other way to dismiss it. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 12:11:09 PM · #2105 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
it's possible to fool your fellow man, but not possible to fool God. He will understand your motives and intents and will judge your faith based on that. I don't think anybody who doesn't want to live with God will be forced to if that's what you are getting after. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The fallacy with that is you presume to know the mind of God. |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
But I will say that I've yet to accept the logic of salvation through an imperfect life (let's just use the pedophile priests as an example) just because they believe and purport to have faith. I believe that type of faith deserves the desire for salvation which, one would hope, lead to living a "good" life (like not destroying children). You linked Teresa earlier, I wonder if she led this type of life. Full of doubt and uncertainty but a true desire for salvation which bolstered her life and actions. More than respectable in my book, and requires no proof, just her prior actions. |
This really illustrates the overwhelming probability that gods were created by man to fit existing ideas of morality. People generally want the "good guys" to win and the bad guys to be punished, so we imagine our gods to fit that ideal: some escape hatch for good people who may not believe, and "judgement" for wicked works even if faith passes the entrance exam. Every religion does this, and every believer claims that god is on their side of righteousness. If you think slavery is wrong, then god is there to back you up... and the same goes if you think it's right. A terror campaign succeeds because god was willing, and fails because god was looking out for the victims. Someone on the winning Superbowl or World Series team will inevitably give credit to god as if he was a fan intervening on behalf if the right team. Tragedies are equally envisioned as divine punishment for the wicked population or calling home the good. God just happens to be on whatever side the individual believer thinks is right even when it's in direct opposition to another believer with equal conviction.
We just saw Jason try to wriggle out of the problem of salvation for people with no opportunity for faith in the "correct" concept of God because he wants to believe that a life of goodness should lead to a just conclusion. We all do. And yet the alternate path he proposes is a perfect life... just a few posts removed from his apparent incredulity that a perfect life could ever be possible in the absence of religion. We've seen people in these threads claim that Catholics aren't really Christians while others claim that only Catholics are really Christians. The reality couldn't be more obvious: whatever the religious background, the god in question is rationalized to agree with that person's existing convictions. Anything that agrees with that image is considered supporting evidence and anything that conflicts is misunderstood, misinterpreted, no longer applies or there's some other way to dismiss it. |
Yes, quite exactly right. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 12:31:30 PM · #2106 |
| If rant teaches us anything it's that it is always, always, always easier to rip down another position than it is to defend one. Shannon is naturally an expert on this and knows this fact. He rarely, if ever, claims a position that can be attacked and very quickly drops it if it is (see Scandinavia being a peaceful nation because it is unchurched). It makes him feel like he has it figured out because nobody else looks like they have it figured out, yet really he stands for nothing. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 01:06:32 PM · #2107 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Jesus ... goes a step further and talks about giving everything to the poor and following Him. |
Thank God all those investment bankers are headed straight for the hot place ...! |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 01:14:19 PM · #2108 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He rarely, if ever, claims a position that can be attacked and very quickly drops it if it is (see Scandinavia being a peaceful nation because it is unchurched). |
Scandinavia isn't a nation and I never said anything about being peaceful. Denmark, Sweden and Norway all rank among the happiest countries in the world and share the lowest rates of religious belief. What's to defend?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I had to look this up because I actually didn't know it, but even in these Scandenavian countries, it's still a minority that doesn't believe in God or some "life-force". Sweden 23%, Denmark 19%, Norway 17%, Finland 16%. (source) Those numbers seem pretty low to suddenly declare the societies as hallmarks of secular thought. Let's put it this way. If I were to present this level of evidence to assert the opposite hypothesis, you would laugh me out of the room. |
I'm laughing you out of the room right now. A "spirit or life force" isn't a god and does not require religion. According to your same source, 80% of Swedes do not believe in God. "This, according to the survey, would make Swedes the third least religious people in the 27-member European Union, after Estonia and the Czech Republic" (followed by Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands). They're also among the most secular nations on the planet.
