@Clthomps: I think she's pretty interesting. Reserving judgement for the moment.
Shelley Lubben wrote:Women, especially young girls, are never properly informed to be able to make a wise choice to enter porn. Pornograpy is so hidden that not even movies or the media depict the dark side of porn or the consequences involved. Schools and churches do not educate young people about the porn industry. Parents don't talk to their children about the porn industry. How then are women able to make an informed choice about being in porn? The only education young women receive about the porn industry is FROM the porn industry where glamour, fame and fortune is promised where in reality the only promise the porn industry can make young women are sexually transmitted diseases, illegal and hazardous work conditions, drugs and alcohol and the regret of having their movies posted on the internet for a life time where family members and friends may find them. Porn devastates. Get informed!
Just to clarify, I didn't post this as a joke or as an attempt to proselytize anyone. I was amused when I first stumbled across this lady and am still not quite sure what to make of some of what she says (esp. re: the fantastical parts, obviously). But she says some challenging things when you edit out some of her spirituality (which is different from religion). I posted this because I genuinely couldn't just dismiss it or rationalize it away. So I thought I'd put it here for discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Also, Bill O'Reilly is an awful interviewer.
QFT. Not just a FoxNews problem, however. It's becoming a lost art.
I didn't watch the video (I hate those sorts of videos) but I read what manchu posted. She makes some sense. Porn is a pretty dodgey industry a lot of the time.
Helping people make informed decisions can only be good.
Shelley Lubben is interesting because she takes a pretty common sense message--the porn industry ruins performers' lives--and mixes is up with a lot of strange ideas about Christianity. Pity people aren't watching the vid. She says some interesting things. At one point she calls working in porn demonic UNLIKE prostitution. And then there's a conversation with Jesus in a mirror.
Her website has some weird videos, too, including a series where she tries to track down Steve Hirsch of Vivid Entertainment to do a debate. It contains some pretty racist jokes, including where she is talking to an Asian lady, saying "ding dang ding ding Steve Hirsch?" The lady says "sorry I don't speak . . . Chinese." Mrs. Lubben is pretty strange.
Jaysus, that video is scary wierd. Sometimes she's talking and it makes sense and then she spins off into wierdo religious territory.
It's sad to watch.
Especially that she was abused as a child. Apparently very common in the porn industry.
What a rough life.
mattyrm wrote:lol "i used to talk to God all the time.."
Uh?!
Sorry mattrym, explaining talking to God to a sceptic is like explaining colour to the blind. Either way, while the coversations might even contain humour, the subject itself is no joke. People do talk to God, I know this is true because I do so myself.
Well, syphilis does cause schizophrenia-like delusions if it goes untreated long enough. A dollar and a half of penicillin and she would be back to getting buggered by her boss, the pizza boy and any other random stranger who is unable to keep big willie and the twins in their pants. Yay!
I personaly don't see anything wrong with porn,religious/moral gaurdians will always find porn actresses and actors who have "repented"/had a change of heart,and proceed to parade them about as "evidence" that porn is "evil" (it was done with Linda Lovelace,of "Deep Throat" fame,who made all sorts of aligations of being 'forced to perform at gun point" and being drugged,she latter claimed she lied about being "used" and went back to porn).
Now,of course their are individules who get into porn and latter regret their decision to do so,but their are numerous others who seem to be very happy with their decisions (Jenna Jameson,Ron Jerremy,Tobi Kia,Chelsy Lane..etc.)..and besides,every industry has some individules that come to relize they arn't happy working in it...I'll wager at this moment their is a young woman working at Applebees thinking "My God...what was I thinking!!".
Oh I hit on those applebees waitresses just to make them feel akward! Is it possible they used to be in porn? I am oddly aroused. However, most applebees waitresses are rather unattractive. XD
Orlanth wrote:explaining talking to God to a sceptic is like explaining colour to the blind.
Isn't the inverse just as true though? A skeptic explaining why it is odd to talk to a mythic being is like explaining colour to the blind. No traction will be made either way.
Unless of course we are talking about reasonable people which understand why each other believes the way they do, they just don't agree. I understand you have a brain tumor that let's you talk to magic people, but that is ok. And because it can be hard to tell online sometimes, that last sentence was a joke.
My wife's ex husband was, and possibly is still,
addicted to porn. He bagan tuning his family life out to go off to his computer room to watch the stuff non stop. She finally had enough and divorced him.
I also have a friend whose son was so addicted they had to drop him into a treatment center for a while.
That stuff is as bad as alcohol for addictive personalities from what I've witnessed and read about.
If it was limited the way alcohol is, I'd be able to tolerate it existing somewhat. The only trouble is it's not. I was working with my 12 year old on a map project one evening and I had typed out the address in the back of a Rand McNalley map book. A porn site appeared on the screen, and my kid saw some pretty graphic stuff.
These guys lay a lot of crap out for anyone to stumble across in the same fashion as if distillers and brewers were to put out soda bottles filled with whiskey or beer.
I don't let my kids use a computer without myself or my wife present because of this.
I truly despise the people cranking this crap out.
Does he suck d***k for porn? Because that's not addiction, addiction is the broken end of a glass pipe in your mouth because you have convulsions if you don't. Besides, why the heck don't you have blocking software on your computer? Is it so hard to turn off all images so you don't have to play google-seppuku whenever you download a site?
Any documentary or data I've looked at has not pointed towards pornography generally being a healthy profession for those involved in it. There are, of course, exceptions, but I think if you're telling yourself it's all hunky dory and there's no ethical issue you're deluding yourself.
Another aspect to porn I find disturbing is that over time it's become more extreme and degrading. Various theories exist as to why that is, but I find myself looking at what's out there wondering how the hell anyone could be aroused by that rubbish, and wondering what effect it would have on the views that young men have about women.
I'm not religious, and I'm pretty sure I'm not a prude either, but I do think porn is an industry that has a large and distressing dark side.
As other people have pointed out plenty of other industries have large and distressing dark sides. Working in a kitchen, for example, exposes you to plenty of drugs, unsafe working conditions, and so on. And yet there are safe wonderful kitchens out there that are a joy to work in, that aren't filled with drug-addicts, health and safety violations, and produce food that's worth eating.
As Tristan Taormino points out, the problem isn't with pornography any more than MacDonalds makes food problematic thanks to its labour, health & saftey, and effect of the product on habituated users. There's fast-food porn, production-wise, and it degrades people as much as any other sweat-shop industry that depends on exploiting people.
Which is good that there are sites out there that producing plenty of non-degrading porn sites, like Abbey Winters, Tristan Taorminos own work, and so on. A favourite fetish site of mine, for example, always include a warm-down session afterwards which is good because it promotes not only the notion of the fantasy within a safe, sane, and consensual framework but encourages good BDSM behaviour where you need to be negotiate with your partner and debrief afterwards.
I mean, by all means pre-judge an entire industry because of a minority (which, this being the internet, is disproportionately represented because there's no local-market for the really weird stuff), but just be aware of how ignorant doing so is.
Nurglitch wrote:Does he suck d***k for porn? Because that's not addiction, addiction is the broken end of a glass pipe in your mouth because you have convulsions if you don't. Besides, why the heck don't you have blocking software on your computer? Is it so hard to turn off all images so you don't have to play google-seppuku whenever you download a site?
He just couldn't stop looking at the stuff and acting on it. Another aquaintence had a divorce because of porn, since he, in his own words, "Couldn't give up his girls" . His wife chucked him and moved on to a good life while he just got more pathetic with the stuff. That in my mind is addiction, when someone can't give something up and their life goes to Hell in a handbasket because of it.
Quality of life is a relative sort of thing. That's why it becomes difficult to sort out what is a reasonable bias, and a harmful addiction.
If you're married you forfeit the ability to chase girls. That's harmful in the sense that girl chasing has been broken out of your life. Are you therefore addicted to your wife?
dogma wrote:Quality of life is a relative sort of thing. That's why it becomes difficult to sort out what is a reasonable bias, and a harmful addiction.
If you're married you forfeit the ability to chase girls. That's harmful in the sense that girl chasing has been broken out of your life. Are you therefore addicted to your wife?
Wait?..you mean you have to stop chasing girls when you get married?...Damn!maybe that explains why I keep getting divorced.
That's why its useful to distinguish between bad habits and addictions. Habituation can apply to nearly anything, and by virtue ethics what distinguishes a good person are their good habits. An 'addiction' to porn isn't a real addiction: there's no substance that the person is deprived of apart from a preferred schedule of brain chemistry. I'd imagine that if a guy's life sucks so much that he'd choose porn over his wife, he's probably got much bigger problems that his 'porn addiction' is no more than the reaction of any other caged animal.
The trick to dehabituation is easy: a schedule. Once your habit is scheduled, you can slowly reschedule it out of your life. That's how people fall out of exercise regimes, drift away from hobbies, and so on. Addictions, on the other hand, don't respond to retraining and require chemical intervention as well as behavioural therapy.
Here's an online dictionary definition of addiction:
"the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma."
Getting a divorce or having to go to a treatment center seems fairly traumatic to me.
You're using the word trauma in its colloquial sense, not its clinical sense. A divorce isn't implicitly traumatic, neither is therapy. Giving up pornography does not cause people to disassociate from their own experiences the way something like PTSD does.
In order for porn to be addictive, a person subject to the addiction would have to experience difficulty integrating his porn free life with memories of his porn focused life. Addiction isn't simply liking something more than another person believes that you should.
The definition of trauma, courtesy of dictionary .com:
"1. Pathology. a. a body wound or shock produced by sudden physical injury, as from violence or accident.
b. the condition produced by this; traumatism.
2. Psychiatry. a. an experience that produces psychological injury or pain.
b. the psychological injury so caused."
The second definition applies in the instances I refer to.
Relapse wrote:The definition of trauma, courtesy of dictionary .com:
"1. Pathology. a. a body wound or shock produced by sudden physical injury, as from violence or accident.
b. the condition produced by this; traumatism.
2. Psychiatry. a. an experience that produces psychological injury or pain.
b. the psychological injury so caused."
The second definition applies in the instances I refer to.
Relapse wrote:The definition of trauma, courtesy of dictionary .com:
"1. Pathology. a. a body wound or shock produced by sudden physical injury, as from violence or accident.
b. the condition produced by this; traumatism.
2. Psychiatry. a. an experience that produces psychological injury or pain.
b. the psychological injury so caused."
The second definition applies in the instances I refer to.
Relapse wrote:
2. Psychiatry. a. an experience that produces psychological injury or pain.
b. the psychological injury so caused."
The second definition applies in the instances I refer to.
What psychological injury has been caused by giving up pornography? In the instance you described the subject went through a divorce in order to maintain his access to porn.
The psycological injury and pain was caused by the fact the woman felt inadequate and even though the person in question didn't want the divorce, he was so deep in that he couldn't give it up even to save his marraige.
The psycological injury to the boy is thae fact he went through 10 kinds of Hell to give up porn.
It was ugly times all around for all concerned that I witnessed.
A person doesn't have to be rolling on the floor in sweats to be going through trauma. I think you know that.
Relapse wrote:The psycological injury and pain was caused by the fact the woman felt inadequate and even though the person in question didn't want the divorce, he was so deep in that he couldn't give it up even to save his marraige.
The psycological injury to the boy is thae fact he went through 10 kinds of Hell to give up porn.
In both those cases the injury was caused by the intervention of others. The act of giving up pornography caused no injury. You're conflating the two occurrences.
Relapse wrote:
It was ugly times all around for all concerned.
A person doesn't have to be rolling on the floor in sweats to be going through trauma. I think you know that.
But the trauma must be the direct result of giving up a thing in order for that thing to be addictive. Otherwise its simply a matter of preference.
It seems to me that the cases you're discussing are vexing you because you simply can't wrap your mind around a set of priorities that are so different from your own.
What, you mean like the psychological pain and injury that an athlete feels because they can't accomplish a particular athletic feat? Bull-poop.
The problem is that people think that there's this "Will" and if only they exercise it that they'll be able to do something. That's utter crap. People will only successful do what they are trained to do. Nobody gets up and decides to live their life in a different way, and that's why when they do they always relapse back into old habits. The problem is not that they can't break the habit, the problem is that they don't know how to break the habit.
I used to swim with people that would injure their jobs thanks to bad habits that they had, who wouldn't improve because they wouldn't change their habits and reinforced their habits of practicing to swim slowly. Many of them eventually fell out of the habit of swimming altogether because it was too hard to change a habit of slacking off when they were actively reinforcing that habit through their daily behaviour.
There was no psychological injury in the case of Relapses son in law (brother in law?) and his wife Hurt feelings are not psychological injury. That's an abrogation of responsibility, of pleading incapacity when the real problem is ignorance. Talk to someone with a real mental illness and the first thing you notice is not that the person is simply unhappy, but that they are unhappy because ordinary social interaction is so far beyond their capabilities. The problem with the DSM manuals is that a lay person reading it reads all sorts of behaviour into the descriptions when they don't realize the extremity of the behaviour and simply believe it to be the sorts of behaviour they would identify with the commonplace, rather than the technical, meanings of the medical terms in the manual.
Basically, trying to pathologize something is understandable because any time anyone feels anything immediately out of their control is totally out of their control, adults will over-generalize that something that would merely have been difficult was actually impossible so there's no loss of face in giving up. We do this because jumping to such conclusions is an efficient (if not terribly efficacious) habit we learn (or unlearn as the case may be) after a childhood of rigorous experimentation, trial and error (presumably after getting fed up with error and noticing that prejudice is easier even when you're wrong).
The downside is that people begin to think silly things like the notion that being unhappy is a mental illness, when depression isn't simply being unhappy (that's one symptom), or that they're addicted when they've simply formed habits, or whatever else makes it easier for them to just drift along rather than taking the time and effort to change their circumstances and habits.
So yes, a person does have to be undergoing a physiological reaction to the deprivation of a substance to be addicted. Being miserable because change is hard is perfectly normal and a healthy reaction: making an easy about face is more indicative of mental illness since it indicates things like bipolar disorder or dissassociative personality disorders, or any other disordered way of trying to ignore stress rather than experiencing it and reacting to it.
"Addiction" is a good example of a word that is used more often in a metaphorical rather than an exact sense. It is of course possible to profitably compare heroin addiction with the habit of looking at pornography online (if such is your agenda) but these two things are not actually the same or even significantly alike in a literal sense.
I'm intrigued and convinced by a lot of what Nurglitch has had to say. I think Shelley Lubben's story conflates internal problems with their external expressions. What makes it so interesting to me is the casual way that she slips between talking about the natural, quantifiable world and pseudo-mystical experiences. Even Pat Robertson does not do so as effectively as this lady. She has an archaic quality about her, like a relic from before the Enlightenment. It's kind of frightening how paradoxically compelling she comes across, at least IMO.
The concept of "sex addiction" is a set of moral beliefs disguised as science, as reflected in these fundamental concepts of "sex addiction" training programs and Sexaholics Anonymous:
Sex is most healthy in committed, monogamous, heterosexual relationships There are "obvious" limits to healthy sexual expression (for example, masturbation more than once a day) Choosing to use sex to feel better about yourself or to escape from problems is unhealthy.
The concept of "sex addiction" really rests upon the assumption that sex is dangerous. There's the sense that we frail humans are vulnerable to the Devil's temptations of pornography, masturbation, "promiscuity," and extramarital affairs, and that if we yield, we become "addicted."
Here's a simplistic demonstration of the difference between a pathological and metaphorical addiction. In the case of the former, contact (usually repeated contact) causes a chemical dependence that prefaces any psychological dependence. If this were the case with so-called "sex addiction" or "pornography addiction," then one would suspect that pornstars would be the most obvious victims of both given their frequent contact with both. But neither Mrs. Lubben nor any of the women she has helped leave the porn industry complain of being addicted to either sex or pornography.
Just about every counceler I know would disagree with you.
I'd wager that most counselors have a very tenuous understanding of the word 'addiction'. If only because most counselors are likely to be people of average intelligence who have been versed in a methodology that focuses on stigma, rather the precision.
Basically, the word addiction is used to label behaviors which a certain segment of people do not identify with. This is, in large part, due to the fact that most people associate their own leanings with propriety, rather than predilection.
It's written by a person named "Annie Sprinkle" who styles herself as a sexual educator and current/former porn actress. I believe you may see her nipples if you look closely, as well as links to her repetoire of books, videos, educational workshops, and so on.
Manchu wrote:"Counseling" itself is becoming a more and more nebulous term as the number of professional "counselers" continues to dramatically increase.
Orlanth wrote:explaining talking to God to a sceptic is like explaining colour to the blind.
Isn't the inverse just as true though? A skeptic explaining why it is odd to talk to a mythic being is like explaining colour to the blind. No traction will be made either way.
Not really. You see faith comes first, then the relationship. However once you are talking to God its hard to ignore the fact that He is no myth. It gets all too obvious when God says the same thing to several different people at once with none of the recipients communicating with each other at the time only to discover retrospectively that several people giot the same message. I have noticed this a number of times.
Furthermore I can understand how it is not to believe in God, and can experience what the skeptic does, but the opposite is seldom true. I am in a better position than a skeptic, the skeptic guesses at what they don't have experience of, I know what I have seen and heard. In this I am lucky, many other have a strong faith but have not been blessed this way, why, I don't know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote:Explaining the voices in your head to a sane person is like explaining colour to the blind, except you're crazy.
Heavily loaded. I make no aspersions on the mental health of skeptics, I suggest you do me the same courtesy. There is a world of difference between a relationship with God and 'voices in your head', the latter implies persons of highly unstable behaviour and is easy to distinguish from people of faith.
@Orlanth: I think the point that Ahtman was trying to get across was that there is no reason for a skeptic to believe that a believer's perspective is any closer to the truth or otherwise more reasonable than his own. The sentiment that skeptics are like the blind compared to believers is at least of heavily loaded as Nurglitch's post, if more (perhaps unintentionally) subtle.
Manchu wrote:@Orlanth: I think the point that Ahtman was trying to get across was that there is no reason for a skeptic to believe that a believer's perspective is any closer to the truth or otherwise more reasonable than his own. The sentiment that skeptics are like the blind compared to believers is at least of heavily loaded as Nurglitch's post, if more (perhaps unintentionally) subtle.
Actually both posts I commented on to some degree wrote off people with faith as insane. This is an ad Hominem attack.
My comments are not loaded because there is no proof of the non existence of God, a skeptic can at best be content within their own paradigm. Some who do believe may get to see some evidence of the opposite, I cannot prove this to any but myself but nonetheless it's there. Its the imbalance between looking for something until you find it (or not), and looking for proof of non existence, the latter requires searching everywhere, the former possibly only until it is found.
Going back to the OP, I know many people who know God and hear God, and I have no problem in believing that this former pornstar hears God. After all I am no better than her in God's eyes.
Manchu wrote:@Orlanth: I think the point that Ahtman was trying to get across was that there is no reason for a skeptic to believe that a believer's perspective is any closer to the truth or otherwise more reasonable than his own. The sentiment that skeptics are like the blind compared to believers is at least of heavily loaded as Nurglitch's post, if more (perhaps unintentionally) subtle.
Actually both posts I commented on to some degree wrote off people with faith as insane. This is an ad Hominem attack.
Ad Hominem? Or...
After all I am no better than her in God's eyes.
I'm sorry. I could say something so god darned awful about this...
@Orlanth: Proof of God's existence requires an absence of faith. Faith is a way of being certain that does not require evidence.
I do not know what you mean by "knowing" or "hearing" God and I hesitate to assume. If you mean to state that someone has heard the voice of God in a literal auditory sense then you shouldn't be surprised if others are incredulous.
Orlanth wrote:Not really. You see faith comes first, then the relationship. However once you are talking to God its hard to ignore the fact that He is no myth.
You have a bit of the tail wagging the dog there it seems. You still can't make a non-believer understand why talking to god is actually important anymore than you can make a believer understand why it is ridiculous. "Talking" to god doesn't ever make it a fact or there wouldn't be diverse religions or ideologies. Other groups have just as much of a firm belief. If just believing something always made it so the world would be a different place. Having faith that it is true is not the same things as being factually true objectively. I could introduce you to some Hindus that would make the same statement you made about it being fact. Would you like to convert? They aren't the only ones either, we could go down a laundry list of religions that aren't Christian.
Orlanth wrote:Furthermore I can understand how it is not to believe in God, and can experience what the skeptic does, but the opposite is seldom true. I am in a better position than a skeptic, the skeptic guesses at what they don't have experience of, I know what I have seen and heard. In this I am lucky, many other have a strong faith but have not been blessed this way, why, I don't know.
You are changing this to role playing where I am talking appreciation. Pretending to be a non-believer is not the same thing as being one just as pretending to be a believer is not the same thing. I could pretend to be you be you but that doesn't mean I actually know what it is like. What you have here is hubris and pride; you assume knowledge you could not possible to have.
@Ahtman: A believer may have at one time been a skeptic, so it is entirely possible that Orlanth could be speaking from a perspective that he has done more than pretended to have. Conversely, there are many believers who have become skeptics, so Orlanth's point on that score is not very convincing, either.
Ahtman wrote:Having faith that it is true is not the same things as being factually true objectively.
Faith is being certain that something you have no empirical evidence for is factually, objectively (that is, not subjectively) true.
Manchu wrote:@Ahtman: A believer may have at one time been a skeptic, so it is entirely possible that Orlanth could be speaking from a perspective that he has done more than pretended to have. Conversely, there are many believers who have become skeptics, so Orlanth's point on that score is not very convincing, either.
That was part of the point I was trying to make.
Manchu wrote:
Ahtman wrote:Having faith that it is true is not the same things as being factually true objectively.
Faith is being certain that something you have no empirical evidence for is factually, objectively (that is, not subjectively) true.
I agree, that is why trying to make factual claims using faith as a basis just doesn't work. The two ideas don'[t mix. If it needs facts to prove it, then it isn't faith. It becomes idolatry.
Nurglitch wrote:As other people have pointed out plenty of other industries have large and distressing dark sides. Working in a kitchen, for example, exposes you to plenty of drugs, unsafe working conditions, and so on. And yet there are safe wonderful kitchens out there that are a joy to work in, that aren't filled with drug-addicts, health and safety violations, and produce food that's worth eating.
