Many Christians Lack Responsibility

But two subjective interpretations on equal levels can lead to confirmation bias, wouldn't you think?Not to place your faith at equals, but say we are both racist. How would both of our opinions be better? Wouldn't it be better to view all opinions in an open minded way, even those of conflicting ideologies? Ok. But even still, you should question even his knowledge, as he instructed, and his "broader picture" is still subjective. So according to him, your "broader picture" is of more value to you than his...right? And while I agree with you that that is how knowledge is obtained, we have to remember that when speaking of things like "evolution," we are talking about something that brings with it an extensive amount of objective evidence. The problem with religious studies is that we are usually either studying someone elses subjective interpretation of scriptures, or for those lone believers who don't follow any 1 particular religion, their own subjective interpretation.It's like studying Astrology from a "master Astrologist," where in that equation is someone actually studying something with confirmed objective evidence? I think you meant to say "they would rather become deist, not "theist." Since theist still requires a belief in some type of theology.But, I, like Stile, question materialism, but I don't feel any leaning toward a belief in god(s) because of it.I do question the way we experience reality, but again, I see no reason to lean toward any belief in god(s) because of it.Atheism is the default position I take because we are all born this way and get indoctrinated out of it and into some, unverified, belief system about god(s) having no idea if we were taught truth of any kind.We should question everything.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

I meant that Dawkins does go out and show people the facts; that's why I put him in that group. I wasn't trying to misrepresent him.

Yeah, sorry. I tend to move from "replying to the person in the post" to "replying for the sake of saying things to anyone who happens to read the message" fairly quickly and without warning.I understand that this can be confusing when identifying my target audience. Here, I didn't mean anything specifically against you, I had just started rambling

Of course I agree. But I'm not in the Bible Belt, so i get exposed more often then not to conflicting ideologies. Quebec is pretty much atheist country. Hum, I think you lost me here haha.I'll use an analogy though: a pastor's interpretation of scriptures is similar to a scientist's interpretation of data. [/qs]And while I agree with you that that is how knowledge is obtained, we have to remember that when speaking of things like "evolution," we are talking about something that brings with it an extensive amount of objective evidence. The problem with religious studies is that we are usually either studying someone elses subjective interpretation of scriptures, or for those lone believers who don't follow any 1 particular religion, their own subjective interpretation.It's like studying Astrology from a "master Astrologist," where in that equation is someone actually studying something with confirmed objective evidence?[/qs]My answer here will relate to my previous analogy. A verse in the Bible is objective; in the sense that is says what it says, and the person who wrote it meant to convey a specific idea. Now the interpretation I make of it will be subjective, and it may not be the one the author meant. My subjective idea can change over time, since other verses can contradict it (or other verses can support it).In the same way, in science, facts are objective. But, they are also subject to subjective interpretations, and these can in time be confirmed by other evidence or contradicted. So in science, the same piece of evidence can at one point in time support a specific theory, and then later on support another theory, sometimes very different from the previous one. This concept of course originates from Karl Popper's book ''the logic of scientific discovery''. Yeah, Stiles had a better way to put it then me: I meant that 'they are left with atheism'. But I still think that, for an atheist who doubts materialism, the origin of life can be seen as supportive of an external deity. Materialism rejects this option A priori, but if someone doubts it, then I suppose it becomes at least a possibility. And for Anthony Flew, after seeing years of scientific research (and billions of dollars) to try and confirm that abiogenesis is possible, he saw it as, not just a possibility, but a certainty. That is a good question, are children born atheists ??I know only of one research that would relate to this, and it was about that japanese children believed in a 'creator God' even if it is not part of the japanese culture.

