|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
You have the gall to suggest that I am subverting the secular humanist "camp" with a Christian message? It means that even though one "leaves" Christianity, they have the Spirit and carry "it" into the secular humanist camp. They spread the message without need of mentioning "the messenger"."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
I don't self-identify as an atheist. Too many people, including you, assume that an atheist is against God, hates God, doesn't want to be under God's authority, etc. I'm not sure what ringo believes, but he never straight-up says he is an atheist. I self-identify as agnostic - but according to the broad definition of "atheist", I don't believe in any gods. And for the record, YOUR God is one of the least likely to be real. It is quite obviously made up and thoroughly inconsistent."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
You have the gall to suggest that I am subverting the secular humanist "camp" with a Christian message?
At 20,000 posts that is a hell of a lot of subverting. Congratulation, ringo!Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
One point of contention between my faith and your science is an argument that you and I have discussed before. Probability and Chance as opposed to ....what would I call it? Oh yeah....God. Probability to me means a definite calculation (such as the programmed odds on a lottery ticket) whereas chance means an unknown number that is assumed to be finite rather than infinite. God is assumed to be infinite yet definite. If you know what I mean.
Tangle writes: I get you. A theist should also see a newborn baby and that's it. Except that GDR is suggesting that it's human nature to assign more value to your own baby than it is to a random baby. Same thing with your wife. She should always be the prettiest girl in the room whether she is 20 or 80. Beauty should never be a probability or calculation. (1-10) "Shes" A Perfect 10!. What a believer means is that the value number is always infinite. Science always seeks to quantify everything. How can one quantify infinity? Just as a point of fact. An atheist sees a newborn baby and sees a newborn baby. That's it."A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
ringo writes: Subverting is not the right word. I'm thinking more of a stealth operative.
You have the gall to suggest that I am subverting the secular humanist "camp" with a Christian message? Dictonary.com writes: subvert · to overthrow (something established or existing). · to cause the downfall, ruin, or destruction of. · to undermine the principles of; corrupt. In this case, a mole would not seek to overthrow humanism so much as add to it. Only human moles can do this. AI need not apply. Edited by Phat, : fixed broken link "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
ringo writes: Well I don't either...none of the small g ones....which in my mind are fakes or wannabes. I suppose you would put my God in that category. I self-identify as agnostic - but according to the broad definition of "atheist", I don't believe in any gods. But don't you believe that there is One, rather than relatively many? Or do you think that the universe needs no designer? I think you once postulated that "In The Beginning....chemicals. I would assert that a chemist would precede the chemicals.And a chemist needs a brain. "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Your puny, made-up god is at the top of the list.
...none of the small g ones....which in my mind are fakes or wannabes. I suppose you would put my God in that category. Phat writes:
Certainly not. I have said more than once that there's more likely to be many than one.
But don't you believe that there is One, rather than relatively many? Phat writes:
Of course it doesn't. Have you ever read any of my posts?
Or do you think that the universe needs no designer? Phat writes:
Did you write that with a straight face? I'm not even going to tell you what's stupid about it. Figure it out for yourself and then tell me what's stupid about it. I think you once postulated that "In The Beginning....chemicals. I would assert that a chemist would precede the chemicals."Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Well I don't either...none of the small g ones....which in my mind are fakes or wannabes. I suppose you would put my God in that category. One of the benefits/problems with being old is that I remember decades of TV commercials. About 30 years ago MacDonald's came out with chicken nuggets (though in the Midwest it was a chicken sandwich unofficially called the "McCluck") made from reformed chicken chunks. In response, Hardee's came out with its chicken fillet sandwich. The Hardee's commercial had two people talking about the products: "Their product is made from chicken parts." "Which parts?" "I dunno. Parts is parts." One day on duty in the warehouse pulling parts, I commented "Parts is parts!" scaring my shipmates. You have to admit it's kind of catchy. That's what gods are like. Gods is gods. They're really all the same. Gods is gods. So what is it about your god that is supposed to make it so special? Just because it happens to be yours? What about that guy's god? Or that guy's god? Their gods are just as special in their own minds, no differently than with your god. Kind of like another form of religion: sports teams. Which I also do not believe in, though far more strongly.
I think you once postulated that "In The Beginning....chemicals. I would assert that a chemist would precede the chemicals. No, rather the exact opposite. First come the chemicals, which will react completely on their own without any outside help. All the chemist can do is figure out which chemicals to use and to recreate the conditions for the reactions that he wants. I had a friend who had a PhD Chemistry. He said that a chemist cannot create any reaction that would not exist in nature. All he could do was to set up the conditions for that reaction. [i]You cannot make chemicals do anything that they would not naturally do themselves.
ABE:
Darn! I just read ringo's Message 713. That was supposed to have been left for you to solve, but I had to go and blurt out the answer.