As Tristan Taormino points out, the problem isn't with pornography any more than MacDonalds makes food problematic thanks to its labour, health & saftey, and effect of the product on habituated users. There's fast-food porn, production-wise, and it degrades people as much as any other sweat-shop industry that depends on exploiting people.
Which is good that there are sites out there that producing plenty of non-degrading porn sites, like Abbey Winters, Tristan Taorminos own work, and so on. A favourite fetish site of mine, for example, always include a warm-down session afterwards which is good because it promotes not only the notion of the fantasy within a safe, sane, and consensual framework but encourages good BDSM behaviour where you need to be negotiate with your partner and debrief afterwards.
I mean, by all means pre-judge an entire industry because of a minority (which, this being the internet, is disproportionately represented because there's no local-market for the really weird stuff), but just be aware of how ignorant doing so is.
Okay, so because some other industries are bad, it negates my point about the porn industry? Bad argument and you know it.
This thread is about the porn industry, therefore my arguments were based around it. I have very similar concerns about professional sports, actually, probably slightly more concern as it is considered okay for parents to push their kids into that unhealthy lifestyle whereas it's totally taboo to do so with porn.
I never argued that there weren't people happily making harmless, enjoyable porn. But I don't think that's the majority, at all. If you've got numbers to say otherwise I'd love to see them.
As for your last sentence, well done on first misinterpreting what I was saying to make me fit the charicature you're more interested in arguing against, and then also well done on the snide personal attack. Really classy.
Flat out ridicule is an ad hominem attack. Whether verbal or by body language. My points are placed logically, you are not obliged to agree but if you disagree place your arguements logically. Follow Manchu's lead on this.
All you are 'saying' is that religous arguements should not be dignified with a responce and are to be recoiled from.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
After all I am no better than her in God's eyes.
I'm sorry. I could say something so god darned awful about this...
Go ahead if it makes and logical sense. If you use firm logic to assault my arguments I will not be offended, if your arguments have no logic then they would be firmly in the category of bigotry. You can keep those 'arguments' to yourself.
Manchu wrote:@Orlanth: Proof of God's existence requires an absence of faith. Faith is a way of being certain that does not require evidence.
There is no proof or lack of proof.
All arguments on Gods existence or non-existence are based on faith.
Manchu wrote:
I do not know what you mean by "knowing" or "hearing" God and I hesitate to assume. If you mean to state that someone has heard the voice of God in a literal auditory sense then you shouldn't be surprised if others are incredulous.
A fair question and one that Shelley Lubben has likely encountered if she hears God as she says she has. Forgive me if I have to explain this one as comprehensively as possible. It is difficult to describe and I must use words that are also used to describe other things in order to translate this phenomena into English.
Literally hearing God is VERY rare, apparently Paul did on the road to Damascus. It happens a few other times in the Bible. The audible voice of God is a Bible story like Jesus feeding the five thousand and even the Crucifixion and Resurrection themseles. At this point you simply have to make a choice to believe them or not. I hold you in no ill will if you do not, but conversely noone here now has a ministry to the like of Jesus or Elijah.
The hearing God I speak about, is a broadly common phenomena within the churches. While concentrated in the charismatic movement (churches that actively seek out the gifts of God) it is respected even in those churches that do not. For example the voice of God is taken seriously in denominations that are resistant to other gifts, those churches that do not experience tongues or prophesy are generally still open to a member who says "I think God is trying to tell me this...." at least until the message is heard.
From my experience and what I observed in others God works through what the Bible describes as the 'still small voice', the good news is that it cuts in without any required thought process of your own, the bad news is that it cuts in across the imagination. This is where hearing God can be for want of a better word dangerous as you need to learn to distinguish the difference between impanted thought and your own. I don't know if my words are adequate but I will admit there is a correlation between the imagination and the voice of God, the difference is in the 'accent'.
The Bible itself teaches us caution regarding hearing God, and gives us methodology to determine whether what we hear is God or not. I will best describe thisd by explaining my experiences.
1 Corinthians 14:29: Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully [KJV: judge] what is said.
A prophet is essentially someone who hears God with a particular purpose to the message received, to share the message corporately. However a similar methodology is also used in helping train oneself to hear God. If you hear something write it down and share it with other believers, look for a correlation. If a correlation is found you have heard God, if not not.
Fortunately hearing God is common enough that a correlation can often be found. Let me give you an common example. I remember one occasion where the pastor had prepared a sermon on a passage of the Bible as normal, but had felt in the car that God wanted to teach on something else. During the service someone in the church got up and spoke two lines from a completely different part of the Bible feeling that she should share that at that time. A few minutes earlier I was 'led' to also open my Bible and look for the same passage. I was mulling over whether or not I should interrupt the service and speak those same words. The masge shared by the other worshipper was a 'reassurance' to the pastor as this was the passage that God had told him to preach on that morning while in the car. Though unnecessary by that point I approached the pastor afterwards and told him I had been led to the same passage and was considering whether to speak those same words.
The interesting point about this was that it was a clear correlation, its also an example of hearing God clearly and evidence we were progressing (or at least I was being relatively new to this at the time). It is also nothing unusual. Hearing God is part of our everyday lives but at home and as a group, we don't even consider it a miracle, its just normality.
Looking at it I like this particular testimony as you can fit odds to it. I have never bothered to do so but I know they are long. What are the chances of three seperate people picking the same passage out of the Bible without prior communication and at random? What truly boggles the mind is how often this happens, this is anything but a one off. The most common 'comment' from God I have encountered is leading one to a particular passage of scripture. Though the 'still small voice' also holds normal conversation if you quieten yourself.
Romans 12:2: Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is — his good, pleasing and perfect will.
I must admit that because I have a very active imagination (I am here on Dakka after all ) I was very unsure when I first heard God, fortunately God is patient and understanding, He doesn't punish 'unbelief' in someone who is unsure what they have heard if anything. It took a lot of 'coincidences' before I would accept Gods voice. The lynchpin for me, came when I worrited to the assistant pastor who came on a home visit. I said more or less: "I want to hear God, but don't know if I do. He talks to me, in fact just now he told me he wants you to open an orphanage in Egypt.*" The assistant pastor smiled at me and said "Now I know you hear from God", this had been exactly what he had been planning and the church had yet to be told.
This was a crisis of faith to me, requiring evidence of whether I heard God at all and learning to distinguish between Gods voice and other things.
First thing to learn when listening for God is to actively test what you hear. At first I thought this might be somewhat sinful to deny God when He speaks, but He understands this after all you need to be open to Him to some degree to hear Him at all. In time you get to learn more of Gods personality first hand and see where it correlates to established knowledge of his character and this is the hard part to describe: 'how it sits with the spirit within you'.
*This comment was intended and received as an example of what I might be hearing as if at random. It is normally BAD to just speak out what you are hearing without mulling it over first.
Ahtman wrote:
Orlanth wrote:Not really. You see faith comes first, then the relationship. However once you are talking to God its hard to ignore the fact that He is no myth.
You have a bit of the tail wagging the dog there it seems. You still can't make a non-believer understand why talking to god is actually important anymore than you can make a believer understand why it is ridiculous.
No we can't but we can understand your reaction:
1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Can I assume you mean what you wrote? Note how you said 'is ridiculous' not 'appears ridiculous to us', highlighted in bold. Ridiculous is a strong word, you can deny without resorting to ridicule. The former is a flat denial, the latter acknowledges that others have a different paradigm.
Ahtman wrote:
"Talking" to god doesn't ever make it a fact or there wouldn't be diverse religions or ideologies. Other groups have just as much of a firm belief.
Talking to God is a privilege, it's also a fact. We do it pretty much all the time in some churches. Sure we cannot prove it but when the correlations add up like they can the chance that this is all random drops to a miniscule percentage. God doesn't do parlour tricks, but does talk with His friends where He is invited and welcome.
Ahtman wrote:Having faith that it is true is not the same things as being factually true objectively.
I will accept that, do you have the courage to also accept that also? Specifically: atheism is also a faith that cannot be proven "factually true objectively".
Ahtman wrote:
I could introduce you to some Hindus that would make the same statement you made about it being fact. Would you like to convert? They aren't the only ones either, we could go down a laundry list of religions that aren't Christian.
No problem with that either. We are not afraid of the competition. Any Hindi that speaks out and tries to tell me that I should accept Hinduism to be religiously fulfilled I will treat as a friend, according to his paradigm he is trying to do me a favour and I can respect that wholeheartedly. We would also disagree alot.
I draw the line at cults - mainly because the recruitment methodologies differ from standard open teaching and preaching. But that is another comment for another time.
Ahtman wrote:
You are changing this to role playing where I am talking appreciation. Pretending to be a non-believer is not the same thing as being one just as pretending to be a believer is not the same thing.
Actually you have me wrong. For a start its testimony not role playing. A testimony is based on ones own life and is important within the church, role playing is make beleive. I didn't make up that I am a Christian, or that at before I was a Christian I was not.
Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.
Charismatic Christianity is an empirical faith, testimony is important to us because with the Holy Spirit the unusual can become mainstream in a small way. The Christian life is not about hanging on to a belief in big miracles that happened two thousand or more years ago, it also rests on the little miracles of today. Testimony is important to us because we know God, God is real and He helps us in our lives. Those, to us, are facts, YMMV.
Ahtman wrote:
What you have here is hubris and pride; you assume knowledge you could not possible to have.
What hubris, what pride? I speak of what I know and see, of peoples lives changed for the better and correlation of faith. Why is this 'wrong' and to what fall does this pride lead? Also I have given evidence that the knowledge is there to possess though faith. i know I am not alone here in having directly experienced this.
Your choice is to accept or reject, but your choice to do so is also a faith based. You say its not possible to have such knowledge. How are you so sure? You can be sure only through a strong faith in no-god. Look at this carefully please. Perhaps you are more religious than I am in this regard, I do not look at the opposed arguments and call out 'impossible'. I speak of evidence and testimony not of definate proof and absolute certainty. Yes, I am very sure in my own conscience, but I don't seek to impose that surety on others. I point out faith instead.
Manchu wrote:@Ahtman: A believer may have at one time been a skeptic, so it is entirely possible that Orlanth could be speaking from a perspective that he has done more than pretended to have. Conversely, there are many believers who have become skeptics, so Orlanth's point on that score is not very convincing, either.
Faith is a choice. I still believe as much as I did when I joined the church, but for other reasons I rarely attend now. I kept my faith, just not as practiced on Sunday mornings, my reasons are my own and not for any lack of faith in God. Some do leave the charismatic movement, to join other churches or simply not attend but very few actually truly lose their faith. For those that do its a distinct choice based on other reasons. I know of a 'couple' who no longer 'beleive' because it was convenient for them for the man to leave his wife and run off with the wife of another man, from the same church. This was a case of turning Christianity off in favour of other benefits.
Fact remains in churches as much as outside the heart overides the head, or in the case above the loins override the head and the heart.
The charismatic church is not above corruption unfortunately. Sadly the number one cause of skepticism amongst former church goers is not God by corrupt supposed Christians, particular church leaders. We all fall short and some fall shorter than others, because anyone can start a 'church' the job sadly attracts many people for the wrong reasons, especially to the more 'open' Charismatic and evangelical movements. This ranges from 'spirit filled' churches with decent congregations but financially corrupt leaders through to out and out scum like Westboro Baptists - who are in all likelihood not Christians at all.
Point being, very few people once they have experienced God truly leave Him, they might leave the churches but rarely leave the faith entirely, though some are hurt badly enough by other so-called Christians that they are driven to that in an attempt to escape that pain. Most people who out and out leave Christianity to convert to another faith have done so from a 'dry' church life that does not experience God, or even in some cases proactively shuns such experience.
Orlanth wrote:Literally hearing God is VERY rare, apparently Paul did on the road to Damascus. It happens a few other times in the Bible. The audible voice of God is a Bible story like Jesus feeding the five thousand and even the Crucifixion and Resurrection themseles. At this point you simply have to make a choice to believe them or not. I hold you in no ill will if you do not, but conversely noone here now has a ministry to the like of Jesus or Elijah.
This type of biblical exegesis is called literalism. It is not the only way to read the Bible and some authorities consider it to be erroneous because it is not only overly simplistic but also encourages individual interpretation, which unfortunate practice results in many more errors and even scandals. (I'm using the word "scandal" in its Greek sense, an obstacle to faith.) I find that this literalism and the attendant tendency toward personal interpretation characterizes much of your experience as you have described it so far. Specifically, what you are describing seems more of a kind of superstition than religion, especially your correlational logic regarding coincidence. People who have "lucky charms" (or, in ancient times, pagan idols) frame the question in much the same way: "What are the chances of me having such good luck every time I found a penny? Finding a penny must be lucky." No doubt a person can indulge in any sort of private spirituality heedless to the incredulity of others. If you truly have faith that you hear God there is nothing I can do to disprove it given that your claim is not based on proof in the first place. These kind of claims about private spirituality, however, should not be misconstrued into definitional statements about Christianity. The belief system of Christianity, and I mean Trinitarian Christianity passed along from Jesus through the Apostles and eventually defined at Nicea in 325, does not involve so-called charismatic practices that are at best the quirks of individual communities and at worst, given the example of movements like those of Mohammed ad Joseph Smith, the origin of personality cults. That is why claims about hearing God, as you yourself admit, are dangerous. That is also why these claims arouse the skepticism and worry of believers and non-believers alike.
Im not getting into having a go at religious people anymore, i dont have any issue with 99% of them, but i have to have my say when you say it requires "faith" not to believe in God (Him/her/it)
Im sick of religious people calling me a faith-head because it makes them feel better.
You dont have to have faith if you are a none believer. Faith by DEFINITION is.
faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Everything i believe with regards to the origin of life is based on logical proof and material evidence. Not faith. You need faith for God, you dont need faith for things that have scientific evidence to back them up.
You can believe in God all you like, thats absokutely fine, i dont have any issues with that at all unless your a creationist and you want to tell lies to my kids at school or some door knocking gakker who wont leave me alone. But i have no faith. And no religion. Lack of belief in something cannot by definition be a religion and im sick to the back teeth of hearing it.
Orlanth wrote:
Can I assume you mean what you wrote? Note how you said 'is ridiculous' not 'appears ridiculous to us', highlighted in bold. Ridiculous is a strong word, you can deny without resorting to ridicule. The former is a flat denial, the latter acknowledges that others have a different paradigm.
A statement with respect to the ridiculousness of a thing can only be made from a subjective point: ie. the appearance of ridiculousness is the same as the actual ridiculousness of a thing, as ridiculousness is not an objective claim.
Orlanth wrote:
I will accept that, do you have the courage to also accept that also? Specifically: atheism is also a faith that cannot be proven "factually true objectively".
What sort of atheism? Certain brands of it are not faith based, whereas all brands of theism are.
Orlanth wrote:
Also I have given evidence that the knowledge is there to possess though faith.
Knowledge does not follow from faith. No epistemology ever conceived would suppose otherwise.
Orlanth wrote:
Your choice is to accept or reject, but your choice to do so is also a faith based.
Not necessarily. You process continuation in a faith centered mode because that is your chosen paradigm, but there is no need for faith when there is no positive action being taken. I don't need faith to not do something.
Orlanth wrote:
Point being, very few people once they have experienced God truly leave Him,
This is, of course, another issue of true Scotsmen.
mattyrm wrote:faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
To believe that there is no God still fits this definition of faith. Do you have extensive evidence in the realm of the metaphysical to prove that there is no God? If not, then to believe that He doesn't exist is still faith. Faith in secular humanism, but faith nonetheless.
mattyrm wrote:Everything i believe with regards to the origin of life is based on logical proof and material evidence. Not faith. You need faith for God, you don't need faith for things that have scientific evidence to back them up.
The origin of life is just one aspect of God and His infinite power. You seem to be hung up on this one issue. You do realize that there are devout Christians who believe in theistic evolution right?
mattyrm wrote:You can believe in God all you like, that's absolutely fine, i don't have any issues with that at all unless your a creationist and you want to tell lies to my kids at school or some door knocking gakker who wont leave me alone. But i have no faith. And no religion. Lack of belief in something cannot by definition be a religion and im sick to the back teeth of hearing it.
As said before, your faith may be latent but it is still there. You still have to take logical conclusions, evidence and theories from other people and accept them as your own, regardless of whether or not you have spent hours pouring over their research and theorems to verify their claims. So even on a basic level you are still exhibiting a level of faith in them, namely that they are honest and absolutely right. Faith is not as simplistic as you might suggest.
What if he doesn't think they are absolutely right?
What if (like many agnostics and so on) he is comfortable accepting a level of doubt? I find many atheists have some doubt about the non-existance of god- that is, they are willing to be proved wrong.
Doubt is central to my worldview, much more than faith. Which isn't to say I don't have faith at times, but I think doubt is far more valuable.
Different strokes for different folks though.
@JEB: I think you're splitting hairs a bit. Making an argument based on a lack of evidence is not as good an argument as one based on evidence but the first one no more relies on faith than the second. For example, I do not believe that there are in the physical world unicorns and dragons. The only evidence I have for this is that I have never seen one or encountered any credible source that claims to have seen one. But I do not have "faith" that there are no unicorns and dragons.
Belief is funny as it doesn't have a clear, neurological definition. Its difficult to say what one believes, and what one does not believe with any level of 'truth'; given the lack of substantiation.
To put it in a question: Does one believe something if that 'belief' is held only for a moment?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: But I do not have "faith" that there are no unicorns and dragons.
I would say that you do. At least insofar as you are willing to make a positive statement of certitude in testament of that as a fact.
Its possible. Certainly the world is simpler when belief is confined to evidently positive notions. But I'm an amateur philosopher, and things which are evident bore me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:I think you and JEB are both equating the concept of "faith" with the concept of "guess" or "theory."
The qualification of certitude was meant to sidestep that; reasonable people don't make certain statements about the truth value of theories. As I said, belief is funny. There is a good deal of argument over its relevance as either a prolonged condition, or an instantiated one. Personally, I suspect (Believe?) that it turns on the aforementioned certitude (ie. if you are not certain of the nonexistence of unicorns, you do not believe that they don't exist), but I could be convinced otherwise.
Da Boss wrote:What if he doesn't think they are absolutely right?
He may, but that doesn't deny the existence of faith.
Da Boss wrote:What if (like many agnostics and so on) he is comfortable accepting a level of doubt? I find many atheists have some doubt about the non-existance of god- that is, they are willing to be proved wrong.
This isn't a matter of proof. You can no more prove the absence of God then I can prove the existence of God. It simply isn't possible. It requires faith to believe in God because we cannot prove His existence, but on the same token according to Matt's definition of faith
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
To believe that God doesn't exist exhibits a similar level of faith, as there is no logical proof or material evidence that He doesn't exist. Both require belief that is based on circumstantial evidence and logical conclusions so both require faith.
Da Boss wrote:Doubt is central to my worldview, much more than faith. Which isn't to say I don't have faith at times, but I think doubt is far more valuable.
Doubt is undoubtedly easier, but more valuable? I have to respectfully disagree.
Manchu wrote:Making an argument based on a lack of evidence is not as good an argument as one based on evidence but the first one no more relies on faith than the second.
That is not what I said. Read my post, and keep in mind the context it was in.
I think there is a difference between dogmatic and practical beliefs. The certainty that God exists, for example, requires faith inasmuch as it cannot be achieved through empirical proof. To doubt God's existence for lack of empirical evidence requires no faith at all. To state that there is no God as a matter of practicality--that is, to state that the hypothetical existence of God does not and should not inform one's opinions or behavior--also does not require faith of any kind. I think that most "Age of Reason" atheism is a practical rather than dogmatic matter. As for the "New Atheism," that is another story. Perhaps the dogmatic insistence upon the non-existence of God does require a sort of faith. But when I assert that there are no unicorns or dragons in the natural world, I am not doing so as a matter of faith, except in the colloquial sense of "having faith" that humankind would have encountered such beasts if they actually exist. But I'm not talking about faith as a metaphor (as a related example, acting in "good faith") but rather in an epistemological sense.
What do you think of this statement: "logic requires inference and perhaps assumption but not faith"?
@JEB: I read your post, understand its context, and believe that I have already addressed it sufficiently. If you think otherwise, please extrapolate what point you feel I have either misinterpreted or misunderstood.
Relapse wrote:The definition of trauma, courtesy of dictionary .com:
"1. Pathology. a. a body wound or shock produced by sudden physical injury, as from violence or accident.
b. the condition produced by this; traumatism.
2. Psychiatry. a. an experience that produces psychological injury or pain.
b. the psychological injury so caused."
The second definition applies in the instances I refer to.
I'm amused by your screen name in this instance.
Damn! Caught me with my pants down!
Define "irony". A user with a screenname of "Relapse", discussing porn addictions, and then posting this reply.
JEB wrote:You still have to take logical conclusions, evidence and theories from other people and accept them as your own, regardless of whether or not you have spent hours pouring over their research and theorems to verify their claims. So even on a basic level you are still exhibiting a level of faith in them, namely that they are honest and absolutely right. Faith is not as simplistic as you might suggest.
Aren't you referring to faith (small 'f'), opposed to Faith (big 'F') here? Thats is to say, 'faith' to mean 'trust'? It takes 'trust' to believe the word of qualified scientists, who have poured thousands upon thousands of man(and woman)hours collectively into understanding certain things? People who can demonstrate WHY and HOW gravity, evolution, or photosynthesis works EARN our trust. That isn't the same thing as 'Faith', as I'm sure most people on here would admit.
Also, Atheism is not a monolithic group of identical viewpoints. 'Atheism' literally means 'without theism', and that can cover a whole range of things from agnosticism to Anti-theism. It requires no faith on my part to be non-theistic. If proof that god/s exist became available, then I would be the first to say 'wow, awesome!' - but there isn't any, so I personally can't say that. Do I think god exists? No. Is my position on this unmoving? No. Because that would require Faith, and that 'ain't me babe.
I wonder is doubt easier. I wonder what easier even means, in this context.
