Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@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.

I haven't seen anyone trying to convert anybody.

I am quite sure there are a hefty proportion of Christians that are quite content in not wanting to tie those two concepts together.

As there are a hefty number of Atheists working along the same lines.

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" .

Manchu wrote:My Dear Dogma,

What do you think of this syllogism?

"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.

My rant has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with hypocrisy.

@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.

tblock1984 wrote:WTF Double Post?

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.

Orlanth wrote:In return please hold back no logical punch against my religious opinion

That is what I did. And what was the response I got?

See, it doesn't matter what I say... Manchu, you immediately shot it down. That is why I am pissed.

tblock1984 wrote:My rant has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with hypocrisy.

And what, pray tell, hypocrisy is that?

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.

Manchu wrote:

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.

@ Manchu I see why we are not disagreeing but appearing to be. To put it simply we are not on the same page.

I have spent most of the time I was still on page 4 or 5, with my comments appearing on page 6.

There is a lot of info to comment on and its flying fast.

Ironhide wrote:

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.

@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.

I cannot agree with you there. You might enjoy the work of Joseph Campbell (or Carl Jung, for that matter), however.

Do not most belief systems practice in some form that a person should do good deeds in order to have a good afterlife?