Message edited by author 2011-03-04 13:14:36. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 03:14:27 PM · #2109 |
So your contention is there is a direct link between the two? That one causes the other? Is that your inference? Sweden is happy because they do not believe in God. This is where you will hedge and stop. Of course you want us to make that association ourselves (and thus you can claim you never meant to say that), but you will not say it. And if you do not say it, then why bring it up?
Message edited by author 2011-03-04 15:15:04. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 04:50:11 PM · #2110 |
My contention was a direct response to this:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In fact, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the removal of Christianity, or religion in general, would lead to a more "universally loving" culture. If there is any evidence one way or the other, it is to suggest that ingroup/outgroup activity would continue unabated and may even increase. |
You said there's no evidence that removal of religion would lead to a more "universally loving" culture, and right there it is: the most secular/disbelieving nations on earth tend to be the happiest and most socially responsible toward one another. That's not to say removal of religion causes this result, but that it reduces the barriers. When people aren't concerned with being a decent Christian or decent Muslim, they can just be decent. Without the traditional religious justifications for prejudice toward other groups, there is less interference with treating others as fellow human beings. Note for example that same sex marriage is legal or pending in every one of those countries. Sweden isn't happy because the people don't believe in God, but because that disbelief results in more people identifying others as one of their own and seeing that same familial recognition in return. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 05:31:30 PM · #2111 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
My contention was a direct response to this:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In fact, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the removal of Christianity, or religion in general, would lead to a more "universally loving" culture. If there is any evidence one way or the other, it is to suggest that ingroup/outgroup activity would continue unabated and may even increase. |
You said there's no evidence that removal of religion would lead to a more "universally loving" culture, and right there it is: the most secular/disbelieving nations on earth tend to be the happiest and most socially responsible toward one another. That's not to say removal of religion causes this result, but that it reduces the barriers. When people aren't concerned with being a decent Christian or decent Muslim, they can just be decent. Without the traditional religious justifications for prejudice toward other groups, there is less interference with treating others as fellow human beings. Note for example that same sex marriage is legal or pending in every one of those countries. Sweden isn't happy because the people don't believe in God, but because that disbelief results in more people identifying others as one of their own and seeing that same familial recognition in return. |
But you haven't shown this at all. You say the "most secular/disbelieving nations on earth tend to be the happiest", but you haven't shown this at all. We have three countries shown to have disbelief and your claim that they are happiest. I see no trend lines. I see nothing but the barest claims. It looks the the czech republic has even less belief. Should we assume they are happier? France? I'm guessing 1972 Sweden had more belief. The measure of happiness poll for Sweden has been unchanged since 1972. Are you saying the level of disbelief has stayed the same from 1972 to 2011, otherwise what's the correlation? Belgium has shown the second largest drop in happiness over the last forty years, yet is among the highest disbelievers. What's the correlation there? Here's another interesting fact, the US is every bit as happy as Sweden. Both have happiness values between 7-8. Should we draw anything from that?
You see how easy it is to rip down a position.
Message edited by author 2011-03-04 17:40:24. |
|
|
|
03/04/2011 10:02:03 PM · #2112 |
BEHOLD!!!
The awesome power of religious indoctrination!
ETA: Of course, indoctrination of any sort tends to lead to strange behaviors..
More strangeness here, I think I might take the time out of my life to go point and laugh at these folks here in a couple of months...
From CNN: They're wearing sweatshirts and other clothing announcing the "Awesome News," that Judgment Day is coming on May 21. On that day, people who will be saved will be raptured up to heaven. The rest will endure exactly 153 days of death and horror before the world ends on October 21. That message is splashed across their five sleek, vinyl-wrapped RVs, bearing this promise: "The Bible guarantees it!"