But yes, to me, it is more valuable. It's how I construct my worldview, by trying to question everything, worry at everything, consider as many other points of view as I can. I'm not always good at it, as sometimes I can be pretty closedminded on suprising topics, but I try to correct myself. I think that's valuable.
JEB, I was sort of putting forward an argument for what some people call atheism but is really a form of agnosticism that is 99% sure. But that 1% of doubt is important, and is what stops it being a faith issue. Though I don't disagree that even the most dedicated agnostic has moments of faith in their lives. It's unavoidable. I'd consider them to be significantly different to religious faith.
(Uh, sorry if I've misunderstood you. I often find the metaphysical conversations on dakka hard to follow, my training was in science with little emphasis on this sort of thing, though I find it really interesting and thoroughly enjoy these conversations. I also find it hard to express what I'm thinking properly, but hopefully I was clear enough here.)
JEB wrote:You can no more prove the absence of God then I can prove the existence of God. It simply isn't possible.
SCIENCE: Making the impossible, possible.
We have no way of understanding that which we do not yet know. We can know that we don't know things in the present, but we don't know that we won't know them in the future. And we can have no idea of what those things might be.
I think it's nice to have a reasonable discussion on these matters. Flamewars on this subject get boring, fast - but a decent debate can last pages and pages - and are often very interesting.
Da Boss wrote:Any documentary or data I've looked at has not pointed towards pornography generally being a healthy profession for those involved in it. There are, of course, exceptions, but I think if you're telling yourself it's all hunky dory and there's no ethical issue you're deluding yourself.
Another aspect to porn I find disturbing is that over time it's become more extreme and degrading. Various theories exist as to why that is, but I find myself looking at what's out there wondering how the hell anyone could be aroused by that rubbish, and wondering what effect it would have on the views that young men have about women.
I'm not religious, and I'm pretty sure I'm not a prude either, but I do think porn is an industry that has a large and distressing dark side.
Every industry does. Politics, nursing homes, and even the video game industry. *flashes back to being a game tester at Sega* Especially the game industry...
Relapse wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:Does he suck d***k for porn? Because that's not addiction, addiction is the broken end of a glass pipe in your mouth because you have convulsions if you don't. Besides, why the heck don't you have blocking software on your computer? Is it so hard to turn off all images so you don't have to play google-seppuku whenever you download a site?
He just couldn't stop looking at the stuff and acting on it. Another aquaintence had a divorce because of porn, since he, in his own words, "Couldn't give up his girls" . His wife chucked him and moved on to a good life while he just got more pathetic with the stuff. That in my mind is addiction, when someone can't give something up and their life goes to Hell in a handbasket because of it.
Wow... Just wow...
First of all, I respectfully disagree with your concept of addiction being "Hell in a hand basket". Some addictions are not bad:
I am addicted to reading my girls bedtime stories.
I am addicted to OCD-ishly cleaning up my house.
I am addicted to smoking.
OK, that last one was kinda bad...
My point is that while addiction can be pretty serious, it is not a totally devastating in most cases...
That segways me to my next rant.
Your friends wife is a B.I.T.C.H. (Being Insensitive To Confused Husband). Or in this case, ex-husband. Now, I need to remind you that I have only the context you gave me...
But I find it appalling that she did this to her husband, a man that, if I believe your little rant, was in desperate need of marriage counseling, and maybe even psychiatric help.
Let me put just that quote right here:
Relapse wrote:His wife chucked him and moved on to a good life while he just got more pathetic with the stuff.
Feth, divorce in the US, nay, THE WORLD has gotten out of hand... And they say gay people are "ruining the institution of marriage"
mattyrm wrote:Im not getting into having a go at religious people anymore, i dont have any issue with 99% of them, but i have to have my say when you say it requires "faith" not to believe in God (Him/her/it)
Go ahead.
mattyrm wrote:
Im sick of religious people calling me a faith-head because it makes them feel better.
Thisd is an unfair conclusion to the below. I wouldn't not insult you by calling you a faith-head, but if you have a strong beleive in atheism then you have a religious preference, one based on faith.
mattyrm wrote:
You dont have to have faith if you are a none believer. Faith by DEFINITION is.
faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
You misunderstand what you quote. Note the 'or' in the bold quote. Proof is hard to come by, after all we can convict and condemn in law courts on 'without reasonable doubt' few cases are truly proven. 'Proof' is something best left to physics and maths and the other hard sciences. Material evidence can be contested but by and large is present for most major religions.
mattyrm wrote:
Everything i believe with regards to the origin of life is based on logical proof and material evidence. Not faith. You need faith for God, you dont need faith for things that have scientific evidence to back them up.
And where do your opinions of the origin of life disprove God? Your faith tells you to disavow God from the equation.
I don't believe in 'intellegent design', because its not necessary its just creationism explained. It is even in keeping with Biblical accounts when literalism is dealt with (I will address Manchu on this after), evolution as Darwin espoused it was not intended as a platform for atheism. It is not proof of atheism. Evolution has been hijacked by atheists unwittingly supported by poor quality church leaders who cannot properly interpret the Bible and are closed to new thinking.
The idea that it is a question of science vs God is a fallacy and what it really means is: I can argue a faith point (atheism) with greater gusto and in places where religion is not welcome by disguising it as science. Thus my religious beliefs can be put forward as scientific methodology and I can bash (other) faiths by 'name dropping' the body of scientific knowledge as support for my beliefs.
Espound evolution as often as you want, most Christians have no problem with that, and a growing number agree with you. However its not proof of the non existence of God. To adhere to athieism you need faith.
mattyrm wrote:
But i have no faith. And no religion. Lack of belief in something cannot by definition be a religion and im sick to the back teeth of hearing it.
Sorry you have a skewed logic. For your logic to be complete it must make sense both ways.
If faith is required to believe in something without proof then by logical consequence it is required to confirm the non-existence of something without proof.
Now a 'lack of belief' is different from 'decision of unbelief'. You can have a lack of belief in God by ignoring the issue, chimpanzees have as far as we can tell a 'lack of belief' because they have never expressed one. This is not to call all Chimpanzees atheists, or in fact any of them. That is a lack of thought not a conscious decision to disbelieve.
Let us narrow this down further:
Lack of belief in something cannot by definition be a religion
So what is the correlation between belief and religion?
If something you don't believe in is not a religion: Then is Hinduism not a religion, within my paradigm, because I rejected it? No its still a religion.
If I do beleive in something does this count it as religion: Then are UFO's a religion if I claim to beleive in them. No its not a religion, some cults might include UFO's in the muythology, but UFO belif as and of itself is not a religion.
Clearly neither end of the arguement holds water.
The truth is a persons faith depends on their religious beliefs for or against. Atheism is a faith choice by logical definition.
Sorry if you are sick to the back teeth of hearing it. You need not be, what we say hold logic, if you want to progress with your faith as science first address the logic. you will find that science is itself neutral, many scientists are religious people. The fields are not mutually exclusive. However we need to challenge this, the idea that atheism = science is a dangerous dogma and is used time and again to attack religion. What you see as a harmless opinion is in fact a loaded weapon used to attack religious people time and again.
This is not suprising, atheism as expressed under such horrors as communism is perhaps the most bloodthirsty and unbending religion of them all.
No I am not accusing you of agreeing with that, but just as the errors in the churches that led to such horrors as the Spnish Inquisiton needed addressing, this fallacy of science vs faith also needs addressing.
"All land animals that exist in nature have been encountered by humans. Unicorns have not been encountered by humans. Unicorns do not exist in nature."
Its based on a valid inference, so I agree with the stated conclusion.
Of course, the obvious definitional caveats apply; particularly with respect to the meaning of nature. Perhaps 'on Earth' is an appropriate substitute.
Yes, you are right to point out that a premise can always be questioned. My point was merely that no faith was required to disbelieve in the existence of Unicorns.
Manchu wrote:@JEB: I read your post, understand its context, and believe that I have already addressed it sufficiently. If you think otherwise, please extrapolate what point you feel I have either misinterpreted or misunderstood
You are making the assumption that my belief in God is supported by the idea that there is no evidence to deny His existence. If you notice I never once state that is my argument at all. I was merely referencing a point that Matt's definition of Faith applied to him as well. I thought that was fairly obvious.
Albatross wrote:Aren't you referring to faith (small 'f'), opposed to Faith (big 'F') here? That is to say, 'faith' to mean 'trust'? It takes 'trust' to believe the word of qualified scientists, who have poured thousands upon thousands of man(and woman)hours collectively into understanding certain things? People who can demonstrate WHY and HOW gravity, evolution, or photosynthesis works EARN our trust. That isn't the same thing as 'Faith', as I'm sure most people on here would admit.
Agreed wholly, which is why I used such an extreme example. You will notice I do not always use the same capitalization for the word throughout my comments. It is a subtle method of distinction and definition for me. I was merely pointing out that Matt's definition of faith was far to simplistic for the sake of conversation, as it is a multi-faceted idea that delves into the realm of the philosophical and is thus hard to tie down.
Albatross wrote:Also, Atheism is not a monolithic group of identical viewpoints. 'Atheism' literally means 'without theism', and that can cover a whole range of things from agnosticism to Anti-theism. It requires no faith on my part to be non-theistic. If proof that god/s exist became available, then I would be the first to say 'wow, awesome!' - but there isn't any, so I personally can't say that. Do I think god exists? No. Is my position on this unmoving? No. Because that would require Faith, and that 'ain't me babe.
That is fine, but that doesn't mean that belief in Atheism is without Faith, however latent. You obviously care about this to a degree, and give some thought to it, which then separates it from simple uncaring.
Da Boss wrote:I wonder is doubt easier. I wonder what easier even means, in this context.
Trust me, a maintenance of one's Faith is very taxing. When it seems the whole world in one calamitous choir bellows, "Somnium!", it becomes very difficult. But such is the nature of life, and there are many things in this world to steel my resolve throughout the ebb and flow of time.
Da Boss wrote:But yes, to me, it is more valuable. It's how I construct my worldview, by trying to question everything, worry at everything, consider as many other points of view as I can. I'm not always good at it, as sometimes I can be pretty closed-minded on surprising topics, but I try to correct myself. I think that's valuable.
We are all closed-mended at times, whether we admit it or not. At least you can admit it. In that you should take comfort. You do not presume that you are wholly above fallacy, and thus you can take comfort in some level of humility.
Da Boss wrote:JEB, I was sort of putting forward an argument for what some people call atheism but is really a form of agnosticism that is 99% sure. But that 1% of doubt is important, and is what stops it being a faith issue. Though I don't disagree that even the most dedicated agnostic has moments of faith in their lives. It's unavoidable. I'd consider them to be significantly different to religious faith.
That is why I point out that the faith is latent. You may not know it, but it is there. This is delving into the realm of philosophy where there will be no solid agreement.
Manchu wrote:@JEB: I read your post, understand its context, and believe that I have already addressed it sufficiently. If you think otherwise, please extrapolate what point you feel I have either misinterpreted or misunderstood
You are making the assumption that my belief in God is supported by the idea that there is no evidence to deny His existence. If you notice I never once state that is my argument at all. I was merely referencing a point that Matt's definition of Faith applied to him as well. I thought that was fairly obvious.
Yes, and I thought that it was fairly obvious that disbelief in God does rely on logical proof, however weak, as I just demonstrated regarding disbelief in unicorns.
Manchu wrote:Yes, you are right to point out that a premise can always be questioned. My point was merely that no faith was required to disbelieve in the existence of Unicorns.
Yes, I agree. Faith cannot exist in the presence of evidence of any sort.
Orlanth wrote:Furthermore I can understand how it is not to believe in God, and can experience what the skeptic does, but the opposite is seldom true. I am in a better position than a skeptic, the skeptic guesses at what they don't have experience of, I know what I have seen and heard. In this I am lucky, many other have a strong faith but have not been blessed this way, why, I don't know.
Damn, and you said Nurglitch's "voices" post was heavily loaded.
/sarcasm=on
Thank you kindly Orlanth, for showing me the err of my ways. Even because I don't agree with you, I am humbled that you take pity on me and my handicap.
I am sure that in your "better position" you can truly see how ignorant I must be. I am guilty of "guessing at what I don't have experience of."
/sarcasm=off
/nerdrage=on
Oh, wait! That's right! I GREW UP CHRISTIAN! Yes, I do understand. Yes, I did experience it. No, I didn't like. Now I don't believe it.
I am getting a little pissed off.
Don't need pics and language like that thanks. ta.
Literalism Literalism is one of the bugbears of the church. Let us look at the principle bugbear related to literalism the seventh day advent.
I have never understood why intelligent design is seen as somthing new, to be honest this is how I understood difficult passages like Genesis even as a child. Literalism is the error.
Take for example the idea the concept of the Massach the Jews were waiting for , and most still are. When Jesus came, what did they expect the conquering Son of David to do? Bash Romans. Did he? No. because literalism was used to define the scriptures relating to him. Nowadays most Christians with theological training will be able to point to how old Testament predictions and promises lead to Jesus and how he is still the conquering son.
Nowadays people will accept that some passages are not to be taken literally but not others. we an explain how 'suffer not a witch to live' doesnt mean Christians should be murdering people who read teas leaves. we can explain that away with 'prophetic type' and other explanations. Yet still people insist on the seven day advent.
The answers were written in right from the beginning if you look.
Who was around, man? No just God. So Genesis 1 is seen from God's not a human persepective (and then relayed to Moses).
Scripture tells us that to God; a thousand years is as a day and a day a thousand years'. The Hebrew term thousand is not simply 1000 it means 'a lot', remember ancient Hebrews lacked the modern numbers system which is something comparatively recent.
So the advent was six long times of creation, they are not days at all. I think I was about ten when I first worked this out. The timelag of creation was never an issue. what puzzled me was the order or creation, which didnt fit sceince.
However God exists outside of Space-time so what he decided need not be the order things happened. Fair enough, but it was many years before I learned more: There is something called apocalyptic tradition, writing events in as poetic order - normally an order of importance rather than a chronological order. So to write about an assassination in apocalyptic order 1. the assassin takes the contract 2. the target is shot 3. the assassin fires his gun. The best example of apocalyptic writing is the book of Revelations, and is where we get the word apocalypse from. Apocalypse has of itself nothing to do with end of the world by definition, it simple means a poetic quasi-chronological order.
Manchu wrote:
It is not the only way to read the Bible and some authorities consider it to be erroneous because it is not only overly simplistic but also encourages individual interpretation, which unfortunate practice results in many more errors and even scandals. (I'm using the word "scandal" in its Greek sense, an obstacle to faith.)
Orthodoxy breeds inertia, it would be a good tghing if men could be trusted however time and again obstacles have been placed in the way of fresh interpretation as a control mechanism rather than to maintain the faith. The church should permit freedom of thought and interpretation through debate.
Manchu wrote:
I find that this literalism and the attendant tendency toward personal interpretation characterizes much of your experience as you have described it so far.
Your mileage on what defines literalism differs from mine in some areas I see, this is acceptible as your spiritual mileage might vary. Believers follow the same Way but their paths are often different.
Manchu wrote:
Specifically, what you are describing seems more of a kind of superstition than religion, especially your correlational logic regarding coincidence.
I would buy that if this was the focus of my faith, but it is not. I use this as a clear example for the thread of speaking to God because it involved correlation and multiple people picking the same passage from a very large source at 'random' without prior communication. I wouldn't call it at any means my best conversation with God.
Manchu wrote:
People who have "lucky charms" (or, in ancient times, pagan idols) frame the question in much the same way: "What are the chances of me having such good luck every time I found a penny? Finding a penny must be lucky."
I am framing no questions for myself. I need none to determine a faith. I believed then I saw, I have little or no doubt.
Manchu wrote:
These kind of claims about private spirituality, however, should not be misconstrued into definitional statements about Christianity.
Yes and no, that is why we overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony. Jesus is the focus of the core doctrine, teestimony is what makes that relevant. The idea is to be 'salt and light' to be a witness not necessarily through preaching but primarily by lifestyle. Yes preaching is good and strongly encouraged, but good example is where its at. Testimony of lives changed for the better of minimised hypocrasy, decent living and holiness are key.
Galatians 5:19 The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
When Christianity fails is where Christians fail to show the fruit of the spirit. While the doctrines of Christianity is frequently bashed there is no killer blow against it, them no matter what atheists say. There is plenty of room for a reasonable logically defendable faith, hypocracy is the weak link. Sadly we are all hypocrites, its just a matter of to what extent.
No, a spiritual life experience is not a definative statement about Christianity, it is a qualitative statement about Christinity.
Manchu wrote:
The belief system of Christianity, and I mean Trinitarian Christianity passed along from Jesus through the Apostles and eventually defined at Nicea in 325, does not involve so-called charismatic practices that are at best the quirks of individual communities and at worst, given the example of movements like those of Mohammed ad Joseph Smith, the origin of personality cults. That is why claims about hearing God, as you yourself admit, are dangerous. That is also why these claims arouse the skepticism and worry of believers and non-believers alike.
Right I see where you are coming from. I respect orthodox Christianity for its continuency however I disagree with you on several points.
eventually defined at Nicea in 325 By the 4th century primitive Christianity had settled down into a mainstream monolithic religion with a huge power base. it was not long after this that Christianity took over the Roman Empire in a very real way. Christianity had settled into orthodoxy and from that we ought not to omit the growing poltical and control influence of the church. The politicised church wants change like a hole in the head. How long after this was it until we got the Reformation and Catholic counter reformation, over a millenia.
does not involve so-called charismatic practices that are at best the quirks of individual communities You really ought to re-read the books of Acts and Corinthians. Charismatic practices were normal acceptible and desired in the early church. Speaking in tongues, prophesy, joyous music (though frankly after half an hour in most charismatic churches I tend to agree that the devil has the best tunes), women ministers. Its all there.
and at worst, given the example of movements like those of Mohammed ad Joseph Smith, the origin of personality cults. again, you know them by their fruit. Christians ought to produce fruit of the spirit. Dodgy priests are a fact of life, any sizable organisation attracts some of the wrong people who are there for the wrong reasons. Culty charismatics are less of a problem than orthodox priests who find room to fiddle behind the veil of silence. Neither belong in the church. the fact is stoic and effervescent forms of religion attact different types of crook. the main point is that both are a minority, most orthodox and charismatic ministers both are decent honest people.
That is why claims about hearing God, as you yourself admit, are dangerous. No, I was avoiding why, it might in fact probably will be misunderstood. When you hear God you are hearing a 'high quality voice'. I believe some who hear voices actually do, and what is often labeled as schizophrenia is often demonic afflication. Contact with spiritual evil is not uncommon in the charismatic church. I myself have witnessed phenomena that I could best describe as demonic.
hearing voices is inherently dangerous, because not all voices come from God, also ones own imaginations get ijn the way.
These are only secondary problems, the principle reason is that the human hweart is deceptive, we all have desires and thiose desirtes can shape what we hear. This is part of human nature. The difference between wishful thinking and hearing from god is very slender, which is why wisdom must be applied.
First know the voice of God, the counterfeit is relatively easy to spot. Second God is always consistent, third your own spirit will confirm Gods voice. this is where the heart is a problem, as while you can tell the difference between the voice of God and your own subconscious once trained to it, you cannot easily tell the difference between the Holy Spirit and your hearts desire.
I myself got burned on this one at no fault but my own.
That is also why these claims arouse the skepticism and worry of believers and non-believers alike. Non believers react with hostility to the spiritual because the unrepentant soul is hostile to God. We see this right here. People speaking about how nice and fair they are, but then state what they would like to do to those Christians. its understandable when talking about quasi Christian hate groups like Westboro Baptists, but no apparently some want to string us all up - then go back to being nice. Yes, they are figures of speech brought out by the anonymity of the internet, but the truth is persecution is seldom that far away. The closer you walk to God the harder it gets.
@MODs - Yeah, please don't - Tblock didn't mean to post a picture of a stoned horse, it just sort of 'happened'.
JEB wrote:That is fine, but that doesn't mean that belief in Atheism is without Faith
I don't 'believe' in Atheism though. I AM atheist - I think there is a difference. As we have disscussed in another thread, I belief that active denial of the existence of something is a positive action. I make no such positive action, because it just doesn't square with my world-view. I would require non-scriptural evidence to believe in god, UFOs or The Loch Ness Monster (not to trivialise, but I think it's valid) - I see no such evidence, so I do not believe. But neither do I deny. And I personally think that this type of discourse is more helpful than merely ramming evolution down each other's throats.
To sum up, failure to be convinced is not a Faith position - therefore my atheist position does not require Faith. That's not to say that other atheists might not display marked differences in what they believe.
We started with a Christian ex-porn star and her opinions on faith and porn.
This is an opportunity to post about God and or porn. How this can end up boring I have no idea.
@ Ironhide While I agree with Albatross and Manchu that the thread should be left unlocked, it should also be left untrolled. If you wish to espouse atheism do so in a logical and non offensive way. Please feel free to try to convince the forum that Jesus is a fraud if you think you can.
From statistical assumptions, we can safely say that the intent was to shut down the thread, albeit an attempt founded in a lack of understanding.
The OT has a history of these threads ending badly, and as such I tend to avoid them. This thread has been, if not entertaining, thoroughly enjoyable and quite smooth from the looks of it.
Let us carry on and ignore the trolls. If the mods see this perhaps they could remove the trolling rather than destoy our arguemnt.
I mean no offence to anyone, any given is unintentional and I mean to contuinue in this light.
In return please hold back no logical punch against my religious opinions, I ask only that they are phrased politely. Most those I communicated with don't need this invite or request for politeness. Albatross you are next....
Wrexasaur wrote:From statistical assumptions, we can safely say that the intent was to shut down the thread, albeit an attempt founded in a lack of understanding.
The OT has a history of these threads ending badly, and as such I tend to avoid them. This thread has been, if not entertaining, thoroughly enjoyable and quite smooth from the looks of it.
Possibility of a lock @ 20% currently.
Dont be too sure, once the terolls have their piece and leave the threads can continue for pages of involved relgious debate and never get locked. there are some threads I can link to with similar discussions that are still open, though necroing them is not a good idea either.
I might link to one anyway, or copy paste part of what I wrote to dogma in the thread to avoid reiteration here.