No, personally I don't put theology and science at equal playing fields.A scientists interpretation of data is similar to a doctors interpretation of medical data. Both sets of data have been ojectively verified and are known as fact. So your opinion of what you see is founded on scientific fact.A pastor's interpretation of data is equal to an astrologers interpretation of astrological signs. Both sets of data are founded in the supernatural, and as such does not have objective evidence to support the premise. Yes but it's not objective in the sense of having supporting evidence, evidence which you can comparitively make a better interpretation with. So it's a one person account that you are interpreting. Without supporting evidence, of say a world wide flood or a man born of a virgin, your interpretation is no better than an astrologist's interpretation of stars. This is not the same at all. If and when a scientific theory changes, it does so because enough objective evidence, reviewed by many third parties, has changed the original theory. Like Newton for Einstein. But one, the original theory still accounts for what it concluded, and seocond, the new theory must explain the objective phenomenon with objective evidence. No scientific theory changes due to a new subjective interpretation of evidence unless it has supporting objective evidence.When you interprete a verse in the bible, you have no objective evidence to support the verse in the first place. Thus you have sooo many different interpretations. However, how many theories for gravity exist? For electromagnitism? For nucleosynthesis? For diversity in species?There are just one for each of those. Now, how many interpretations of Genesis are there? Here's my problem(s):(1) What is a diety?
(2) If you mean God, which one?
(3) What made him?
(4) Why does everything look like it happened naturally?
(5) How did god do it?
(6) Why are the scripture in the different religious texts so inaccurate?
(7) Why is it just one diest?
(8) Why does your geographical location dictate the god you'll worship?etc....To me, a diest/god/ID, brings up more questions than accepting life emerged naturally, just as I accept planets did, stars did, galaxies did, etc... Well, humans aren't born into a "child" state. Babies or infants are born atheist. By the time you get to a child that can describe things, you've already had a period of influencing.When my daughter was 4 she believed in god. She just heard it from her mother and tv. Now shes 12 and questions all of it. Go figure. - Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Weren't we talking about how knowledge is acquired through the Bible ? In no way was I 'proving' that the knowledge obtained in the Bible was reality. I was describing the mechanism of obtaining 'biblical knowledge' Of course, it was an analogy. In it, the original meaning of a verse was analog to a scientific fact. I am not equaling the two, since it is an analogy, again to discuss how knowledge of the Bible is obtained. I would add some other questions: How many theories of 'who was Lucy'? How many theories of the cambrian explosion? How many theories of the moons origin ? How many theories of the relationship between dinosaurs and birds ?There are scientific theories where there is a concencus agreement, as there are some verses where there is agreement by everyone. And there are other scientific facts who have many competing theories to explain it, as some verses have different competing interpretations to it.I want to restate that I am not equalling science and religion, But am rather making an analogy of how biblical knowledge can be optained. Don't people with a scientific mind like questions ? Unless you unlike consider questions which you can answer through the scientific method In any case, I would have to suggest Anthony flews book: 'There is a God: How The World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind'. Of course, but the fact is we don't know if a baby is born atheist or not. Unless you have a scientific paper on this.The only research I knew of was that one about the japanese (and british) children. The results from both cultures were the same; both had a concept of a creator God. The intrigue is that in the Japanese culture, there exists no creator God. So no influencing towards this option could have been made on the children. And yet, they had the same results as British children which where influenced by a culture where there is a creator God.

According to what? The Bible? Bah! Thought so. Of course the creators of your god would have the foresight to include questioning their power source's attributes as being a "sin".Think about it this way... Imagine you want to do something horrific (mass murder, enslavement, and rape) but can't quite justify it on your own. What to do?Well, if I were in that situation, I would summon a concept that makes those actions untouchable. Unquestionable. I would summon the concept of God (In the Old Testament sense).Now after doing this, I would imagine some of my smarter "sheep" would start to ask... "Well what gives God the right to do this... but also the right to judge us?". To this I would reply identically to the authors response "YOU CANNOT JUDGE GOD YOU MAGGOT!" Let's see the problem in proper logical form. Hmmm... sounds a lot like the argument I just presented a moment ago. Never mind this is a logical fallacy (Do as I say, not as I do). Circular Reasoning.
Appeal to Fear.
Appeal to force. Circular Reasoning.
Wishful Thinking.
Equivocation. Ad hominem.
Association fallacy.
Appeal to Motive.
Judgmental language.
Poisoning the well.
Straw man argument.
Tu quoque. Yes... as a matter of fact I think we all do.

---

How hard they must find it, those who take authority as truth, rather than truth as the authority.
-unknown

Fair enough. Fair enough. 1 - The theory of evolution. 1 - Planet formation theory1 - The theory of evolution. Ok, but in the verses, how much outside objective evidence is there to lend to the interpretation?In science, objective evidence is used to support the theories. Peer-review subjects the theories to outside opinion evaluating the same objective evidence. It is not left to meer subjective interpretation. With bible verses there is no outside objective evidence; it's all subjective interpretations. A baby's brain functions are very well known. They are incapable of 'believing' anything. They are atheistic by default, because they have no means to make such a choice...until they begin to learn language and understand words. By this time they are capable of being influenced by their parents., thus indoctrinated into a belief system. Can you cite the paper?- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