Message edited by author 2011-03-07 11:42:34. |
|
|
|
07/20/2011 05:33:33 PM · #2113 |
| Science and Theology meet today on Google's Doodle (July 2011) is for Gregor Medel. Catholic monk and the father of modern genetics. |
|
|
|
07/22/2011 11:24:51 PM · #2114 |
| I wonder who has a degree in theology on here. Better yet ... who has a science degree ... |
|
|
|
07/22/2011 11:40:39 PM · #2115 |
Originally posted by TheDruid:
I wonder who has a degree in theology on here. Better yet ... who has a science degree ... |
Well,  DrAchoo has an MD; he's a pediatric allergist in practice in Oregon...
R. |
|
|
|
07/23/2011 12:20:48 AM · #2116 |
Originally posted by TheDruid:
I wonder who has a degree in theology on here. Better yet ... who has a science degree ... |
Geologist...
(pwned)... ;)
And Slippy is a Geologist too..
I think Ben (bspurgeon) also holds an advanced degree? (Neurology from what I understand, but I'm not entirely sure..)
Message edited by author 2011-07-23 11:42:15. |
|
|
|
07/23/2011 08:14:09 AM · #2117 |
Originally posted by TheDruid:
I wonder who has a degree in theology on here. Better yet ... who has a science degree ... |
I'm an attorney . . . math is hard. |
|
|
|
07/23/2011 06:18:02 PM · #2118 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by TheDruid:
I wonder who has a degree in theology on here. Better yet ... who has a science degree ... |
I'm an attorney . . . math is hard. |
I hear you Shutterpuppy...I much preferred Criminal Law and Constitutional Law... much more exciting reading materials.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 08:15:19 PM · #2119 |
Originally posted by TheDruid:
I wonder who has a degree in theology on here. Better yet ... who has a science degree ... |
There are people with science degrees and theology degrees in these forums. Why do you think the debates rage on for years and years? |
|
|
|
07/27/2011 10:59:39 PM · #2120 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Why do you think the debates rage on for years and years? |
Because regardless of whether they ascribe their expositions to divine inspiration or just think they're speaking their minds, all humans like to get in the last Word ... ;-) |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 02:35:43 AM · #2121 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Why do you think the debates rage on for years and years? |
Because regardless of whether they ascribe their expositions to divine inspiration or just think they're speaking their minds, all humans like to get in the last Word ... ;-) |
Actually, it seems to be more of a Western thing to me, and maybe just more of an American thing. In some cultures, trying to get the last word in can be really disrespectful. But, it does seem to be the reason why these DPC ranters never sleep. |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 05:14:38 AM · #2122 |
Originally posted by TheDruid:
I wonder who has a degree in theology on here. Better yet ... who has a science degree ... |
I have an MSc if that counts.
Anyway, these types of threads are often about subjective views combined with debating technique - Academic background doesn't have much bearing on it, there's always Wikipedia when someone feels like throwing a few facts in for good measure. |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 11:56:37 AM · #2123 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Why do you think the debates rage on for years and years? |
Because regardless of whether they ascribe their expositions to divine inspiration or just think they're speaking their minds, all humans like to get in the last Word ... ;-) |
We can all drink to that! :D |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 12:07:25 PM · #2124 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
.. In some cultures, trying to get the last word in can be really disrespectful. ... |
Hmmm...
I see a conundrum. If getting in the last word is a bad thing, wouldn't it be seen as a kindness to others to always make sure you got in the last word? Ya know, so as to prevent them from having to shoulder the shame of getting in the last word... ;) |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 01:14:28 PM · #2125 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
.. In some cultures, trying to get the last word in can be really disrespectful. ... |
Hmmm...
I see a conundrum. If getting in the last word is a bad thing, wouldn't it be seen as a kindness to others to always make sure you got in the last word? Ya know, so as to prevent them from having to shoulder the shame of getting in the last word... ;) |
Well, it's only disrespectful for one person to get the last word in. The other person is often expected to get the last word in. It's usually an age or gender thing. |
|