@Orlanth: Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly reply to my remarks. I strongly encourage you to take an open-minded look at historical-critical biblical scholarship. Regarding the Reformation and its effects, I would recommend the book A Secular Age by Charles Taylor.
Orlanth wrote:Non believers react with hostility to the spiritual because the unrepentant soul is hostile to God. We see this right here. People speaking about how nice and fair they are, but then state what they would like to do to those Christians. its understandable when talking about quasi Christian hate groups like Westboro Baptists, but no apparently some want to string us all up - then go back to being nice. Yes, they are figures of speech brought out by the anonymity of the internet, but the truth is persecution is seldom that far away. The closer you walk to God the harder it gets.
I don't think that you are being persecuted because you are a Christian. I think you are receiving criticism because of your particular claims about what it means to be a Christian.
Albatross wrote:@MODs - Yeah, please don't - Tblock didn't mean to post a picture of a stoned horse, it just sort of 'happened'.
I am still wondering if I should attempt to explain myself to Tblock.
Albatross wrote:
I don't 'believe' in Atheism though. I AM atheist - I think there is a difference. As we have disscussed in another thread, I belief that active denial of the existence of something is a positive action. I make no such positive action, because it just doesn't square with my world-view. I would require non-scriptural evidence to believe in god, UFOs or The Loch Ness Monster (not to trivialise, but I think it's valid) - I see no such evidence, so I do not believe. But neither do I deny. And I personally think that this type of discourse is more helpful than merely ramming evolution down each other's throats.
To sum up, failure to be convinced is not a Faith position - therefore my atheist position does not require Faith. That's not to say that other atheists might not display marked differences in what they believe.
Is it fair to put you down as a 'don't know - but probably not'. The atheistic equivalent of an agnostic. if you articulate an opinion at all though you are still expressing a faith choice. The best you can hope for here is to make religion a non issue. that is all very well because you don't then seem to be esposing atheism, but condemns you to inaction on the subject or at least a commitment to dispassionate neutrality. I wonder if the human heart is wired that way, few if any people can be that consistently logical for long.
Again if you are atheist then somewhere down the line the choice has been made, even if it is symbolised by reverting to a pre-assumed default of 'non belief'. I suppose this entitles you to attempt to act as a mediator in a debate who looks at all evidence dispassionately, but who is truly dispassionate.
The way you describe your atheism sounds plausible, but I doubt it has been adequately tested. Somewhere down the line, and by now probably in the past the line is crossed and the heart takes a step one way or another.
After all the worst error in science is to believe that we are logical beings, even scientists are ruled by emotion. How often do you see or read of scientific methods being set aside in favour of pig headed resistence when established thinking is challenged by new evidence. All too often the resistence to new evidence is based on pride and the human comfort in knowing answer to a problem, so much so that new theories even those that fix faults in the old theories are often resisted by the human ego long after they should have been accepted by the body academic. We are human after all, sooner or later the heart rules the head.
Religion accepts the imperfection of the human being and acknowledges the human mindset. Science does not, it attempts to be formal and impartial and scientists must to some extent dehumanise themselves to practice scientific method properly. Now when you apply science to such matters as God the soul and/or the afterlife you can see how this very rapidly breaks down. Consequently sir, while I accept your answer I accept it as a modus operandi which has not yet been truly tested or you would have seen this dichotomy yourself.
Religion accepts the imperfection of the human being and acknowledges the human mindset.
No, it does not. If it did, you would not have had the Crusades orthe Salem Witch Trials. Religion is anything, but intolerant. It it were, the religious nuts would not picket abortion clinics or try and ban gay marriage laws.
@Ironhide: I'm really starting to think you're just trolling here.
@Orlanth: I don't understand why your are juxtaposing science and religion. They are not mutually exclusive. The scientific method is just that, a methodology. It is not a worldview or moral system, despite what some people claim. I think what you are referring to is called scientism. That viewpoint comes with none of the prestige of the sciences themselves.
@Ironhide: I am saying that you seem to be addressing the statement in an inflammatory way. The Holocaust, for example, had nothing at all to do with religion.
Manchu wrote:@Ironhide: I am saying that you seem to be addressing the statement in an inflammatory way. The Holocaust, for example, had nothing at all to do with religion.
@Ironhide: Even so, simply listing atrocities associated with religion (and religion alone does not actually do much to explain why those events happened; I would suggest that you learn more about the Crusades and witch trials) does not negate Orlanth's point. If I understand him correctly, he means to say that Christianity presupposes that humanity is incomplete in and of itself and is only completed or perfected in relationship to its creator whereas scientism assumes man to be capable of eventually knowing all that can be known and using this knowledge to eliminate all imperfections.
Orlanth wrote:
Again if you are atheist then somewhere down the line the choice has been made, even if it is symbolised by reverting to a pre-assumed default of 'non belief'. I suppose this entitles you to attempt to act as a mediator in a debate who looks at all evidence dispassionately, but who is truly dispassionate.
There is no necessary choice involved where inaction is concerned. That doesn't mean that atheism cannot involve faith, as it frequently does via the distinction between disbelief with respect to a thing, and belief in the absence of a thing. Now, this all changes if you don't want to treat atheism as the pure negation of theism, which is certainly a viable position.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ironhide wrote:
No, it does not. If it did, you would not have had the Crusades orthe Salem Witch Trials. Religion is anything, but intolerant. It it were, the religious nuts would not picket abortion clinics or try and ban gay marriage laws.
The acceptance of human imperfection is not tacit to tolerance.
Manchu wrote:@Ironhide: I am saying that you seem to be addressing the statement in an inflammatory way. The Holocaust, for example, had nothing at all to do with religion.
Whether Christian institutions should have done more to prevent or resist the Holocaust is not the same question as whether those institutions or even Christian beliefs contributed to the Holocaust happening. Some have asked the latter question but there is really no connection between the two. (In other words, there is a difference between what people who call themselves Christians think or do and what Christianity itself teaches.) I think that you will find that systematic genocide and the nationalist racism it is based upon is a secular, modern invention.
Manchu wrote:@Orlanth: Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly reply to my remarks. I strongly encourage you to take an open-minded look at historical-critical biblical scholarship. Regarding the Reformation and its effects, I would recommend the book A Secular Age by Charles Taylor.
No problem. I will try and add it to my reading list, but it might be some time. Please PM me a copy-paste synopsis from a review source you agree with and a reminder.
Manchu wrote:
I don't think that you are being persecuted because you are a Christian. I think you are receiving criticism because of your particular claims about what it means to be a Christian.
This here isn't persecution. Like the trolls I can say what I like the worst I can get is a flame or a ban.
Point remains to be outspoken on religion is to stick your head atop the parapet. Dare I addressed the subject of 'do sinners or followers of other faiths burn in hell', or other highly controversial topics offense would quickly be taken no matter how it was phrased. I have been singled out and harassed many times, even though I keep away from such topics. Normally the opposite occurs, one way to bait Christians face to face is to demand answers to tough Biblical questions and then encourage others to revile them when the answers come, then as often as not invited to leave by those who asked the questions - who was not the persons I had arranged to meet, just others who were there.. Because a Christian is expected to defend their faith we can easy be 'ambushed' this way. Frankly I never minded, just answered the questions and sucked it up. If this is as bad as it gets I am laughing, I would like to think they it I was told to renounce my faith at gunpoint I would have the courage to refuse, but dont know if I am that strong.
This is a very real concern, if not in England then elsewhere. This question faces Christians in China and much of the Islamic world day after day. However sometimes it does come closer to home. I know of a woman in my church who has stabbed to death by her husband for failing to renounce her faith, this was in 1996. I last met her an hour before she died, she was on the street preaching. Admittedly this last horrific act was exceptionally rare in a western country, but still it can and did happen. According to the one witness to the event, who had given himself up to the police, when she was stabbed she started to sing.
Manchu wrote:@Ironhide: Even so, simply listing atrocities associated with religion (and religion alone does not actually do much to explain why those events happened; I would suggest that you learn more about the Crusades and witch trials) does not negate Orlanth's point. If I understand him correctly, he means to say that Christianity presupposes that humanity is incomplete in and of itself and is only completed or perfected in relationship to its creator whereas scientism assumes man to be capable of eventually knowing all that can be known and using this knowledge to eliminate all imperfections.
Now see, that makes more sense. I however did not perceive it that way.
To summarize, a person without god is incomplete. Yet scientists believe that a man does not need god to become complete, only knowledge. N'cest pas?
Religion accepts the imperfection of the human being and acknowledges the human mindset.
No, it does not. If it did, you would not have had the Crusades orthe Salem Witch Trials. Religion is anything, but intolerant. It it were, the religious nuts would not picket abortion clinics or try and ban gay marriage laws.
@ Manchu Let me answer this comment at face value, it is a fair point.
You are partially correct, but we cannot establish a good doctrine based on the actions of bigots. the principles of religion are based on people of good faith, not charlatans and despots who use the mass power of religion for their own ends. Inquisitors were on a power trip, they could condemn on a whim and even to the people of the time they were contrary to clear church doctrine, people were too afraid to challenge them.
Jesus said "You will know them by their fruit"
Christians can justly disown and dismiss the activities of Witch hunters, Inquisitors and medieval persecutors of all stripes, and also more recently the hotheads of both Catholic and Protestant persuasions that fueled the Troubles in Ireland as categoric non-believers. While it is actually a sin to judge another mans salvation (only God can do that) let me just say that I would not be suprised if Jesus wrote off the same people also.
The same can be said to a lesser degree of most of the belligerent pickets, though I would hesitate to consider them non-believers unlike the murderers and torturers of the 'faith'.
@Ironhide: Yes, except the latter view is not necessarily held by all scientists. It is called scientism.
Orlanth wrote:While it is actually a sin to judge another mans salvation (only God can do that) let me just say that I would not be suprised if Jesus wrote off the same people also.
This is another area where we are going to disagree, I think. (Not the first clause but rather the second.) I believe that this kind of talk (along with the problematic literalism I mentioned before) is what eventually leads to witch hunts. I've posted this video on dakka twice before but I think it bears repeating. (apologies to those who've seen it)
Manchu wrote:@Ironhide: I am saying that you seem to be addressing the statement in an inflammatory way. The Holocaust, for example, had nothing at all to do with religion.
Whether Christian institutions should have done more to prevent or resist the Holocaust is not the same question as whether those institutions or even Christian beliefs contributed to the Holocaust happening. Some have asked the latter question but there is really no connection between the two. (In other words, there is a difference between what people who call themselves Christians think or do and what Christianity itself teaches.) I think that you will find that systematic genocide and the nationalist racism it is based upon is a secular, modern invention.
Sorry, Fitzz. Having read respected scholarly works on this subject, I'm not very convinced by unsourced intenet opinions. I would recommend you read Henry Kamen's book on the Spanish Inquisition as a starting place.
I am by no means a religious person. If religion is your cup of tea, then I'm fine with that. What peeves me is when people want to get into discussions on whether or not god exists. It can't be proved or disproved with empirical evidence. So why discuss it? The real "meat" of religious discussions is in the teachings and what can be learned from them. Those types of discussions interest me as they will usually have some value and merit.
A discussion about the existence of God can be very meaningful once you get past the notion that such a discussion will be about proof one way or the other. If you want to talk about the existence of God, the conversation should be about the nature and meaning of faith. Certainly the teachings of a religion are important when we survey its historical or political or even philosophical significance. But lived religion, as I think Orlanth was trying to point out, isn't about accepting a certain set of principles or arguments over another one. It's not, primarily at least, about agreeing with one philosophy over another.
All the discussions I've seen on that always end badly with both sides on the issue being very polarized, and unwilling to listen objectively to the evidence presented.
That is why it is important to start with an open-mind and attitude of good will. It also helps for both parties to realize that there is no winner or loser in such a discussion and that the point of it should not be to convert someone to one's own point of view.
Manchu wrote:@Ironhide: Even so, simply listing atrocities associated with religion (and religion alone does not actually do much to explain why those events happened; I would suggest that you learn more about the Crusades and witch trials) does not negate Orlanth's point. If I understand him correctly, he means to say that Christianity presupposes that humanity is incomplete in and of itself and is only completed or perfected in relationship to its creator whereas scientism assumes man to be capable of eventually knowing all that can be known and using this knowledge to eliminate all imperfections.
Now see, that makes more sense. I however did not perceive it that way.
To summarize, a person without god is incomplete. Yet scientists believe that a man does not need god to become complete, only knowledge. N'cest pas?
Actually I dont either.
Its interesting how Manchu reads me.
Yes I do believe that science tries to better man by expanding the body of human knowledge. I also believe that man is incomplete without the relationship with God via the Holy Spirit following the example of Jesus. In an attempt to be more neutral path humans have a psychological need to address spiritual issues, especially mortality. However I dont often look that far ahead.
To me my religion looks at the practical day to day needs. sufficient each day is the days concerns. Partly because in my mind such issues as who I am, why I am, and where I am going after death are long settled. To me and many other Christians that the elementary stuff, I don't dismiss it or become blaze about it, i just thank God and move on and try to live a holy life.
Manchu wrote:
@Orlanth: I don't understand why your are juxtaposing science and religion. They are not mutually exclusive. The scientific method is just that, a methodology. It is not a worldview or moral system, despite what some people claim. I think what you are referring to is called scientism. That viewpoint comes with none of the prestige of the sciences themselves.
I have no beef with science either. My only point of concern is where atheists hijack science as a means of card stacking their own claims that God is dead, or never was. This is a just cause for concern.
Now I do see problems in the scientific community, like how the body academic on a large scale can be as dogmatised as a religion due to human inertia, but at no time do I believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive. In fact the opposite is more often true. the historical dating system for events prior to the eight century BC only made sence when ther Biblical account was taken as the canon timeline. The orthodox timeline gave rise to a discrepancy of three hundred years due to two Egyptian dynasties existing simultaneously. The Biblical dating was dismissed in favour of egyptian records, because the Bible was dismissed as non historical. The reversal of this opinion and the acknowledgement that Egyptian dynasties could coexist at the same time gave rise to the new chronology which fits the Bible and other sources and is now widely accepted as canon history.
All the time the real timeline was there from Moses to the fall of Jerusalem in the most widespread book in the world. It should have been a non issue had it not been for a dogma prevelant until recently of dismissing Biblical evidence from histocial canon.
Edit: getting tired, and missed adding the quote I was replying to.
Albatross wrote:@MODs - Yeah, please don't - Tblock didn't mean to post a picture of a stoned horse, it just sort of 'happened'.
I am still wondering if I should attempt to explain myself to Tblock.
No, don't bother... I have your number. Here is mine:
Corey Taylor wrote:
'O almighty, all knowing, compassionate Lord..'
In hearing these words from a priests mouth one must look at the contradictions and conundrum of faith in regards to the problem of suffering. Just look at the world around you. Read the newspaper once and you'll understand this as every rational human being should.
If this "God" does exist, in co-ordinance with the priests statement, and is aware about the matters of his creations, then either:
1. God knows about suffering and could stop it but doesn't care, in which case he isn't compassionate
2. God knows about suffering, and cares about it but can't do a thing about it, in which case he isn't all-powerful
3. God can do something about it and cares about it, but doesn't know about it, in which case he isn't all-knowing.
Modern theoligians would argue that suffering is but a test and that we are all being subjected to pain and suffering in order to test our faith until the next coming of christ. But deep down in our souls any human being can and should empathize with the pain and suffering of another, and state ,without argument, that it is not right and at times seemingly without reason.
At this point the question of God becomes pointless, and when one focuses his or her path towards helping others who might be less fortunate rather then embarking on their own selfish spiritual journey, the world might start to realize the love of one another without the question of God as reason.
I think what drives most people to turn to athiesm is the clear and apparent contradictions presented in the words of the bible. If "God" is all-forgiving, then what does the idea of Hell represent? the ones who weren't forgiven? If God made the Earth, then the animals, then made Man directly after in his own image, then what are the Dinosaurs? who were the dominant species on this planet for millions of years before us. If some would beleive the Bible is and should be taken as a literal piece of historical fact, much like modern day history books, then one should also be able to compare the two as such. There is physical evidence of most of the events throughout the history of the earth. Most proving the stories in modern day history books. Except for the Bible ofcourse, in which there is no physical evidence or proof provided. Thus, the Bible, in my opinion should be taken as most great fables and myths should. Like the ones about dragons, magic and heroes. A great story with magic and miracles, replete with morals and life-lessons to be learnt, as all the best stories should.
And so, the question of God is an unimportant one. If people spend too much time on it they might, like many, fall into the seclusion of religion. Sectioning themselves off from society in a search for internal truth and comfort. Saying that beleivers should be held higher then non-beleivers, and spending their lives imposing it on others or living behind the divisions of its walls. When the real problems are right in front of our noses. PEOPLE need help. the WORLD needs help. And compassion, knowledge and the power to change, has and should have nothing to do with "God"
@Orlanth: I don't understand with which part of my interpretation of your statement you have taken issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @tblock1984: That quotation does not express the views of modern theologians or Christian doctrine. The Church does not teach that pain and suffering is a test. Rather these things are the tragic consequence of human freedom. Regarding that last paragraph, religious charities give huge sums of money and aid to alleviate the suffering and marginalization of the poor and oppressed. It is hard to imagine that, having I would guess at least heard of Mother Theresa if no other religious person, you could take that viewpoint seriously.
Manchu wrote:@tblock1984: That quotation does not express the views of modern theologians or Christian doctrine. The Church does not teach that pain and suffering are a test. Rather these things are the tragic consequence of human freedom.
And your point is? I am not trying to win a debate here. I am just frustrated at the tone this conversation is taking. Can I not participate unless I spew religious doctrine and rhetoric?
Is my post worth less than yours because I posted a blog from someone I can relate to? Or is it the fact that it is an atheist statement?
My point is that the view expressed in that quotation is not well informed. That person does a good job of expressing their frustration but is simply incorrect in most if not all of their assumptions about what Christianity is like.
There is no need to talk about one post being worth less than another.
Manchu wrote:@Orlanth: I don't understand with which part of my interpretation of your statement you have taken issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @tblock1984: Regarding that last paragraph, religious charities give huge sums of money and aid to alleviate the suffering and marginalization of the poor and oppressed. It is hard to imagine that, having I would guess at least heard of Mother Theresa if no other religious person, you could take that viewpoint seriously.
So? What does that have to do with Christians badgering atheists on a war gaming forum and telling them that they know better than the atheists?
tblock1984 wrote:So? What does that have to do with Christians badgering atheists on a war gaming forum and telling them that they know better than the atheists?
With regard to belief or disbelief in God, that is not what is happening in this thread.
Manchu wrote:That is why it is important to start with an open-mind and attitude of good will. It also helps for both parties to realize that there is no winner or loser in such a discussion and that the point of it should not be to convert someone to one's own point of view.
However,and please correct me if I'm wrong, converting others is one of the tenents of Christianity..is it not?
I'm not a Christian,I don't belive in any god..however,I don't actively attempt to persude others to "renounce god"
I see it as part of an idividules personal freedom to accept god if they so choose to..or to not belive in any god...or to worship chickens if that's what they decide floats their boat.
On the other hand, I have been told by more Christians than I could count that I am surely damned to hell for my belifes (an idea that amuses me ),so..where is the open mind when speaking with these individules?
Where is their good will?
Not tying to flame or "troll"...it simply has been my experince that "understanding" and "acceptance" always go hand in hand with attempts at converting.
@FITZZ: Conversion is a problematic area. True conversion only occurs within a person. No one can make you believe. If you think about it, this would be thought of by Christians as a kind of blasphemy. Christians often describe themselves as evangelists, meaning that they want others to at least hear the message of the Gospel and have access to information. Some are obviously and unfortunately more pushy about it than others. But in the end, only you can make up your own mind.
I am sorry to hear about your experience. I have also experienced that and found it to be totally alienating. It is frustrating that this happens so often because it gives Christianity a bad rap. But I can assure you that ignorance and arrogance are not the fruits of Christianity. People come to the faith with that baggage. Those who see their religion as a means to control others are probably still struggling to understand it themselves .
Respectfully, I disagree Manchu. At points, it seems Orlanth comes off as speaking down towards others, and that is where I think some of the flak comes from. No disrespect towards anyone. That is just how I perceive it.
@Ironhide: I think that Orlanth's tone, as you have perceived it, is entirely unintentional. But he will have to speak on that subject for himself, of course.
Manchu wrote:My point is that the view expressed in that quotation is not well informed. That person does a good job of expressing their frustration but is simply incorrect in most if not all of their assumptions about what Christianity is like.
There is no need to talk about one post being worth less than another.
Sorry I was unclear: That is my opinion, too.
That is why I posted it. Now, what did you say...
It is hard to imagine that, having I would guess at least heard of Mother Theresa if no other religious person, you could take that viewpoint seriously.
What the feth does giving people money have anything to do with easing suffering in the eyes of God? God doesn't care about money... God want's us all to get along. But instead, all I hear is Christian's badgering atheists about what it means to even be atheist... WTF /boggle
No one here is actually willing to talk. You see what I did there? I proved that if the idea is not within your comfort zone, you discredit the person's statements and hide behind you documentation. This isn't about religion at all. It is an online pissing contest, and Christ's face is the target. It makes me sick that the content of the post has no merit. It comes down to what books you have read. feth that.
Someone smarter than I wrote:There are always 2 type of people in Dakka's Off Topic Forum
Type A) They are interested in what you want to discuss , and would discuss it with you .
Type B) They care not for what you want to say nor do they care for what you want to discuss . They only care what you have said. And will hammer you over and over again ignoring the purpose and intention of the thread provided if your original statement isnt solid and allowes the possibility for them to re twist the words. They pride themselves in arguing this way as "winning an debate" .
"All land animals that exist in nature have been encountered by humans. Unicorns have not been encountered by humans. Unicorns do not exist in nature."
dogma wrote:Its based on a valid inference, so I agree with the stated conclusion.
Of course, the obvious definitional caveats apply; particularly with respect to the meaning of nature. Perhaps 'on Earth' is an appropriate substitute.
Manchu wrote:Yes, you are right to point out that a premise can always be questioned. My point was merely that no faith was required to disbelieve in the existence of Unicorns.