You can't conclude this because you are ignorant. It is arrogant to think that you are in a better place to judge my personal faith-experiences.Logically, this does not mean that you are incorrect and I am correct. But what it does mean et the very least, is that something amazing happened which is far beyond anything I would expect to happen, if it was all in my head.The presence of God - the Holy Spirit, I testify is real because I can only tell you the truth. I have no alterior motive. I do not claim that I can fully know that this was God, but I can 100% assure you that something that powerful will always favour the direct explanation for it.Logically - if there are certain specific things that must happen, in a unique capacity, defined very specifically, and those things happen - then that explanation will always be more powerful.Think about it. If I pray that a sparrow would land upon my head, then jump onto my knee, then jump onto my hand, then jump onto my chimney, in that order, then if the following happens, in that order, things like post-ho reasoning become laughable in their inadequacy to measure up to the power of that event.Listen - it is fair if I say that the Holy Spirit is real, that I experience it to that degree of truth. I have. Therefore what can I do Stile? i can now only testify to you that it is true that you will experience this also, as fellow born again believers experience the same things also.You can site natural explanations, but I can't "make" a powerful presence enter my body, remove the depression in an instant and leave., I can't create an outside force that comes upon me. I can only tell you the truth.

You should apply logic to that statement Mike, and see how illogical it is!You do know that people who think they are possessed by demons will be cured by an exorcism because they believe that exorcism is the only cure?I didn't know you had a spell of depression Mike, I am sorry to hear that, but since you have came out of this then this God myth has done its job.Come back to reality now Mike, you have been cured.

What can you do?
You can do as you say (testify to the truth).
And not do as you continue to do (surround your "truth" with ideas that you acknowledge may be incorrect).It's not a difficult concept. Just don't conflate your ideas of what happened with the aspects of what happened that you can actually corroborate. Perhaps you are right about 'your ideas' of what happened. But don't express those 'ideas' as 'the truth' unless you can actually show it to be the truth. Otherwise, everyone will easily see your words for what they are: nothing more than a tall tale (perhaps unintentionally).Continuing on as you have will only decrease the amount of respect you get for whenever you declare "the truth." Haven't you noticed that nobody ever takes you seriously anymore? That's because you've confused "your ideas" with "the truth" too many times. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to be honest about what you know, and what you're guessing at. There's nothing wrong with guesses. But there is something seriously dishonest (and easily identified) with professing guesses as "the truth."Truths
- you had an experience
- you think the Holy Spirit is responsible for that experience
- you think I will experience the same thing if I become born again
- you think this experience is "unique"
- you think this experience somehow grants you something that others (non-"born-again" people... whatever that means) do not (cannot?) haveYour ideas added to your "truth"
- it must be the Holy Spirit that is responsible for your experience.
But this isn't true. It could be any number of things, including nothing supernatural at all.- I will inevitably experience the "same thing" if I also become born again
But this isn't true. People are different, we will all react differently (sometimes slightly different, sometimes greatly) to even the same experiences.- your experience is, exclusively, unique
But this isn't true. People from all different religions, and even those with no religion at all claim the exact same thing as you just have. This is nothing new. However it is special. But it's certainly not "unique." I can get the same feeling by focusing myself properly. Just did it right now, actually. Thanks mike, I don't get the excuse for causing such an internal euphoria every day. It is true that maybe you cannot reproduce the feelings from your experience. But that says nothing about me or anyone else... practice makes perfect.- your experience somehow grants you something that others (non-"born-again" people... whatever that means) do not or perhaps cannot have
But this isn't true. There is nothing at all (described as "natural" or otherwise) that religious people of any kind possess that cannot be obtained equally or better by non-religious people. There is no religious demographic that is significantly ahead of any other group of people in terms of crime rate, levels of personal happiness, or anything like that. It's simply not true. To spout otherwise is nothing more than lying. In fact, we can see that those demographics that specifically deny religion (like Sweeden) can easily rise to the top levels of any desired trait.It's easy for people to identify when you're talking about "the truth" and when you're adding "your ideas." One you can show, the other you cannot. When you keep babbling on about knowing "the truth" when you're incapable of showing it to be so... your mistake is rather obvious to everyone. That's why no one respects what you say, because you're not honest about what you know and what's unknown.