Nice mental exercise, but one that doesnt support the concept disbelief without a faith choice.
We can search the world for unicorns find non and conclude they do not exist on planet Earth.
We can extrapolate from that that it is highly improbable that unicorns ever existed due to the lack of paleological evidence.
That is as far as we can go.
We can search high and low for a divine spirit and not find one anywhere and yet draw no such conclusions. Simple because we lack the ability to detect spirits, we also lack the ability to home in on a divine spirits location, if there is one , and if the divine spirit is not in fact everywhere.
Basicly I say live and let live,but I freely admit that the actions of many self proclaimed Christians leave me shaking my head in disbelife.
No offense to you Manchu,you honestly seem like a good enough guy.
@tblock: There are many thousands of people who have dedicated their whole life to being in daily contact with the poor, the handicapped, the mentally challenged, etc. It's certainly not all about giving money. I honestly do not follow the rest of your argument. I understand that you are upset at how these threads usually go but I think this one is going better than usual.
@Orlanth: Your logic escapes me. I can reply however that we do not lack the faculty to experience the spiritual. Rather than sight, touch, taste, etc this sense is called faith.
This is an illusion. It seems like a double post but when you reload the page you find there was only one. Unfortunately, this is usually after you delete the "double post" and therefore end up deleting your whole post. The error has been reported.
I'm sorry that you feel that way, tblock. I didn't mean to shoot down your post if by "shoot down" you mean dismiss it out of hand. The basis of that opinion you quoted is counter factual. That person is criticizing a version of Christianity that he has created rather than Christianity as it actually exists. It expresses an opinion about an opinion.
Manchu wrote:This is another area where we are going to disagree, I think.
We are at cross wires here, not cross opinions. Something is being lost in translation.
For some reason you have been 'disagreeing' with me, by posting how you concur with comments I already made.
I am in agreement with pretty much all that was in the video clip, except that literalism is not the sole or main cause of fundamentalism. You can get fundamentalism from all sorts of roots. Again its normally based on a hijacking of Christian doctrine by politicised 'Christians'.
Calvin wrote his essays on the nature of the mechanics of salvation, it didn't change how the church operated, it was entirely a theology based on how God thinks and acts in regard to salvation. still some beleived others were slow to believe this new doctrine. It should'nt have mattered outside the seminary discussions but instead it led to wars. This want the fault of Calvinists or non Calvinists, it was the fault of politicians who at the time utilised the church as a powerbase. Calvinism was hijacked to kill and destroy and Calvinism was never the issue, just the facade placed in front of the cassus belli. Because Calvinism wasn't heresy of itself, but was a cause of relgious discourse, it was easy for rival factions to declare themselves Calvinists or not and bash their neighbours.
Looking at fundamentalist problems as a whole the current islamic Fundamentalism we are seeing has clear political roots. Islam is entrenched and established enough that if the cause was purely doctrinal it would al;ways have been this bad. It wasn't, politics is the key and the cause, religion is only the tool. Once it starts however the solely reglious dynamic emerges as a copycat trend.
So... I can't play with you guys then... Every christian on this planet has their own version of Christianity that he/she has created rather than Christianity as it actually exists. And what do you mean by how it exists? Can you please let me in on the big secret that is the One True Church. Please let me know how you can say that "This is what it means to be Christian"
I have been searching for that my whole life. It doesn't exist. That became painfully true to me when I was raised Mormon. Every one is reading the same books, but the meaning is different. Just like you pointed out earlier that "you didn't read that" from another user's post.
Didn't you yourself post that vid on fundamentalism? What gives?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ironhide wrote:
tblock1984 wrote:My rant has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with hypocrisy.
And what, pray tell, hypocrisy is that?
Does this help? Read back a bit. You will see other examples.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:I'm sorry that you feel that way, tblock. I didn't mean to shoot down your post if by "shoot down" you mean dismiss it out of hand. The basis of that opinion you quoted is counter factual. That person is criticizing a version of Christianity that he has created rather than Christianity as it actually exists. It expresses an opinion about an opinion.
LOLWUT? You dudes are talking about fething unicorns, and I am the one being counter factual. Got it...
tblock1984 wrote:Please let me know how you can say that "This is what it means to be Christian"
This is what Christians believe: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God; begotten, not made, one in being with the Father, through whom all things were made. Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and by the power of the Holy Spirit was born of the virgin Mary, and became made man; for us men and for our salvation, He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried; on the third day He rose again, in accordance with the Scriptures; He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead; His kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified; who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
tblock1984 wrote:Didn't you yourself post that vid on fundamentalism? What gives?.
Yes, I did.
I'm not interested in having a fight with you. I think I have been clear and respectful toward you.
Does this help? Read back a bit. You will see other examples.
No it doesn't. Why don't you do a little work and cite your examples? Your the one ranting about how they are trying to shoot down your arguments, yet you provide not one shred of evidence to back your claims. Yet, Orlanth and Manchu are actually citing sources to back their views and why they think they are the correct in them.
To me, you are just trying to be argumentative, instead of actually trying to participate in the discussion.
@Orlanth: I think you are underestimating the power of ideas. Did Calvin and Luther usher in war and violence? No, those things have always existed. They did, however, undermine key assumptions about faith and its relationship to authority. The religious opinions of the Reformers have affected far more than religion. You can trace the development of the concept of the modern nation state to the impact of these ideas. To (very baldly) paraphrase one point of that book I mentioned, A Secular Age, before the Reformation religion was a fact. The idea that there was a God was as clearly factual as the notion that flowers bloom in the spring. This was partly because religion was treated as set of dogmatic premises that were accepted wholesale and not subject to individual interpretation, much like principles of atomic physics today. It does not matter what my understanding of a quark or lepton is, as I am not a particle physicist. Similarly, in medieval times, the particular understanding concerning the death and resurrection of Christ held by a single individual was of no importance. After the Reformation, religion was increasingly treated as an opinion rather than a fact.
tblock1984 wrote:Please let me know how you can say that "This is what it means to be Christian"
This is what Christians believe: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God; begotten, not made, one in being with the Father, through whom all things were made. Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and by the power of the Holy Spirit was born of the virgin Mary, and became made man; for us men and for our salvation, He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried; on the third day He rose again, in accordance with the Scriptures; He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead; His kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified; who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Not meaning to be rude, but that is Copy-Pasta. I have read that all before. I was looking for you to prove that everyone's concept of Christianity is not unique to each person, as you implied when you dismissed it.
I'm not interested in having a fight with you. I think I have been clear and respectful toward you.
Me neither. But you still haven't addressed my post about what Corey said. It obviously doesn't fit your world view, so you are ignoring it.
And so, the question of God is an unimportant one. If people spend too much time on it they might, like many, fall into the seclusion of religion. Sectioning themselves off from society in a search for internal truth and comfort. Saying that beleivers should be held higher then non-beleivers, and spending their lives imposing it on others or living behind the divisions of its walls. When the real problems are right in front of our noses. PEOPLE need help. the WORLD needs help. And compassion, knowledge and the power to change, has and should have nothing to do with "God"
Yes, it is an opinion. I don't care. I think it is an intriguing counter point to the statement made earlier about Man not being complete without God.
Ironhide wrote:I am by no means a religious person. If religion is your cup of tea, then I'm fine with that. What peeves me is when people want to get into discussions on whether or not god exists. It can't be proved or disproved with empirical evidence. So why discuss it? The real "meat" of religious discussions is in the teachings and what can be learned from them. Those types of discussions interest me as they will usually have some value and merit
Its useful to dispel dangerous fallacies such as atheism = science. beyond that I do not expect to convert anyone from their belief system on the internet.
It is possible that a third party who does not express any opinion may find one of other argument helpful in their spiritual search.
Manchu wrote:A discussion about the existence of God can be very meaningful once you get past the notion that such a discussion will be about proof one way or the other. If you want to talk about the existence of God, the conversation should be about the nature and meaning of faith. Certainly the teachings of a religion are important when we survey its historical or political or even philosophical significance. But lived religion, as I think Orlanth was trying to point out, isn't about accepting a certain set of principles or arguments over another one. It's not, primarily at least, about agreeing with one philosophy over another.
Very true.
Ironhide wrote:All the discussions I've seen on that always end badly with both sides on the issue being very polarized, and unwilling to listen objectively to the evidence presented.
Not true. Yes this is a tendency on 'the internets'. but as we are proving right here and now and have proved in the past we can discuss politics and religion on Dakka, its a sign of maturity that the threads thrive. Sure we get trolls and IBL comments, but if mods don't react to them and those who wish to contribute ignore the trolling then such problem die down after a page or two. Every now and then we get a fresh troll with a new one liner or .jpg they think is funny. We ignore those and carry on. eventually the thread ends unlocked when the principle argument becomes cyclic.
Besides some come to apparently troll yet stay to talk it out when they are treated like adults, as have recently seen.
Manchu wrote:That is why it is important to start with an open-mind and attitude of good will. It also helps for both parties to realize that there is no winner or loser in such a discussion and that the point of it should not be to convert someone to one's own point of view.
That is also helpful. Bigotry and fear is dispelled once you understand an opposing point of view from an articulate patient and friendly counterpart. We are all learning here. We are learning how best to defend our own positions, you will notice than many of us have clarified or changed our positions once we better understand each others points of view. More importantly we learn how not to misrepresent the opposed position. Too many times I read 'Christians believe this' as an arguemnt against Christianity. A lot of religion threads from 12-18 months ago on Dakka had comments like that. Once Christians started speaking out more on what they believe and the friendly arguments started this phenomena more or less died down.
To really get it moving would like to hear the opinions of other faiths too, we need people who can be articulate, patient and stand their ground and yet be firm enough to consider every other faith group wrong. The one thing we don't need is multi-faith wishy washy we-are-all-the-same bull. Its clear from almost all major faith 'combinations' that they are mutually exclusive, I am quite prepared to call the Moslems wrong and take it like a man when a Moslem will stand up and be counted and say that worshipping the prophet Isha as God is wrong. Anyone from a exclusive religion should not be offended by that, just keep in mind we all thing ourselves right and we cannot all be right. So somewhere down the line most of us are wrong, we cannot tell who is wrong and it could be any one of us. It is all but ceetain that we are all to some extent wrong on one non trivial point or other. get over it and join in.
Me neither. But you still haven't addressed my post about what Corey said. It obviously doesn't fit your world view, so you are ignoring it.
He did address it. Did you miss this?
@tblock1984: That quotation does not express the views of modern theologians or Christian doctrine. The Church does not teach that pain and suffering is a test. Rather these things are the tragic consequence of human freedom. Regarding that last paragraph, religious charities give huge sums of money and aid to alleviate the suffering and marginalization of the poor and oppressed. It is hard to imagine that, having I would guess at least heard of Mother Theresa if no other religious person, you could take that viewpoint seriously.
The Nicene Creed is not copypasta. That is a comprehensive statement of the religious beliefs of Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches.
The things that Corey said are not facts.
He says that modern theologians teach that suffering and pain are a test. This is wrong. Respectable modern theologians who work at universities do not teach this. Perhaps someone who has a radioshow and calls themselves a theologian does but I cannot be bothered with such a source.
He implies that the Bible is taken literally by Christians. A literal interpretation of the Bible is considered erroneous by the Catholic Church. Catholics do not accept that the Bible represents factual history.
He implies that Christians do not understand or accept science. Meanwhile, the Vatican has called "intelligent design" theory and creationism in general unscientific and emphasized its agreement with an American court's decision that it should not be taught in schools as an alternative to evolution.
He says that Christians retreat within themselves to consider abstract matters but do not bother to make a positive change in the world. In real life, Christians from all denominations are constantly volunteering their time as well as other resources (not least of which money) to help make the world a better place. As I have already said, many thousands of nuns and brothers have committed their entire lives to helping the poor as a full time job. I even gave you the example of Mother Theresa and her order of nuns. Here in the United States, the only service provider that exceeds Catholic Charities is the Federal Government.
So you see, I do not value Corey's opinion because it has nothing to do with reality.
I am quite prepared to call the Moslems wrong and take it like a man when a Moslem will stand up and be counted and say that worshipping the prophet Isha as God is wrong.
But isn't that the purview of every religion? To denounce other religions as false, and theirs as the only true religion?
Funny thing is that the Islamic faith has a lot of correlations to the Christian religion. Mohammad is said to be a descendant of Abraham, and they see many figures from the Bible as prophets. They don't recognize Jesus as the son of god, but they do recognize him as a prophet.
Does this help? Read back a bit. You will see other examples.
No it doesn't. Why don't you do a little work and cite your examples? Your the one ranting about how they are trying to shoot down your arguments, yet you provide not one shred of evidence to back your claims. Yet, Orlanth and Manchu are actually citing sources to back their views and why they think they are the correct in them.
To me, you are just trying to be argumentative, instead of actually trying to participate in the discussion.
Sorry for doing that. I am currently watching 4 kids under the age of 6, and I am constantly getting up from the PC. I am surprised my posts are even coherent at all...
Here is my initial trigger into the depths of nerdrage.
Orlanth wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Orlanth wrote:explaining talking to God to a sceptic is like explaining colour to the blind.
Isn't the inverse just as true though? A skeptic explaining why it is odd to talk to a mythic being is like explaining colour to the blind. No traction will be made either way.
Not really. You see faith comes first, then the relationship. However once you are talking to God its hard to ignore the fact that He is no myth. It gets all too obvious when God says the same thing to several different people at once with none of the recipients communicating with each other at the time only to discover retrospectively that several people giot the same message. I have noticed this a number of times.
Furthermore I can understand how it is not to believe in God, and can experience what the skeptic does, but the opposite is seldom true. I am in a better position than a skeptic, the skeptic guesses at what they don't have experience of, I know what I have seen and heard. In this I am lucky, many other have a strong faith but have not been blessed this way, why, I don't know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote:Explaining the voices in your head to a sane person is like explaining colour to the blind, except you're crazy.
Heavily loaded. I make no aspersions on the mental health of skeptics, I suggest you do me the same courtesy. There is a world of difference between a relationship with God and 'voices in your head', the latter implies persons of highly unstable behaviour and is easy to distinguish from people of faith.
Manchu wrote:@Orlanth: I think the point that Ahtman was trying to get across was that there is no reason for a skeptic to believe that a believer's perspective is any closer to the truth or otherwise more reasonable than his own. The sentiment that skeptics are like the blind compared to believers is at least of heavily loaded as Nurglitch's post, if more (perhaps unintentionally) subtle.
And then logic/religion atheist/religion shenanigans ensue, and Manchu says he knows why I think what I think. Cute, even though i find it kind of frightening how paradoxically compelling Manchu comes across, at least IMO.
Yes, Mr. Kettle, I know I am black. Thanks for letting me know.
@tblock: Do I say I know why you think what you think? Frankly, I do not even know what you think. It would be strange if, not knowing what it is, I could claim to know why you think it. But I am willing to try and understand if you will continue to have patience with me.
@Tblock: I can see where you are coming from. A lot of the discussion is going at a fast pace, and even the two at the core of it are finding it hard to keep up with each other. I find it helpful to step back and relook at all the posts after my previous reply just in case I missed something.
Remember also that everyone is basing opinions off of what you say, so if you lag behind or miss something you might come off as being a horse's arse.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mayhap a summarization is in order to get everyone on the same sheet of music?
Ironhide wrote:Funny thing is that the Islamic faith has a lot of correlations to the Christian religion. Mohammad is said to be a descendant of Abraham, and they see many figures from the Bible as prophets. They don't recognize Jesus as the son of god, but they do recognize him as a prophet.
Yes, it is quite fascinating to read about the life of the Prophet and consider how deeply he was exposed to Christianity. At the time of his life, Christianity was the dominant religion in the western, Mediterranean part of what we call the Middle East. In fact, Medieval Christians even considered Islam to be a heresy of Christianity rather than an independent religion.
I seriously think all the religions of the world are linked by their beliefs or dogma, and that the only real difference is how they were changed by man.
Maybe, I can't speak for "most" belief systems. Confucianism, for example, does not posit the existence of any sort of afterlife. Christianity, as another example, does not teach that we do good deeds in exchange for heaven but rather that we do good deeds because they are good.
True, but most religions in some form or another have blaring similarities. Doing good deeds, conversion, helping the needy, teaching in parables, etc. They may not all believe in the same god or belief in the afterlife, but they do teach people to be good.
FITZZ wrote:
However,and please correct me if I'm wrong, converting others is one of the tenents of Christianity..is it not?
Partly, we are all called to be witnesses but evangelism is a specific gift and not all have it. I most certainly do not.
I dont preach not for lack of care but lack of skill. Evangelism is an art and a people skill, do it wrong and you do more harm than good.
We witnesses by trying to live a good life and trying to live by example, by living out the evidence of a good faith life. This might involve talking to individuals about God at the right time, but not a conversion trip.
FITZZ wrote:
I'm not a Christian,I don't belive in any god..however,I don't actively attempt to persude others to "renounce god"
I see it as part of an idividules personal freedom to accept god if they so choose to..or to not belive in any god...or to worship chickens if that's what they decide floats their boat.
Lets put it from a neutral perspective. If a Moslem came up to me and told me that I must accept Mohammed as the true prophet of Allah to be saved from the flames of hell isn't the parson trying to do me a favour?
I can only answer this with a yes.
According to his own belief system Islam is the answer and many Moslems believe that in a positive way with good intentions. Yes it is also true that nowadays western converts are often eventually the most radicalised and dangerous, but we will leave the scum out of it for now and assume the persons we meet are a genuine benign men of faith.
Now this has been put into practice, i had a Christian education and upbringing but became a Christian of my own free will much later, because I was open minded I have had at least two attempts to convert me, once at university and once shortly afterwards. The first one was carefully orchestrated and included an invitation to sit for a meal and a video with some Libyan students who I had befriended, the other a chance meeting. It might have happened more often since but my social horizons collapsed as I got older and put education years behind me, and I meet far fewer people than I used to. the chance meeting ended up with my sitting in Euston station with a copy of the Koran I was just given. I sat there and genuinely asked God - who I was not hearing clearly until many years later, if Islam was his path for me.
Later in another course at another place I knew a Moslem girl from Bangladesh who I got on very well with to put the point. She was visibly saddened when I told her these stories, I could read in her eyes a worry for me as I had made a terrible mistake by hearing the will of Allah and consciously rejecting it by remaining a Christian. Which put me at a far worse position than one who had never heard the will of Allah. She was concerned for my soul, she never pressed the point beyond a few careful initial remarks and we remained close.
FITZZ wrote:
On the other hand, I have been told by more Christians than I could count that I am surely damned to hell for my belifes (an idea that amuses me ),so..where is the open mind when speaking with these individules?
This is difficult.
First thing, and I don't like saying it is that they may well be right. The end of a Christless life is damnation in hell. There said it, I mean it and believe it.
However I have seen as lot of Christian whackjobs bring out the hell card way too often and for the wrong reasons. the message of Christianity is the Gospel, which literally means 'Good news'. Hell is anything but good news. the emphasis must always be on salvation, mercy, and love if anything at all. Hell was always the default setting anyway.
From your commentary it is likely you got condemned by someone for something you specifically said and do. This is out and out wrong. i have seen this too. One of my best friends is a soldier, he has taken human life, he was told my several Christians including two church of England priests that he would burn in hell for that. Actually priests should know better.
I put him straight.
Specifically I mentioned that New Testament spiritual encounters with soldiers were almost always positive. Jesus commended the faith of the centurion above all in Israel. A centurion in Israel at that time probably had a lot of blood on his hands, other centurions of faith were mentioned. Furthermore both Jesus and John the Baptist had a lot to say about dodgy professions and neither were meek enough to refrain from critiquing the profession of arms. Yet in the New Testament there is only one commandment to soldiers: 'be content with your pay'. That is to say, do not use your position of power to extort money from the populace.
thats it, no exhortation to repent of their profession. Jesus didn't tell the soldiers to repent of their profession like he did the prostitutes ( back on topic for a fleeting moment) or repent within their profession as he did most types of priest. So why should some wazzock in a casock then condemn soldiery.
FITZZ wrote:
Where is their good will?
Sadly lacking. I apologise on behalf of real Christians everywhere.
FITZZ wrote:
Not tying to flame or "troll"...it simply has been my experince that "understanding" and "acceptance" always go hand in hand with attempts at converting.
A justifiable concern.
Ironhide wrote:Respectfully, I disagree Manchu. At points, it seems Orlanth comes off as speaking down towards others, and that is where I think some of the flak comes from. No disrespect towards anyone. That is just how I perceive it.
That is certainly not the intention, I speak from experience within my paradigm, and wont back down from it because I am secure in my belief systems, not because I am better or holier, thats likely not true and not relevant; but because of a long consistent and positive experience of the Christian God.
What you (collectively) believe is up to you, it would be nice if you saw what I saw and experienced God for yourselves, my God is great and meeting Him is well worth the trip.
Manchu wrote:@Orlanth: I think you are underestimating the power of ideas. Did Calvin and Luther usher in war and violence? No, those things have always existed.
Of course not.
Manchu wrote:They did, however, undermine key assumptions about faith and its relationship to authority. The religious opinions of the Reformers have affected far more than religion.
Sure some philospohical outlook changes had far reaching effects.
I recommend The Day The Universe Changed by James Burke to you. You might prefer the videos instead on YouTube, the book covered a documentary series from the 80's.
However philosophy as a cassus belli doesn't wash. Its an excuse to line the real cause of war.
tblock1984 wrote:
Not meaning to be rude, but that is Copy-Pasta. I have read that all before.
Very unfair, you might just string together poem and learn it verbotem while remaining ignorant of its meaning, but a Creed is something different. The main church creeds are long thought over, word for word in minute detail and thoroughly reviewed if place in modern language. They are specifically and painstaking designed so that they can be learned digested and understood. you can recite a creed without knowing what it stands for, that much is true. but it would be most unfair to assume that of anyone you don't know as by the working definition of a Creed it is elementary teaching. If you know and understand the creed of a denomination you essentially know and understand the church that uses it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ironhide wrote:Do not most belief systems practice in some form that a person should do good deeds in order to have a good afterlife?
Islam has that opinion:
Take a step towards Allah and Allah takes a step towards you.
Manchu wrote:Maybe, I can't speak for "most" belief systems. Confucianism, for example, does not posit the existence of any sort of afterlife. Christianity, as another example, does not teach that we do good deeds in exchange for heaven but rather that we do good deeds because they are good.
I cant speak for Confucianism but Christianity has a dichotomy between faith and works. We are justified by faith alone but only through works is our faith complete. its tricky to grasp, essentially doing good will not get us to heaven, only faith in Jesus attains salvation which is a free gift of god. However faith without works is worthless meaning that once we have salvation we ought to do good because we are should set and example and be grateful to god.
This does mean if you read the RAW properly, we can accept salvation live lives of sin and then go to heaven. This is indeed the case, salvation is a free gift.
However heaven is not a classless society, while even the poorest man in heaven is content and lacks for no basic need, those who do good works earn an progressively better place in salvation. This system is also amended by ones ability to do good. Those with more are expected to do more. This is the comment about the rich man, rich men can get their ticket the same as poor men, but the more you have its harder to work up a decent quality afterlife.
All in all Christianity is a very good package deal.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Surely Ghandi gets a ticket into heaven?
Maybe, that isn't for us to decide. The matter of his salvation was between him and God. I do not think it wise to speculate about any person's salvation, that is a judgment reserved for God alone. I am definitely unnerved when people make jokes about it...
Emperors Faithful wrote:What differs a good non-christian from a good christian?
Spiritually? The saving Grace of Jesus Christ. Physically? Nothing. I have known many good men, but being good does not guarantee an afterlife in Paradise.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Surely Ghandi gets a ticket into heaven?
Maybe, that isn't for us to decide. The matter of his salvation was between him and God. I do not think it wise to speculate about any person's salvation, that is a judgment reserved for God alone. I am definitely unnerved when people make jokes about it...
Well, TBH I wasn't really making fun of it. There are truly good people out there, and I would be willing to bet that there are perfectly good people out there that are not christians and have never heard of or had the opportunity to confess thier sins and be born again. What happens to them? IMHO, it's a massive hole in the theory.
(I do see your point though, I only knew Ghandi by reputation so I can't possinly speak on his behalf)
Emperors Faithful wrote:What differs a good non-christian from a good christian?
Spiritually? The saving Grace of Jesus Christ. Physically? Nothing. I have known many good men, but being good does not guarantee an afterlife in Paradise.
Not to sounds antagonistic, but that's according to you. And is still applicable to my previous question.
Ahtman wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:Surely Ghandi gets a ticket into heaven?
Karmic wheel, though he may have broke free of it, but considering that he still had a lot of normal human issues probably not.
Well, how are we supposed to know where the moral line is drawn between damnation and salvation?
Emperors Faithful wrote:What differs a good non-christian from a good christian?
Usually better parties with more authentic buffalo wings.
How do I put this? That was...slightly funnier, but slighlty less helpful than JEB_Stuarts post.
@TBlock - Try to chill a bit, man - you can be atheist without being misotheistic. I know know it's hard, given your background - but atheist hostility fuels conflict in exactly the same way as religious hostility. As atheists we should be commited to taking the high-road. Although...
Orlanth wrote:dangerous fallacies such as atheism = science
These sort of statements will only inflame hostility towards the religious. What a completely arrogant statement. Dangerous fallacies? No offence, but you believe that you talk to god. An absence of theistic belief is the scientific default position, as belief in god is completely unsupported by evidence. You may accept evolution and the big bang, but you haven't arrived at the belief in supreme beings by a dispassionate examination of the (current) scientific facts. If you want people to respect your viewpoints, try refraining from derisive statements such as this. After all, you believe some pretty wacky stuff yourself.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Surely Ghandi gets a ticket into heaven?
Karmic wheel, though he may have broke free of it, but considering that he still had a lot of normal human issues probably not.
Well, how are we supposed to know where the moral line is drawn between damnation and salvation?
Damnation and salvation? In my Hindu? To know you would have to be able to see beyond dualistic thinking and pierce the maya (viel) of reality. See things for what they are, not as the ego perceives them to be. One of the main being that there is no "I". You know, interconnectedness, blah blah blah.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, TBH I wasn't really making fun of it.
I didn't think you were, I was just making a comment.
Emperors Faithful wrote:There are truly good people out there, and I would be willing to bet that there are perfectly good people out there that are not Christians and have never heard of or had the opportunity to confess their sins and be born again. What happens to them? IMHO, it's a massive hole in the theory.
Christianity is not a theory, it is a system of faith. It is interesting that you bring up just this point though. Many people see your point as a major flaw in the claims of Christianity, almost a contradiction. How can a God, who claims to be all loving, powerful, knowing etc., send people to Hell if they didn't even have a chance to accept Christ? American Indians, young children, the illiterate and so on are held up as examples of those who have never had the chance to accept God. Thankfully St. Paul provides us with a clear answer in his Epistle to the Romans. It is in the second chapter that he tells us that God has implanted a reflection of the law upon the souls of all men. He writes further that all who have not heard the gospel of Christ will be judged only by what has been revealed to them, and this may either accuse or excuse them from God's judgment.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Not to sounds antagonistic, but that's according to you. And is still applicable to my previous question.
I do not presume that this is according to me. Rather, this is according to Scripture. But as I have said before: I know not the hearts and minds of other men, nor do I have any right to judge them. I take my beliefs on Faith, and on that I hold firm.
Orlanth wrote:dangerous fallacies such as atheism = science
These sort of statements will only inflame hostility towards the religious. What a completely arrogant statement. Dangerous fallacies? No offence, but you believe that you talk to god. An absence of theistic belief is the scientific default position, as belief in god is completely unsupported by evidence. You may accept evolution and the big bang, but you haven't arrived at the belief in supreme beings by a dispassionate examination of the (current) scientific facts. If you want people to respect your viewpoints, try refraining from derisive statements such as this. After all, you believe some pretty wacky stuff yourself.
I don't take back that comment I reinforce it.
There is no proof of God or lack of God, so the default for science is a neutrality. Neutrality is a long long way from atheism. Science ignores rather than discounts theistic presence, its the difference between 'there is no God', and 'lets leave God out of this'. Science can do the latter because God leaves no presence and thus His existence or non existence does not alter scientific method or interfere with human observation. we are simply unable to quantify any influence He has at all. This leaves it wide open for individuals to believe what they like.
Atheism is not science, atheism is faith.
Note that I have no right to claim atheism is a lie. I am not saying that. I don't believe it, but you are logically free to believe it, just dont mask it as scientific method. It isn't, its a religious preference.
Albatross wrote:
What a completely arrogant statement.
The science = atheism fallacy can be logically debunked. I have shown how it is done so on logic and logic alone. I did not critique the science = atheism fallacy based on belief or faith, that would just be a counter opinion.
Logic can afford to be definitive because logic is, that isn't arrogance it is truth.
I have been very careful when speaking on unproven elements such as God to use different terminology. Because I cannot prove what I say and others may hold a different view. I haver a strong opinion, as you noticed, but no proof aso I cannot definiatively call you wrong on your core belief system, only when you mask it as science.
Albatross wrote:
Dangerous fallacies? No offence, but you believe that you talk to god.
That is the real arrogance. I only speak by my own example, I am convinced for myself but I make no claim that I have definitive proof.
So my faith is a fallacy, you say, while accusing arrogance on the other party. Very well, go ahead and prove it.
Either prove here and now that God does not exist and I have been lying, or take back your words.
This is a rhetorical question, you would if you could, even Dawkins can go no far than to say that the existence of God is very unlikely, by his opinion. There are many out there who would love to disprove God. Fact is they cannot.
If you cannot prove an error in my thinking, you cannot define it as fallacious. I speak to God, you can choose to believe its true or not, and you are free to disagree with me to my face on a counter point of faith. But is it not a tad arrogant and thus more than a tad hypocritical and insulting make a definitive statement that my faith is a fallacy and thus a lie.
Albatross wrote:
as belief in god is completely unsupported by evidence.
Here you are espousing very poor science, you can issue a blanket denial of evidence for God, but it takes a lot of front could we say arrogance to blanket dismiss it while presuming a scientific standpoint.. Evidence is there. evidence is there both ways. Atheist apologists like Dawkins et al give their evidence to believe there is not God, they even apply scientific method to them, but there is not proof and atheism as is remains a faith choice.
Likewise there is evidence the other way, archeological evidence that supports Biblical stories, miracles are also occasionally documented but likewise there is no proof. God remains aloof from the status of scientific fact for whatever reason you prefer is true.
Unsupported by proof, ok. I can go with that. God is not scientifically proven, but not unsupported by evidence. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God you might choose to dismiss it, but that is your choice not a definitive statement of fact.
Your blanket claim that 'God is completely unsupported by evidence' can only be described as pig ignorance if it is a scientific comment, or a great big leap of faith if it isn't. Have you any idea just how many books there are on this subject? Can you stand up and say they are all debunked. Books on testimony, books on miracles, book on archeological and historical evidence, books on proven predicted prophesy. Not vague Nostradamus stuff but something really exacting predicted millenia ago. Let me give you one piece of evidence that stands up, which will of course be enough to debunk the 'completely unsupported' jibe:
The Signature of God by Grant R Jeffrey includes one such example. Now he uses the word proof instead of evidence too much for pure science, but for this he can be forgiven. He found something extraordinary. By using the Hebrew religious calender of 360 days and no other evidence except plain text passages from the Bible namely: Exodus 12:41, Jeremiah 25:11, Ezra 1:3, Ezekiel 4:3-6 and Leviticus 26:18 cross referenced with Revelations 12:6 he indicated that the exact date of the end of the exile of Israel to be 15th May 1948, the exact date of the Independence of Israel. I can go into this in more detail and go through the evidence with the thread verse by verse and see how we can come to that date if anyone is interested. It will take another text wall, full references will be given so you can follow the commentary and see for yourself.
Just remember that no-one doubts that these Biblical passages are themselves ancient, to predict a major event TO THE DAY from millenia ago looks like evidence to anyone. This is not numerology, just observation of the passages in plain text.
I believed before I read this evidence, but if I had to I could make a fair claim that my God is real because He writes His promises long ago, and keeps them on time. "God is completely unsupported by evidence", as I am happy to show you if challenged there is little chance of that being a fair objective scientific comment.
Of course there is other evidence and like the books of Dawkins and atheist apologists they have their critics. Some are written without scientific methodology and are debunked most of those werre not intended as scientific documents but used such words as proof. There are likewise similar works of atheism that are poorly founded, but many works survive on both sides.
Despite this Albatross is not alone, many will attempt to claim that the existence of God lacks evidence. Its a growing dogma and part of the mindset of what happens when atheists hijack science and claim it for exclusive religious use. Atheism being a religion at heart has its fair share of prophets and martyrs, it also has its fair share of fundamentalists and persecutors. To whome science is a useful tool. They deceive others who honestly believe atheism is scientific and lead their flock to have increased intolerence to religious thought and person.
The Soviets used this technique extensively, and it is prevelant in current Chinese thinking and it has since infected mainstream science and atheists alike.
Albatross wrote:
If you want people to respect your viewpoints, try refraining from derisive statements such as this. After all, you believe some pretty wacky stuff yourself.
Here comes the crunch. This last comment showed signs of the fundamentalist dogma and is a good example of why the atheism = science fallacy must be properly addressed. I will make this caveat I suspect Albatross of being unaware of where the atheism = science fallacy actually leads and likely would step back from these dogmas consciously, yet espounds them only unwittingly.
Let me show you how this can be fairly interpreted: "Our belief system, atheism is orthodox, so orthodox we don't need to call a religious preference anymore, its simply science! Whereas a theistic faith system is not and is thus open to derision if it challenges established science as a mere religion. After all those religious people believe wacky things by definition unlike atheists. So we can belittle them and ignore their commentaries and expect them to walk on egg shells around us because the social plane for future discourse is now shifted. We are by default learned and they are by default dreamers. Because we atheists are scientists at heart and we are wiser than thou. Furthermore we can espound out scientific beliefs in areas where religion is not allowed and tell people under the banner of science that there is no God without recourse to reply because religious people don't belong in the science media."
I hope Albatross you understand why the fallacy must be addressed. You see for science to be consistent at the very minimum it raises ethical questions. If atheism is seen as scientific 'fact', erroneously or otherwise then by absolute logical definition theism is not science and is not a fact. How long would it be before people with faith backgrounds different from your own are unwelcome in the labs and universities. Why allow Christians or Moslems or others who deny your supposed scientific 'facts' of atheism to teach or participate in science. Outside of this you would have a very uneven debate platform, which will inevitably lead to an intellectual freezeout that will extend beyond the scientific community. You cannot take the science = atheism argument in any logical way, logic passes beyond your convenient boundaries to wherever it leads. If atheism really is science then a lot of people apparently just are not good scientists, people like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein and many many others.
You complain at my 'arrogance'. Yet if atheism is science Einstein was not an objective scientist. It's very clear that he had a theistic faith system all his working life, it was there when he wrote his papers, it was there afterwards. This is where your local scientific atheism leads you, here is the first "heretic" who's door I will lead you too. Can you make that call Mr Albatross, can you?
Relapse wrote:Here's an online dictionary definition of addiction:
"the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma."
Getting a divorce or having to go to a treatment center seems fairly traumatic to me.
Getting divorced was the best thing that ever happened to me.
on topic: Religion, drugs, porn. it's all kind of the same.
There is no proof of God or lack of God, so the default for science is a neutrality.
Atheism is not science, atheism is faith.
Note that I have no right to claim atheism is a lie. I am not saying that. I don't believe it, but you are logically free to believe it, just dont mask it as scientific method. It isn't, its a religious preference.
Atheism is a faith system.
Again, how on earth can not believing in something be a belief system? None belief IS belief? Is that how you try to win an argument? Just put your fingers in your ears and crack on anyway? It even SOUNDS stupid. None belief IS belief?!
Is not collecting stamps a hobby? Or not playing 40k? Is that a hobby?
Do you disbelieve in Santa? Ok thats your Religion. You must be a devout Anti Santa-ist.
Or are you going with the argument from belief?
OK then, do you believe that your mobile phone will make a call when you press the call button on it? Ok then, you dont think that because of prior events and experience, no, thats your Religion.
Calling a lack of belief a "Religious preference" is one of the most ridiculous things i have ever heard, and i usually only hear it when i am watching someone like Kent Hovind on youtube. A convicted fraudster who is constantly repeating this point because it makes his own evidence free belief look more likely if everything that everyone in the world can happen to believe in is classed as a "Religion" too.
I believe that Chemotherapy can sometimes cause cancer to go into remission, is that my Religion? We could play the game all night long, you cant just pick anything at all that someone thinks they agree or disagree with and then decree it a "Religion" because you want it to be so.
Your statement is about as convincing as saying that the capital of France is Berlin. You can keep saying it all you like, but it doesnt make it valid.
You can use my argument above for anything at all, hobbys or belief/non belief that a helicopter will fly or the oven will cook your steak, but regards to Religion, it is all too easy to point out its absurdity. Apply the same reasoning to the Gods of other religions for example, if you are a Christian, do you believe the Hindu God Ganesh exists? Or do you not believe in Ganesh?
If you do believe in Ganesh, you cant be a real Christian right? If you are a Christian, do you believe that Ganesh does not exist? Why, then you must be a devout follower of the "No Ganesh" faith then!
Is that you Orlanth? Are you a devout No Ganesh, No Thor, No Amun -Ra ist?
Thats your religion. You said so yourself. None belief IS a religious belief is it not?
Regardless of all this, ill put the question to you, what do you think makes something a religion? I have proven above that a lack of belief cannot be a belief (just say those 6 words to yourself again slowly, its actually so ridiculous that im stunned i have written so much on the topic) I shall summarise by saying that even ignoring all of the above, a lack of belief cannot be a religious belief because it does not involve any of the following things that i would presume are common place in religious peoples lives.
Belief in God(s), Prayer, Churches or temples, Holy Books or Scripture, Priests /religious leaders, Belief in anything supernatural (including angels / devils), Miracles, an Afterlife, Holy wars, Heaven / Hell, Lifestyle restrictions (dress, diet, marriage etc. etc.) Belief without evidence, Belief despite conflicting evidence, Supernatural origins of universe and / or humans, Murderous fundamentalist extremists, Annoying street / doorstep preachers, The soul, Regular ceremonies / acts of worship, Sin, Blasphemy....
Spiritually? The saving Grace of Jesus Christ. Physically? Nothing. I have known many good men, but being good does not guarantee an afterlife in Paradise.
Going to have to say you are wrong there JEB. I can cite evidence in the bible, where people went to heaven without the saving grace of christ.
Orlanth:
I can see where you are coming from. There's nothing current in science at all that says definitively one way or another ANYTHING about god. Pure atheism is in fact unscientific, as it stops one being open to the possibility that current ideas are incorrect- science can never truly prove anything right, only that what we thought before was wrong and the new theory is more likely to be right.
Unfortunately many people who are agnostic refer to themselves as atheist in my experience. (Not meaning to put words in anyone's mouth). True atheism seems to me to require a level of faith similar to belief in a deity. Strong, almost certain levels of doubt in the existence of God is not the same as militant atheism. (Gah, the language really isn't clear and it makes talking about this stuff really difficult.)
On the other hand, I can see how Mattym and others get frustrated by being told that they have a faith system, because while militant atheism requires faith, there are many grades of non-belief that do not. Faith system is also synonymous (perhaps incorrectly) with religion to some people. It's a case of communications breakdown I feel, because the language is relatively imprecise, and many of us are not theologians. And I appreciate your concise use of language in saying atheism is a faith system, rather than a religion.
My own position is one of doubt and ambivalence. I don't see any particular reason to believe in any particular sort of supreme being. I'm will to accept that possibly there may be one, but I'd be horribly depressed if it could think in any way approaching how we think. Ie. if it has the same understanding of good and bad as we do, and so on. Because to me, that would raise the question of why is the world such a friggin' unfair craphole at times, why do people suffer needlessly and die in agony, why do natural disasters happen, and so on. An all powerful and all knowing creator would have to be a complete hypocrite if it shares our ideas of good and bad, or completely strange and alien if not. And in that case, all the religiously motivated good deeds are pointless, and the existence of God is irrelevant. Another take would be that God is not uncaring or alien, but impotent. That, I find equally depressing, and it makes the idea of God and worshipping God pointless to me again.
It could be that God has some sort of unknowable plan, which is of course what most people of faith believe. That would piss me off too.
So yeah. No doubt several people here find my line of reasoning childish or petulant. I've certainly been told that before by friends with faith. I don't mind, but it is certainly how I feel, and why I am a bit happier with the idea that god doesn't exist, though I accept that he might.
Again, how on earth can not believing in something be a belief system? None belief IS belief? Is that how you try to win an argument? Just put your fingers in your ears and crack on anyway? It even SOUNDS stupid. None belief IS belief?!
It doesnt sound stupid, its simply that you are hiding a false proposition behind semantics. Let me take your initial comment.
Again, how on earth can not believing in something be a belief system?
Let us rephrase that into an identical but fairer worded question.
Again, how on earth can believing in the absense of something be a belief system?
Once you rephrase this initial question fairly it answers itself, and all the rest of your argument becomes void.
This should b e enough of an answer. but I explained this one to you in an earlier post but you failed to understand. So I will try again in detail.
A chimpanzee has as far as we can tell no religious faith. This does not make a chimpanzee an atheist, it is instead devoid of religion altogether as far as we know.
Someone who has no opinions on God is in a similar position theologically. The trouble is unless someone has the brains of a chimp it is difficult not to address the question of religion at some point. Man is a thanatonic being, that is to say it predicts its own demise and asks why. Sooner or later, usually a lot sooner this ends in a religious choice. Man has always been this way, every tribe even the remotest has a faith system. Faith systems are inherent to the questioning nature of man.
You can try and put off the question, but that isn't atheism. Its also inherently dishonest, because at all stage of awareness people will have some inkling of where they currently stand on this elementary subject even if marginal and even if transitory.
So for example someone who is not sure and looking for more evidence but is currently not believing is still a weak form of atheist, possibly agnostic, according to current status. We are not robots, we do not turn our minds off after processing data, they run all the time. We encounter religion early in life even if unschooled in the subject as the natural mind wanders.
To completely avoid religion and have no default position one must never have an opinion of or think about, life, death, who we are, where we are going and/or what is the purpose of life. Frankly despite the best intentions of the most focused minded (or distracted) savants this is quite impossible. Even if we are that focused, we would still carry preconceptions from our growing up. Frankly the only way to avoid these questions is to be a complete drooling cabbage or live your entire life in a coma, and I am not sure even then.
Thus why the English language allows you to colloquially describe some who is atheist as 'not believing in God' or equivalent religious entities. This is in fact not the case, in English the preface 'not' or 'un-' has two meanings, either a passive lack of the described feature or a proactive non presence of the described feature. Atheism is definately proactive as it involves a mental choice, its is participatory not non-participatory. This is why a person of a foreign faith (from any perspective) is an unbeleiver, 'un-' doesn't signify lack of a belief it signifies an alternate belief.
Atheism isn't a lack of a choice, its a positive choice to disbelieve.
You have done tours so you may have come across the saying 'there are no atheists in foxholes'. While I do not believe this is necessarily true in every case most soldiers I met who otherwise don't think about faith too much agree they prayed at times like that. They might never express a religious preference in their entire service careers but if you dig down deep enough, and fear of battle can bring that out in a man you will find that behind all posturing people have faith choices made deep inside them.
Who knows the experience of a modern combat soldier may well be 'is this it?' Or another atheists final question. I would not be suprised allowing for the complete wishy washy drivel spewed from army chaplains nowadays. The vast majority of the modern army chaplaincy is a disgrace, throughly politically dogmatised and quite unfit to help soldiers in a time of spiritual need, there are some old school but they are few and far between.
I wont address the rest of your post at this time because pretty much all your thinking here hinges on this one misconception.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I do not think it wise to speculate about any person's salvation, that is a judgment reserved for God alone. I am definitely unnerved when people make jokes about it...