So Mike, you pray to your god that a sparrow will perform physical gymnastics on your knee and it supposedly does it and that he cured you of your "mental depression" right? So why is your god so flippant and capricious in nature that he will do what you ask about trivial things yet allow tens of millions of men, women, children and infants to starve to DEATH every day. Why does your god does not life a finger to help them.It sounds like your god is a self-centered prick who only perform firvolous benign acts (help a Christian pick out a new car, find a job, feel better, etc, etc) for a select few people who grovel before him while literally billions of people suffer and die of hunger, abuse, disease and other horendous misfortunes and tragedies. I will be blunt though, I really believe that this self-centered belief, is a self-projection of one's core values onto the religious belief in God. In other words, those who believe 'God' to perform these parlor tricks really are really self-centered people who have no understanding of the pain and suffering that occurs in the world outside there front door. Either that or they plain flat don't give a shit.I will say it like it is. This self-centered, self-righteous attitude is disgusting!

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Sorry I didn't continue this discussion. I've been busy lately. For the cambrian explosion, for example, there are at least 5 identifiable theories. (increase in oxygen level, snowball earth, end-endiacrian mass extinction, evolution of eyes, arms race between predators and prey). I agree everyone have connections with the theory of evolution, but they are still independant theories. There is one most popular theory (colision theory) but there are at least 4 that I know of: fission theory, capture theory, condensation theory, and collision theory. Of course, the last one is by far the most popular, but their are still some rare proponents of the others. The most popular view is that birds came from therapod dinosaurs. But there are other theories. Some argue that birds came from tree-dwelling dinosaurs (such as Alan Fanecca). And some think that birds and dinosaurs shared a common ancestor (similar to humans and modern chimps). Again, different theories.This was just to point out that even if for some htings in science there is one concensus theory, in some others there are competing theories, all with valuable arguments for themselves and against the others. Of course, I agree that science is much more objective than any reading of a book such as the Bible.Still, I do think that the Bible is not totally subjective. It makes multiple statements about events in the past that you should be able to verify historically.I'll just as an example probably the most well-known: the ressurection of Jesus Christ. Not only is it a statement about a past event, but it is about a miracle. I always found it interesting that this subject is rarely debated, even if it is probably the biggest evidence of a miracle happening as you can get.Anthony Flew debated this with Gary Habermas back in 1985, in front of a crowd of 3000 people. Flew was at the top of his career, having published many notable books against miracles, and deities-gods. Regardless of this, 4 out of the five philosophy-judges panel (who judged the content of the debate) ruled in favor of Habermas, while the other called it a draw. There were also 5 professional debate judges who were asked to judge the quality of the arguments, in which 3 voted for habermas. Comments from two of the judges:

quote:

---

‘I am of the position that the affirmative speaker [Habermas] has a very significant burden of proof in order to establish his claims. The various historical sources convinced me to adopt the arguments of the affirmative speaker. Dr Flew, on the other hand, failed, particularly in the rebuttal period and the head-to-head session, to introduce significant supporters of his position. Dr Habermas placed a heavy burden on Dr Flew to refute very specific issues. As the rebuttals progressed, I felt that Dr Flew tried to skirt the charges.’
‘I conclude that the historical evidence, though flawed, is strong enough to lead reasonable minds to conclude that Christ did indeed rise from the dead. Habermas has already won the debate. By defeating the Hume-inspired skeptical critique on miracles in general offered by Flew and by demonstrating the strength of some of the historical evidence, Habermas does end up providing highly probably evidence for the historicity of the resurrection with no plausible naturalistic evidence against it. Habermas, therefore, in my opinion, wins the debate.’

---

I wanna buy the transcript of the debate. Religion Today, , November 2, 1999Can't find an internet version unforntunately, it seems to not be in their archives. :S

quote:

---

The bible says that to question God is sin.

---

God did not give a law that says we cannot question him, therefore it is not a sin to question God. A prophet may not presume to speak in God's name if God has not commanded him to speak for him.So we should test any information mankind puts before us.Questioning God is not a sin.
Questioning man is not a sin.
Questioning dogma is not a sin.
Questioning tradition is not a sin.Mankind is the one who doesn't want to be questioned.It is common sense to question before we act, since in the end, we are solely responsible for our actions.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

A baby's brain functions are very well known. They are incapable of 'believing' anything. They are atheistic by default, because they have no means to make such a choice...until they begin to learn language and understand words. By this time they are capable of being influenced by their parents., thus indoctrinated into a belief system.

---

I just found this:404(PS thr research I was talking about was 10 years old already, done by Olivera Petrovich)