Me, too. Or serious claims, for that matter. Makes me cringe.
@DaBoss: Christianity teaches that human suffering is not the end of the story. The mere existence of pain, misery, malice, and terror do not justify them. I can kill you, yes, but that will not be the end of you. This is one facet of the message of Jesus's death and resurrection. The Roman state's authority was based entirely on coercive power: we will kill you unless you obey. They killed Him and, Christians believe, He let them do so. But in three days His tomb was found empty. Afterwards, His disciples saw Him and even ate with Him. Thomas the doubter put his fingers in Christ's wounds because he could not otherwise believe the mere evidence of his eyes that these things were actually happening. Doubt is not the antithesis of faith, it is faith's constant prologue. Christians believe that Jesus Christ conquered death and in His resurrection all people also conquer death. To the Romans, whose power lay in violence and dealing out suffering, Christians recalled the message of their Savior, the Gospel. They refused to accept, by acquiescing to the threat of torture and murder, that pain, sorrow, and death were the final realities of human existence. There are terrible things in this temporal world but there is more to it than that. Those terrible things have an ending. But we Christians believe that the dignity and worth of human life have no ending.
And again, i dont want to keep banging the drum here Orlanth, as ive said, i dont think im militant with my atheistic belief, because im aware of how many nice pleasant well meaning Christians there are, 99% of them seem to be, but i am not hiding a false proposition behind semantics because i do not "believe in non belief"
Me, and most people who would describe themselves as agnostic or atheist are simply that because there isnt any evidence. If something more convincing turns up, i do of course reserve the right to convert!
I dont believe in the absence of something, i just dont see any evidence for "something"
If it changes, then i will of course happily become religious! The two are not the same thing surely?
I also believe in the worth of human life. I believe there is more to life than suffering. I believe that the world is a wonderful, interesting, beautiful place.
I see no particular reason to believe in a pleasant afterlife, but I am glad that people get happiness from these beliefs. (My family are all religious, I was raised Catholic.I keep quiet on my views because while I derive strength from the idea that there is probably nothing but us, I know they might not. I feel the same in this instance.)
My issue with the idea of a benevolent God is that if he is the creator of the universe, he set it up so that natural evil would occur. I can understand the idea that free will is needed, and that this allows for human evil to cause suffering. That's fair enough. But I wonder why the world was made in the way it is. Many things cause suffering that have nothing at all to do with humans. Natural disasters are an obvious example, or genetic defects. There are all sorts of examples. Hypothetically, if God is all knowing, he could have constructed a world without these things. A happier world. To me it's somewhat similar to having animals in an enclosure and leaving broken glass on the ground. That is irresponsible and bad of me.
Now, I accept that many christians have wrestled with this and come down of the side of trusting in god, trusting that there is a plan. I do not share that faith. I don't know, maybe there is, but I would question (and I believe, were there a supreme being, it would be entirely my right to question) whether the plan was worth it. I don't feel I should be expected to take things on faith. For that reason I choose to hope that there is not a God, in the christian sense, and focus on doing what I can to make it a nicer place while I'm here. When I'm dead, that'll have been enough.
Oh and editted to add: Hopefully none of that comes across as disparaging.
I think most none believers feel that way Boss.. there are literally thousands of different thoughts i have about why it just cannot be so, did we get made sick and then commanded to be well on pain of eternal torture? If it is a sin to lust after a woman, why do we see scantily clad women and think "hey thats nice..." naturally?
Anyway, lets not get into the myriad of reasons why we question and deal with the topic in hand, as i said, i have nothing at all against the Religious, and i am glad that it can bring people seem peace, particulary during berevement and such, but the simple fact is, non belief cannot be a Religion because there isnt any faith involved. I dont THINK that there is a God, but i can change my mind about it if evidence becomes available.
When was the last time a bishop or a priest said "we THINK that God wants X, but we are waiting for further evidence" or "Probability seems to suggest that God wants...."
Da Boss wrote:I don't feel I should be expected to take things on faith.
That is the heart of your situation. I think a lot of your questions are premised on the concept of an anthropomorphic God who "plans" or "has a plan." This is not the kind of God Christians worship. This kind of God, like pagan Zeus, is subject to the same kind of literary analysis as a human being. "God was angry, God is loving, etc" are all metaphorical approximations. The only instance is which this anthropomorphism is literal is in the human being called Jesus. When you think about the life and teachings of Jesus, you will see that He did not talk about abstract metaphysical topics like the nature of suffering or the origin of evil in the world. Rather, He spoke of a way of living this temporal life that transcended the merely temporal and became eternal.
As to the mind of God the Father: If you have been raised as a Catholic, the you will have heard the word mystery. This word indicates that knowledge can transcend the rational. In other words, logic is not the only way that one can meaningfully experience the world nor is it even possible to experience the world in its total complexity solely through logic. Faith is not simply bad or unfounded logic. It has nothing to do with logical argument. It is a realm unto itself, a way of knowing or a sense (to compare it to your empirical senses of taste, hearing, etc) that apprehends mystery.
Well put forward. You've a good way with explanations.
I like your explanation of god as non-anthromorphic. I'm down with that, it's my "God is completely alien" idea expressed much more elegantly. I still would feel no desire to communicate or praise such a being, but it's existence wouldn't depress me.
I also like your second point about the teachings of Jesus. That's something I have to go chew on, but I agree with the central thrust. Eternal might be the bit I have trouble with, but I can certainly say it transcended his lifetime and the lifetimes of everyone since then, and shows no sign of stopping or even slowing down. As a social phenomenon alone, it is amazing.
I'm familiar with the mystery idea, and how it relates to faith. That's why I make great pains to be respectful of the faith of others, and (though I have lapsed through being in a bad mood or feeling provocative) try not to make light of it by comparing it to an imaginary friend or any of the other insulting tricks that often get used.
I'm also cool with logic not being the be all and end all, though I'm comfortable and happy with logic as fairly central to my world view. I view faith as something I've not experienced properly, and so don't fully comprehend. I'm willing to accept various ideas about it, and take people at their word with regard to it. I'm a skeptic, but I hope, an accepting one.
Cheers for the explanation though. It was quite excellent. I might steal bits of it when discussing these issues with others. The turn of phrase was really rather nice.
You'll only ever get to faith from within yourself. I don't know how it's done. I don't understand how it happened to me. (As I may or may not have mentioned, I was raised without religion.) All I can say is that I was hungry for the truth. I don't like scripture-quoting but this is one that always appealed to me in my atheistic/agnostic investigations of religion: Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied. Of course, righteousness here could be snidely twisted to "self-righteousness" by a critic. Sadly, such a critic would be all-to-often spot-on in such an observation.
Da Boss wrote:Orlanth:
I can see where you are coming from. There's nothing current in science at all that says definitively one way or another ANYTHING about god. Pure atheism is in fact unscientific, as it stops one being open to the possibility that current ideas are incorrect- science can never truly prove anything right, only that what we thought before was wrong and the new theory is more likely to be right.
Thankyou.
Da Boss wrote:
Unfortunately many people who are agnostic refer to themselves as atheist in my experience. (Not meaning to put words in anyone's mouth). True atheism seems to me to require a level of faith similar to belief in a deity. Strong, almost certain levels of doubt in the existence of God is not the same as militant atheism. (Gah, the language really isn't clear and it makes talking about this stuff really difficult.)
Good call, a lot of 'atheists' don't think too much about that they believe and call that atheism. However they still have an elementary belief somewhere because the questions that rise to a belief choice.
A confused semi conscious atheism is all very well for walking down the street and daily life, but it is an illusion nonetheless and once challenged in a theological debate can raise ugly heads. i am not proactively out to challenge anyones faith system
Da Boss wrote:
Faith system is also synonymous (perhaps incorrectly) with religion to some people. It's a case of communications breakdown I feel, because the language is relatively imprecise, and many of us are not theologians. And I appreciate your concise use of language in saying atheism is a faith system, rather than a religion.
I will address this comment first before the comment that preceded it.
yes you are right, esentially many people misunderstand the concept of a religion or faith asystem and thus do not see atheism as one. The problem here is not with theological discourse but an entrenched dogma amongst many self professed atheists that reglion is of itself something unwholesome.
If for example someone hypothesised that a Christian is in fact a sect of Judiasm, I would not be offended. Some Jews and Christians might be might but I would not. In a very real way its true, from some points of view I am a Jew and that point can be defended from scripture.
I do not consider myself a Jew and consider myself a Christian. This is a better description of my faith standing. Nonetheless by examining such biblical terms as 'grafting in to the root of Abraham' there is a theological point could be made to say I am. This is not relevent but my reaction is. I would not be offended because being 'accused' of being a Jew, as it is not an insult, because being a Jew is not unwholesome.
Da Boss wrote:
On the other hand, I can see how Mattym and others get frustrated by being told that they have a faith system, because while militant atheism requires faith, there are many grades of non-belief that do not.
Now on the other hand when I point out the quite literal fact that atheism is a faith system those who prefer to be considered atheists but not people of faith get offended. The relevance here is in the reaction, to a lot of atheists consider this an insult because they consider being of faith as unwholesome.
This becomes very important and leads us back to the crux of the excuse why faith is seen as unwholesome despite all evidence that atheism is a faith choice. It comes right back to the 'atheism is science' fallacy, and its root cause. As evidenced earlier atheism is a faith choice, as you have understood and acknowledged on the post I am quoting. The 'atheism is science' fallacy has two effects here; first it encourages a culture of denial amongst atheists and scientists alike, denial is unhealthy and it crushes freedom of thought from within, secondly it promotes an us and them attitude between atheists and other faiths. us and them attitudes mixed with denial is a powderkeg that leads to discrimination very quickly.
I did not expect to see it so openly here but those who took comfort in the fallacy that their atheism was in fact science and thus they had 'evolved beyond the need for religion' as I have heard it described in the past. My challenge to the atheism is science fallacy was necessary to stop the blanket of association fallacies that are used to lockdown theistic arguments. once you can 'establish' that atheism is science its very hard to argue on an equal plane because the association fallacy raises an unfair assumption that 'religious people' are at loggerheads with the body of scientific knowledge. Some may well be, but it is a very poor argument with overtones of bigotry and fundamentalism attached.
Some might not like their world view exposing, it's simply too easy to point out that atheism is a faith choice, and looking back on it most atheists here probably know it. Yes Da Boss I hit a raw nerve unwittingly because I challenged the 'lie that exalted' and thus sowed doubts in people who were happy in the illusion that they have moved past the need for religion.
Why is this so important to me. Because the 'atheism is science' fallacy has been too long unchallenged, it is supported by current UK government dictat - purely as a means of bashing religion, as we have seen here it gives rise to some pretty powerful unpleasant emotions below the surface. On the other forum I regularly visit there is a strict 'no politics and no religion' rule I have encountered blatant atheist threads under the cloak that espousing atheism was science not religion. This is not uncommon on the internet. Atheism apparently belongs in both religion and science chatrooms. I challenged the concept there pretty much as I did here.
you can see that even in harmless circles such as forums on the internets the fallacy gives rise to opportunity to one sided debate, and one sided debate is not debate at all. It wasn't right when you had to join one church or die, its not right now.
However the 'atheism is science' fallacy goes far deeper and has a bloody past. I don't know where it came from but early Communism was all over this one. The Soviet union was an atheistic system, but Russia was a country with an established and strong faith. Part of the justification for the atheistic system was the atheism is science fallacy. If you want to see the methodology as to how the Soviets disenfranchised the Russian orthodox church look at what we saw here: attempted stiffling of religious and scientific debate, denial of inherent nature, derisory attitudes to (other) religious persons and teachings. Add a large dose of Stalin and what do you get?
The Soviets were not the only communist state to use this system. China also uses it and still does. China suffers terrible persecutions of Chiristians and other minorities let alone what they have done to Tibet. The root cause of this stems from the twin dictats that 'Communism is the answer' and 'religion is poison'. Many forms of Communism is in their own way a religion and one based on atheism, but Communism is not poison, because Communism is based on scientific progress and what is atheism: Science! How do you keep this dogma when the true nature of atheism is so easy to expose, harsh oppression of course. Send all the Orlanths to the gulag, then noone can tell us that atheists are religious. This has the side benefit of creating atheist fundamentalism, and harnessing it under the skin of communism, so you can see how Mao and Stalin were all for this. atheistic relgious fundamentalism diguised as sceintific atheism is the spiritual root of Communism and grants the state doctrines the power of religiosity.
Not all Communist states headed that way, despite encouragement to do so. Cuba didn't and saved itself from a shitstorm. Communism can live alongside a religion easily enough, many of the teachings of Jesus and Buddha sit well with Communism. but the 'atheism is science' fallacy when used by a totalitarian state is as much an evil as the Final Solution, and in all likelihood killed more people.
I concede the point entirely. That was a very good rebuttal. Man, some quality posting going on in this thread. (If Nurglitch'd come back and respond to my point, I'd be perfectly happy with it.)
I hadn't considered the "religion is dirty" overtones to that reaction. Thanks for pointing it out.
@Orlanth: I don't think that the argument in the cases you're presenting is necessarily that atheism and science are the same thing. Rather, the proposition seems to be that the scientific method leads to atheism (where atheism in this context is a type of agnosticism specifically concerned with the existence of God). I think this is why mattym rejects the idea that he believes in disbelief. As I've tried to show before in this thread, the (weak) logical argument that God does not exist does not require any leap of faith in the sense that religious people talk about faith.
mattyrm wrote:And again, i dont want to keep banging the drum here Orlanth, as ive said, i dont think im militant with my atheistic belief, because im aware of how many nice pleasant well meaning Christians there are, 99% of them seem to be, but i am not hiding a false proposition behind semantics because i do not "believe in non belief"
Me, and most people who would describe themselves as agnostic or atheist are simply that because there isnt any evidence. If something more convincing turns up, i do of course reserve the right to convert!
I dont believe in the absence of something, i just dont see any evidence for "something"
If it changes, then i will of course happily become religious! The two are not the same thing surely?
Perhaps you are not militant, but you only 'emulated atheist fundamentalism' for much of your earlier post.
Taking that at face value I still suspect that you have a gut feeling one way or another, because it is inevitable part of our psyche to develop one. You did categorise yourself as a proven case of foxhole atheist after all.
As far as the no evidence thing. That one can be laid to bed. it's another misused word. You can only say no conclusive evidence or no proof. Evidence is everywhere and for both sides, between reading Dawkins and C.S. Lewis should should have enough evidence to mull over for a lifetime.
@John: Yeah, not to get too sidetracked on this one but Tibet was an oppressive slave theocracy before 1950. I'm not saying the Chinese are wonderful but it wasn't so nice a place before the Communists took over, either.
JohnHwangDD wrote:then at least stand up and agree that Haiti deserves God's punishment for their slave revolt!
This is both inappropriate and in poor taste. Lets agree all that you typed faster than you could think here and didn't mean what it says lest I go midieval on your .
Well this thread has taken an interesting, albeit predictable, turn.
We have had similar discussions about this before and I do enjoy them.
Faith defined
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
If you look, #'s 1, 2, and possibly 4 could describe Atheism. Not necesarily Agnostism as that is more of a lack of faith IMO. (although I guess it could be argued that it takes faith to make a declaration of doubt)
The atheist says "There is no God, I know this to be because of X reasons." The thing they forget that when they say "I know this becuase of X reasons" they presupose that these X reasons are in fact correct, therefore they use faith.
JohnHwangDD wrote:then at least stand up and agree that Haiti deserves God's punishment for their slave revolt!
This is both inappropriate and in poor taste. Lets agree all that you typed faster than you could think here and didn't mean what it says lest I go midieval on your .
Well, it is a shame that this was a prominent Christian leader's response. Obviously it wasn't the only response. Caritas has sent and is sending a huge amount of volunteers and resources, among other things. But it's hard to understand why a Christian leader would say such a thing and the answer "he's not a real Christian" seems no more convincing to people than saying child-molesting priests are not "real Christians."
Manchu wrote:@Orlanth: I don't think that the argument in the cases you're presenting is necessarily that atheism and science are the same thing.
I cannot see how you can possibly think I believe that. Did you type the post correctly?
Manchu wrote:
Rather, the proposition seems to be that the scientific method leads to atheism (where atheism in this context is a type of agnosticism specifically concerned with the existence of God).
Scientific method leads to questioning religion yes, which opens the door for alternate views on relgion one of which is atheism, but it does not necessarily lead to atheism.
Manchu wrote:
I think this is why mattym rejects the idea that he believes in disbelief. As I've tried to show before in this thread, the (weak) logical argument that God does not exist does not require any leap of faith in the sense that religious people talk about faith.
Mattyrm and I seem to be seeing things differently now. He has cleared up his semantics and I have toned down my arguments.
Yes he requires no 'leap of faith', to park in the vicinity of atheism or agnosticism but I am arguing that one is likely made anyway. His one liner reply to the atheists in foxholes comments says as much.
I want to avoid personalising this or singling him out, we all have some form of default faith stance while we are awaiting better answers to make a deliberate choice on. Our individual default faith stance depends on our own prior experiences of life in general, not necessarily overtly religious ones.
JohnHwangDD wrote:then at least stand up and agree that Haiti deserves God's punishment for their slave revolt!
This is both inappropriate and in poor taste. Lets agree all that you typed faster than you could think here and didn't mean what it says lest I go midieval on your .
Well, it is a shame that this was a prominent Christian leader's response. Obviously it wasn't the only response. Caritas has sent and is sending a huge amount of volunteers and resources, among other things. But it's hard to understand why a Christian leader would say such a thing and the answer "he's not a real Christian" seems no more convincing to people than saying child-molesting priests are not "real Christians."
Sure its easy. Its not "he's not a Christian." Its "he's a frakking LOON." To besmirch Christianity with this is willful ignorance of persons who blind themselves to the good works others are doing.
Manchu wrote:@Orlanth: I don't think that the argument in the cases you're presenting is necessarily that atheism and science are the same thing.
I cannot see how you can possibly think I believe that. Did you type the post correctly?
You are talking about the "fallacy of science = religion" and then using historical examples that I do not think have much to do with this fallacy. Rather, I think the development of atheism in those cases was the result of skepticism. Atheism actually is, after all, a scientific point of view.
Manchu wrote:Scientific method leads to questioning religion yes, which opens the door for alternate views on relgion one of which is atheism, but it does not necessarily lead to atheism.
Yes it does. The scientific method is only capable of addressing empirically observable phenomena. Here's the relevant syllogism: All that exists is empirically observable. God is not empirically observable. God does not exist.
JohnHwangDD wrote:then at least stand up and agree that Haiti deserves God's punishment for their slave revolt!
This is both inappropriate and in poor taste. Lets agree all that you typed faster than you could think here and didn't mean what it says lest I go midieval on your .
Sorry, I figured the sheer outrageousness of the comment would be obvious, and this was the most obviously ridiculous one-sided thing tied to religion I could think of that I knew that everybody would be familiar with.
I used it as example precisely because it dovetails neatly with the whole Faith thing. If we really believe in God that way, and that everything is God's will, then there are no accidents, and God really did kill upwards of a quarter-million Haitians for no reason obvious to us mere mortals, which then follows that Pat Robertson's explanation is no less plausible than anything else.
OTOH, if you dismiss Pat Robertson's Faith out of hand, then what does that say? What makes his statement denying the science of geological plate tectonics any more or less reasonable than a declaration that skinny girls with no marketable skills were made for anything besides porn?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:@John: Yeah, not to get too sidetracked on this one but Tibet was an oppressive slave theocracy before 1950. I'm not saying the Chinese are wonderful but it wasn't so nice a place before the Communists took over, either.
Thanks, Manchu, for explaining why the Tibet situation isn't as simple as it seems.
But now that people become aware of the new information, it raises the question what it really means for Tibetans to be "free"...
@Frazzled: As I have argued in this thread elsewhere, people bring a lot of baggage with them to the faith. But Robertson is a public figure that many people associate (unfortunately) with authentic Christianity. His comments are a scandal to believers and nonbelievers alike. This is why I'm defending John's comment. I didn't read it as intending to offend Christians (I was not offended) but rather to criticize Robertson with as much shock-value as Robertson criticized Hatians. It seems like a legitimate piece if rhetoric to me as long as you don't read other intentions into it. But maybe he was trying to insult people (other than Robertson) of faith. He'll have to speak to that for himself. I just took it in the best possible light.
@John: If you look at the video (which I believe has now long been forgotten) it wasn't Jesus or God that got her out of the Porn Industry. It was catching an STD and getting kicked out. Just saying...
@Orlanth: Why do you assume that there is some sort of 'defualt faith setting'. Is lack of faith a sort of faith now?
Emperors Faithful wrote:@John: If you look at the video (which I believe has now long been forgotten) it wasn't Jesus or God that got her out of the Porn Industry. It was catching an STD and getting kicked out. Just saying...
That's actually a very good point. I wonder if she would say, to crib John's riff on Robertson, that Jesus gave her that STD?
Da Boss wrote:I also believe in the worth of human life. I believe there is more to life than suffering. I believe that the world is a wonderful, interesting, beautiful place.
I see no particular reason to believe in a pleasant afterlife, but I am glad that people get happiness from these beliefs. (My family are all religious, I was raised Catholic.I keep quiet on my views because while I derive strength from the idea that there is probably nothing but us, I know they might not. I feel the same in this instance.)
My issue with the idea of a benevolent God is that if he is the creator of the universe, he set it up so that natural evil would occur. I can understand the idea that free will is needed, and that this allows for human evil to cause suffering. That's fair enough. But I wonder why the world was made in the way it is. Many things cause suffering that have nothing at all to do with humans. Natural disasters are an obvious example, or genetic defects. There are all sorts of examples. Hypothetically, if God is all knowing, he could have constructed a world without these things. A happier world. To me it's somewhat similar to having animals in an enclosure and leaving broken glass on the ground. That is irresponsible and bad of me.
Now, I accept that many christians have wrestled with this and come down of the side of trusting in god, trusting that there is a plan. I do not share that faith. I don't know, maybe there is, but I would question (and I believe, were there a supreme being, it would be entirely my right to question) whether the plan was worth it. I don't feel I should be expected to take things on faith. For that reason I choose to hope that there is not a God, in the christian sense, and focus on doing what I can to make it a nicer place while I'm here. When I'm dead, that'll have been enough.
Oh and editted to add: Hopefully none of that comes across as disparaging.
As a child, I really wasn't sure why we were created by God at all. When I asked about it, I was told we were created so God wouldn't be lonely. This was something that troubled me a lot because why would an all loving and knowing being create a thinking, intellegent race whose members would be condemned to firery torment on the one hand if they did something wrong, or if they did good, be rewarded either with the chance to be part of a jukebox on a cloud, singing praises for eternity or a glorified, well kept pet hanging out in a garden somewhere. Not to mention all the crap we have to slog through in this life to achieve either of these outcomes.
All this, so an all powerful being wouldn't be lonely.
I then did some further study and found something that made total sense to me. I was taught that a lot of what I had been raised with contained only fragments of truth and that we are literal sons and daughters of God, put here to learn and grow through the individual experiences we need in order to come to an inheritence much like a child here on Earth is raised and taught by a loving and caring parent in order that they might be a strong adult. I was then taught that there is no eternal torment with fire as a lot believe, and that God will give each person as much of an inheritence as they can handle. The only ones that would be totaly cast from his presence would be those who, in this life, had a perfect knowledge with nothing doubting, that rejected God.
Ironhide wrote:Going to have to say you are wrong there JEB. I can cite evidence in the Bible, where people went to heaven without the saving grace of Christ.
Relapse wrote:The only ones that would be totaly cast from his presence would be those who, in this life, had a perfect knowledge with nothing doubting, that rejected God.
How can a "God" be all loving as you proclaim, yet cast out those who did not do exactly as he says? Surely an "all loving" God would accept you no matter what your beliefs were.
Relapse wrote:The only ones that would be totaly cast from his presence would be those who, in this life, had a perfect knowledge with nothing doubting, that rejected God.
How can a "God" be all loving as you proclaim, yet cast out those who did not do exactly as he says? Surely an "all loving" God would accept you no matter what your beliefs were.
Because if they had the perfect knowledge of him and rejected him, it would be more of a torment for them to be in his precense than out of it.
Manchu wrote:I do not think have much to do with this fallacy
I cannot see how you can describe the relgiosity of communism without the atheism is science fallacy. Its plain up in the doctrines of the Soviets and Chinese communist state.
If you are saying its not necessary for a Communist religious doctrine I would agree, other Comunist states left religion alone. by and large they saw less oppression.
Manchu wrote:Atheism actually is, after all, a scientific point of view.
Atheism is ultimately a choice, you can try to reach that point scientifically, but at some point you have to make a decision, sceince only takes you so far. Besides you are making a grave mistake if you think that even science is treated with entirely in a rational manner through scientific method. Pet theories etc abound as mentioned in an earlier thread. Man is not so advanced as to put science above reproach of human weakness. This plus the fact that some sort of faith is required to reach a conclusion of atheism (or any other faith) or that you can find evidence for other faiths through science heavily dilutes your point.
Manchu wrote: Here's the relevant syllogism: All that exists is empirically observable. God is not empirically observable. God does not exist.
I strongly challenge your doctrine on the point highlighted. Much of what we believe exists is not observable, in fanct the vast majority of it if we accept current theories on dark matter.
I would also challenge the final point because God as defined in scripture has the property of being able to move without trace.
What's amusing is that the ability to be unobserved is also shared by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Manchu's Invisible Pink Unicorn, along with the classic Invisible Green Dragon...
@Orlanth: Manchu is simply pointing out some things which are quite interesting, and do clearly highlight some of the most solid arguements against the existence of god. Get of your high horse, mate.
JohnHwangDD wrote:What's amusing is that the ability to be unobserved is also shared by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Manchu's Invisible Pink Unicorn, along with the classic Invisible Green Dragon...
Your God is a sham!
of course as well all know the flying spaghetti monster was an idea invented to mock modern religion. And is the proverbial straw man.
JohnHwangDD wrote:What's amusing is that the ability to be unobserved is also shared by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Manchu's Invisible Pink Unicorn, along with the classic Invisible Green Dragon...
Your God is a sham!
But he doesn't go unobserved. He, and his angels have been seen by various prophets and others throughout the ages.
JohnHwangDD wrote:What's amusing is that the ability to be unobserved is also shared by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Manchu's Invisible Pink Unicorn, along with the classic Invisible Green Dragon...
Your God is a sham!
of course as well all know the flying spaghetti monster was an idea invented to mock modern religion. And is the proverbial straw man.
GG
And Christianity was invented to mock Judaism. Q.E.D and all that jazz.
Emperors Faithful wrote:There is no (irrefutable) Proof that a Spagetti Monster does not exist.
Of course there is, since it was an invention in 2005 by Bobby Henderson of Oregon state univeristy as an attempt to mock the Kanas school boards attempt to get Intelligent design incorporated into it's school system curricula.
So please stop insulting us by bringing up the mockery invention of Bobby Henderson.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, frazzled, that's a matter of faith...
QFT.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:There is no (irrefutable) Proof that a Spagetti Monster does not exist.
Of course there is, since it was an invention in 2005 by Bobby Henderson of Oregon state univeristy as an attempt to mock the Kanas school boards attempt to get Intelligent design incorporated into it's school system curricula.
So please stop insulting us by bringing up the mockery invention of Bobby Henderson.
I find it insuling for you to do this.
GG
Christianity is an invention of some blokes in Palestine somewhere around 33AD. Pastafarianism has exactly the same legitimacy as any other religion.
I find it insulting that you would deny Pastafarianism when it meets the EXACT same criteria as any other religion.
When Christ talked with his apostles, I paraphrase here,he told them that "Other sheep have I that are not of this fold, and them I go to also and they shall hear my voice and there shall be one fold and one master"
There were Aztec legends of a "bearded white god" who came to them and said he would return at a later time.
According to historical accounts, Cortez was believed to have been this god, which was why he was not immediatly set upon.
Here's a link to some other parrallels between scripture and beliefs around the world.
JohnHwangDD wrote:What's amusing is that the ability to be unobserved is also shared by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Manchu's Invisible Pink Unicorn, along with the classic Invisible Green Dragon...
Your God is a sham!
of course as well all know the flying spaghetti monster was an idea invented to mock modern religion. And is the proverbial straw man.
GG
And Christianity was invented to mock Judaism. Q.E.D and all that jazz.
What is Q.E.D in this context?
And of course Christianity wasn't invented. And also it does'nt mock Judaism.
Your post is filled with so much error it's laughable. :-)
@Relaspe: I thought it was supposed to be the Feathered Serpent? Qzctelquotel...or however the hell the damn thing is spelt.
@GG: Sorry, mate, but I'm finding the logic behind some of these arguments to be a tad ridiculous. BTW, Bobby Henderson may have been the first "prophet" of the Spagetti Monster, but who can really say for sure when this being first came into existence?
Manchu wrote: Here's the relevant syllogism: All that exists is empirically observable. God is not empirically observable. God does not exist.
I strongly challenge your doctrine on the point highlighted.
It's not my doctrine at all. It is a foundational premise for engaging in the scientific method.
As to your point on Communism, yes there are religious Communists. After all, right before Marx wrote "religion is the opiate of the people" he wrote, quite beautifully, "religion is the heart of a heartless world." (In the same paragraph no less!) Still, I do not think there is any "religiosity" of communism. Perhaps you are speaking of a sort of nationalism, as in the Chinese example?
@EF: No leap of faith is required to come to the conclusion that God does not exist.
Relapse wrote:When Christ talked with his apostles, I paraphrase here,he told them that "Other sheep have I that are not of this fold, and them I go to also and they shall hear my voice and there shall be one fold and one master"
There were Aztec legends of a "bearded white god" who came to them and said he would return at a later time.
According to historical accounts, Cortez was believed to have been this god, which was why he was not immediatly set upon.
Here's a link to some other parrallels between scripture and beliefs around the world.
@Gwar!: I'm never sure if people who post things like this are actually interested in discussion or just want to get my thread locked. Please don't try and get my thread locked, if that's what you are doing. If you want to discuss, please extrapolate your argument as to why a joke at Christianity's expense ("Pastafarianism") is as legitimate a religion as Christianity.
@EF: Similarly, are you trying to get my thread locked?
Emperors Faithful wrote:@Relaspe: I thought it was supposed to be the Feathered Serpent? Qzctelquotel...or however the hell the damn thing is spelt.
@GG: Sorry, mate, but I'm finding the logic behind some of these arguments to be a tad ridiculous. BTW, Bobby Henderson may have been the first "prophet" of the Spagetti Monster, but who can really say for sure when this being first came into existence?
As you well know, the idea came into existance in 2005. You and Gwar! need to stop being obtuse!! :-)
Pastafarianism has exactly the same legitimacy as any other religion.
I find it insulting that you would deny Pastafarianism when it meets the EXACT same criteria as any other religion.
no way. The patafarians have no chance. All the spiritual messengers of the great Speghetti monster are utterly delicious with some marinara sauce.
Frazzled, eating the pastafarian' god with a nice tomato base for two millenia.
Frazzled wrote:no way. The patafarians have no chance. All the spiritual messengers of the great Speghetti monster are utterly delicious with some marinara sauce.
Frazzled, eating the pastafarian' god with a nice tomato base for two millenia.
I prefer sending him to the Kitchenquisition for delicious heresy...
Emperors Faithful wrote:@Relaspe: I thought it was supposed to be the Feathered Serpent? Qzctelquotel...or however the hell the damn thing is spelt.
@GG: Sorry, mate, but I'm finding the logic behind some of these arguments to be a tad ridiculous. BTW, Bobby Henderson may have been the first "prophet" of the Spagetti Monster, but who can really say for sure when this being first came into existence?
Here's a brief explanation, more full ones can be found, also.
Frazzled wrote:no way. The patafarians have no chance. All the spiritual messengers of the great Speghetti monster are utterly delicious with some marinara sauce.
Frazzled, eating the pastafarian' god with a nice tomato base for two millenia.
I prefer sending him to the Kitchenquisition for delicious heresy...
You will deny Pastafarias three times before the cock crows:
First in marinara,
Second alfredo style
Third with Swedish meatballs.
Pastafarianism has exactly the same legitimacy as any other religion.
I find it insulting that you would deny Pastafarianism when it meets the EXACT same criteria as any other religion.
no way. The patafarians have no chance. All the spiritual messengers of the great Speghetti monster are utterly delicious with some marinara sauce.
Frazzled, eating the pastafarian' god with a nice tomato base for two millenia.
Someone needs to draw this. Now.
BTW, I'm sorry if my posts are cuasing offence. I will back off and let them have thier have thier cake. Last thing I want is to get Manchu's thread locked.
Ironhide wrote:Going to have to say you are wrong there JEB. I can cite evidence in the Bible, where people went to heaven without the saving grace of Christ.
Please enlighten me further then...
Both Enoch and Elijah were taken by god to heaven, without the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
It seems like we're going back to Biblical literalism or at least unwarranted Biblical exegesis here. Unlike the mere "timeline" of Salvation History (the historical chronology of Christ's life, death, and resurrection), salvation itself is eternal. There was no "before grace" or "after grace."
A person cannot be saved by a someone who has not even been born. Or are you trying to say that the "saving grace of Jesus Christ" is retroactive, when it depends on a person to believe in said individual? If Enoch or Elijah never met Christ until after the fact they went to heaven, then they were not saved by Jesus' grace. Hence, Enoch and Elijah went to heaven without the benefit of Jesus' saving grace.
I don't think it's helpful to think of it as "retroactive" because that word is still dealing with time. The grace of Christ's resurrection is present eternally. When you think about the historical event of Jesus's death and resurrection, i.e., that this actual historical man Jesus was killed on a Friday some two thousand years ago and then His tomb was found empty the following Sunday, then yes it is possible to speak of "before" and "after." But grace exists not only in time but outside of it. The Son of God (one of three Persons of the Triune God) is eternal. He did not begin to exist in the moment of His incarnation when He was born of the virgin Mary.
JohnHwangDD wrote:What's amusing is that the ability to be unobserved is also shared by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Manchu's Invisible Pink Unicorn, along with the classic Invisible Green Dragon...
Your God is a sham!
But he doesn't go unobserved. He, and his angels have been seen by various prophets and others throughout the ages.
When I get drunk, I see things, too. I have no doubt that *your* prophets were drunk, high, or crazy.
*MY* prophets are sane and rational. Our Word is Legion.
____
generalgrog wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:What's amusing is that the ability to be unobserved is also shared by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Manchu's Invisible Pink Unicorn, along with the classic Invisible Green Dragon...
Your God is a sham!
of course as well all know the flying spaghetti monster was an idea invented to mock modern religion.
If it weren't completely ridiculous, it wouldn't be possible to mock it.
_____
generalgrog wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:There is no (irrefutable) Proof that a Spagetti Monster does not exist.
Of course there is, since it was an invention in 2005 by Bobby Henderson of Oregon state univeristy as an attempt to mock the Kanas school boards attempt to get Intelligent design incorporated into it's school system curricula.
So please stop insulting us by bringing up the mockery invention of Bobby Henderson.
I find it insuling for you to do this.
It is insulting for you to deny the one true divinity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as revealed by his Prophet Bobby Henderson.
Next, you'll be telling us that Smith was high when he founded the Mormon Church, and that Hubbard was must pulling stuff out his butt when he created Scientology.
@John: If you are truly interested in discussion there are surely better ways to go about it. Would you mind being somewhat less facetious and more serious? If it's not worth your time to do so then I think you've probably made as much of a point as you're going to already.
Ironhide wrote:Both Enoch and Elijah were taken by god to heaven, without the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
Enoch is not taken to Heaven. It is merely stated that God took him, and he knew death not. Elijah is taken to the heavens in a chariot of fire. Before the death and Resurrection of Christ all faithful were taken to a place called Abraham's Bosom. This is for all intensive purposes Limbo. This does not constitute Heaven.
Manchu wrote: Here's the relevant syllogism: All that exists is empirically observable. God is not empirically observable. God does not exist.
I strongly challenge your doctrine on the point highlighted. Much of what we believe exists is not observable, in fanct the vast majority of it if we accept current theories on dark matter.
I would also challenge the final point because God as defined in scripture has the property of being able to move without trace.
With the ability to observe comes confirmation. Theory brings an incentive to observe and confirm. Marie Curie comes to mind. Whether or not God/Jehova/Allah/FSM exist is currently only in theory because they cannot be confirmed by observation (yet). Using mathmatics as a tool to further confirm a theory (such as Dark Matter) only helps with an incentive to confirm by observation.
The principle that only the observable exists depends on the ability and tools available to observe. Scripture is at best hearsay and its credibility is in question.
On the other hand, JEB's idea of a Kitchinquisition sounds like a fine idea right now. I'm peckish.
Ironhide wrote:A person cannot be saved by a someone who has not even been born. Or are you trying to say that the "saving grace of Jesus Christ" is retroactive, when it depends on a person to believe in said individual? If Enoch or Elijah never met Christ until after the fact they went to heaven, then they were not saved by Jesus' grace. Hence, Enoch and Elijah went to heaven without the benefit of Jesus' saving grace.
By your meaning, if I take it correctly, people that died before Jesus, have no chance at Heaven or Salvation. I have to disagree here from what I've been taught. An all loving God is not going to bar someone from his presence based on when they were born. I've been taught that all will get an equal chance at Salvation.
JohnHwangDD wrote:What's amusing is that the ability to be unobserved is also shared by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Manchu's Invisible Pink Unicorn, along with the classic Invisible Green Dragon...
Your God is a sham!
But he doesn't go unobserved. He, and his angels have been seen by various prophets and others throughout the ages.
When I get drunk, I see things, too. I have no doubt that *your* prophets were drunk, high, or crazy.
*MY* prophets are sane and rational. Our Word is Legion.
____
generalgrog wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:What's amusing is that the ability to be unobserved is also shared by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Manchu's Invisible Pink Unicorn, along with the classic Invisible Green Dragon...
Your God is a sham!
of course as well all know the flying spaghetti monster was an idea invented to mock modern religion.
If it weren't completely ridiculous, it wouldn't be possible to mock it.
_____
generalgrog wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:There is no (irrefutable) Proof that a Spagetti Monster does not exist.
Of course there is, since it was an invention in 2005 by Bobby Henderson of Oregon state univeristy as an attempt to mock the Kanas school boards attempt to get Intelligent design incorporated into it's school system curricula.
So please stop insulting us by bringing up the mockery invention of Bobby Henderson.
I find it insuling for you to do this.
It is insulting for you to deny the one true divinity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as revealed by his Prophet Bobby Henderson.
Next, you'll be telling us that Smith was high when he founded the Mormon Church, and that Hubbard was must pulling stuff out his butt when he created Scientology.
I don't think your flying spaghetti monster church would stand the persecution that the early LDS religion endured, and I don't think it's founder would be willing to suffer imprisonments, beatings, and tarrings tha Joseph Smith endured. Nor do I think he'd be willing to die the way Joseph Smith did to proclaim his truth.
Oldgrue wrote:Scripture is at best hearsay and its credibility is in question.
Harsay is a poor word to describe the Gospels as they are accounts of events described by witnesses. Even if the Gospels were not written down by said witnesses there is sufficient historical-critical evidence to show that they were written down by people who were taught by people with first hand knowledge of the events. (As a lawyer, I can agree that there is a sort of pseudo-technical argument that they are hearsay as per the Federal Rules of Evidence, but I'm not convinced that you meant to call them hearsay in a technical sense.) Moreover, any statement's credibility can be called into question. I can question the credibility of an atomic physicist whether I have the technical knowledge to do so or not, for example. It is the same with religion. Many people think religion is a topic that everyone can and does have an informed opinion about but nothing could be further from the truth.
Manchu wrote:If you are truly interested in discussion there are surely better ways to go about it. Would you mind being somewhat less facetious and more serious? If it's not worth your time to do so then I think you've probably made as much of a point as you're going to already.
Why is that subject granted impunity? Its no more special than science, American Idol (note: I *did* leave Britney alone.), History, FSM, or Pistachio Ice cream. The point of a thing being special or worthwhile is that it can be discussed, shared, experienced, and reflected on. If I were to demand the sanctity of either vermicelli or pistachio ice cream it would be considered laughable at best.
Manchu wrote:I don't think it's helpful to think of it as "retroactive" because that word is still dealing with time. The grace of Christ's resurrection is present eternally. When you think about the historical event of Jesus's death and resurrection, i.e., that this actual historical man Jesus was killed on a Friday some two thousand years ago and then His tomb was found empty the following Sunday, then yes it is possible to speak of "before" and "after." But grace exists not only in time but outside of it. The Son of God (one of three Persons of the Triune God) is eternal. He did not begin to exist in the moment of His incarnation when He was born of the virgin Mary.
If Jesus did exist prior to his birth, then why did god make up a set of rules for man to follow so that might gain access to kingdom of heaven? The bible states that Jesus is the son of god, not part of a holy trinity. That was invented by man. By saying that the grace of Christ's resurrection is eternal, you invalidate god's own decrees/promises in the old testament on how a person is to gain entrance to heaven. Which, in my view, would make god a liar. However, god is supposed to be infallible.
@Relapse: I thought I was out, but you drag me back in?
I don't think the LDS "endured" any special persecution compared to any other interfaith / minority faith struggle. I'm pretty sure that the LDS has nothing on the Catholics under British rule (post-Anglican, of course), and I'm darn sure it wasn't even close to early non-Judaic Christianity under the Roman Empire (pre-religion).
If you think Mormonism is a religion, then so is Pastafarianism. Also Scientology. If people are openly mocking Pastafarianism here, then turnabout is fair play.
Manchu wrote: Many people think religion is a topic that everyone can and does have an informed opinion about but nothing could be further from the truth.
So are you one of those people? Or were you taught your faith by a person also taught by a third party from a self referential book? If these people were supposedly persons in authority we might ask questions on the parallels of Milgram's experiments regarding authority?
@Ironhide: The Church was around before any book of the New Testament. "What the Bible says" is not as clear as you seem to think. When you claim that the Bible says a certain thing what you are doing is presenting your interpretation of the Bible. I avoid this by relying on the tradition of the Church. Additionally, you will find that Maosaic law was not a system of rules by which people got into heaven. The ancient Jews did not have this concept of an afterlife, as we can learn from historical-critical analysis of the Old Testament books themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote:If you think Mormonism is a religion, then so is Pastafarianism. Also Scientology. If people are openly mocking Pastafarianism here, then turnabout is fair play.
I would ask that the Mormonism v. Pastafarianism discussion be taken to its own thread as the subject has nothing to do with Trinitarian Christianity or the morality of pornography.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oldgrue wrote:So are you one of those people?
If by "one of those people" you mean "a Catholic," then yes, I am one of those people.
Manchu wrote: Many people think religion is a topic that everyone can and does have an informed opinion about but nothing could be further from the truth.
So are you one of those people? Or were you taught your faith by a person also taught by a third party from a self referential book? If these people were supposedly persons in authority we might ask questions on the parallels of Milgram's experiments regarding authority?
@ manchu:
Why is religion more special than pistachio ice cream? (This is why I left britney alone.)
How does religion somehow become exempt from scrutiny? Martin Luther was so good as to make Christian scripture available to the masses to review. If it was somehow special, shouldn't this have been impossible?
JohnHwangDD wrote:@Relapse: I thought I was out, but you drag me back in?
I don't think the LDS "endured" any special persecution compared to any other interfaith / minority faith struggle. I'm pretty sure that the LDS has nothing on the Catholics under British rule (post-Anglican, of course), and I'm darn sure it wasn't even close to early non-Judaic Christianity under the Roman Empire (pre-religion).
If you think Mormonism is a religion, then so is Pastafarianism. Also Scientology. If people are openly mocking Pastafarianism here, then turnabout is fair play.
Just answering a statement that needed answering when you insulted someone I venerate. But thank you for bringing up the early Christian persecution. Do you honestly have any belief that could stand up to what these people went through and yet kept their faith?
Wait?..you mean you have to stop chasing girls when you get married?...Damn!maybe that explains why I keep getting divorced. 
.