Edited by dwise1, : ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
It's the same with children. Your own are special. Gods is gods. So what is it about your god that is supposed to make it so special? Just because it happens to be yours? People used to tell my mother, "Your children are so well-behaved." (And as I recall, we were.) Mom would mutter, "You should see them at home.""Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg. What's going on? Where are all the friends I had? It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong. Give me back, give me back my Leningrad." -- Leningrad Cowboys
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Percy writes: It doesn't seem to be a problem now, but what was happening was that I would take the time to answer a post and in the meantime there would be three more.
You're forcing me to repeat things I said in the posts you're not addressing. I again suggest you take your time and be thorough. I think everyone would prefer that you take your time instead of rushing things or cutting corners. Percy writes: That's not an accurate characterization of what you've been doing, and you're ignoring the many words I've written explaining this to you. Here's yet another way of describing what you're doing: You claim you have evidence for some aspect of your Christian beliefs. We explain why you do not have evidence. You concede you have no evidence. You claim you have evidence for some aspect of your Christian beliefs. We explain why you do not have evidence. You concede you have no evidence. Discussion drifts onto some other aspect of your Christian beliefs and you return to step 1. OK I'll try again.There is zero scientific evidence for anything beyond the physical. The Bible is evidence. It is obviously written to be believed although not always literally. You argue that it isn't reliable and give reasons. However, it still remains that it in fact exists. It might contain truths or it might be a total lie, but it is evidence to be considered. Beyond that we apply our own rational form our own conclusions. If we decide that there is some level of accuracy we follow a path of faith which should be to live a life to one degree or another in coherence with Christ's message. I've said all of that before but it never seems to be the answer you want to hear.
Percy writes: OK, so you reject all world religions. What then do you contend is the nature of this supernatural being and what should it mean to our lives.
What I believe is completely irrelevant. I'm not a believer or a seeker like you. But since you've brought it up, have I already mentioned in this thread my belief that no religion on Earth has anything remotely right regarding a supernatural being? GDR writes: Then the question is WHY does the evolutionary process exist.Percy writes: Of course it has nothing to do with any religion. It is simply the question of what is the root cause of the evolutionarily process. It might be atheistic, deistic or theistic. My conclusion without any scientific evidence is that it is theistic. I don't even know what your conclusion would be.
Because replication is imperfect and changes are carried forward to the next generation when they result in production of offspring (or of more numerous offspring) being more likely. Again, nothing to do with religion. Percy writes: I have no scientific evidence. We're no more rejecting the idea of an "external intelligence" (whatever that is) than we are of the idea of unicorns or oobleck. We're pointing out that you have no evidence that it's real. We can however come to our conclusions based on life experience and observation but that can lead to atheism or theism and anything in between.As an example of that we have just had a major hurricane in both the Canadian Maritimes as well as Florida. If we come to the conclusion that a loving God wouldn't allow that to happen we will likely hold to an atheistic belief. On the other hand if we marvel at home people come out in love to selflessly help those in distress we might tend to a theistic position. I had written this:GDR writes: You then pull this out of that: We have all the evidence needed to confirm the evolutionary process. Then the question is WHY does the evolutionary process exist. If you reject the idea of an external intelligence then it obviously is there because of nothing but natural processes. If however, you accept the notion of an external intelligence then it makes sense to conclude that the evolutionary process has this intelligence as its first cause.Percy writes: How about using enough of the quote so that it doesn't distort what I was actually saying.
...then it makes sense to conclude that the evolutionary process has this intelligence as its first cause. Percy writes: There is no scientific evidence. We can all marvel at new life, the fact that we can see beauty if a flower, that we can experience joy or so, that we can experience empathy etc. We then can simply form our own conclusions, non-scientifically.
Why should we accept "the notion of an external intelligence," when it has just as much evidence as the notion of unicorns or oobleck. This is usually the point where you again claim that you do too have evidence. Please, don't close that loop again. You do not have evidence. You haven't observed a single thing. Percy writes: Sure, no scientific evidence at all.
Your "subjective conclusions" have no evidence. GDR writes: Frankly I hear what some Christian preachers have to say and see myself with having more in common with many atheists.Percy writes: When Christian preachers start rationalizing the stories of genocide and public stoning in the Bible then I have more common with Chris Hitchens that I do with such a preacher.
I don't think anyone here would agree with this self-assessment. Nothing you've ever said at EvC has ever been remotely like what an atheist might say. Percy writes: You keep saying that. This is not in a science forum. Correct me if I'm wrong but in your view, and in the view of others, it appears to me that the only evidence that is allowed is scientific evidence. Observational conclusions are not based on evidence. No, we're not asking questions. We're telling you you have no evidence. And you agree. And then you change your mind and claim you have evidence again. The Bible, the Qur'an, the Book of Buddah, the Book of Mormon etc physically exist. Why aren't they considered evidence. Nobody contests the belief that Plato, Socrates and others existed because of what we have written about them and they predate Jesus by 400 years.
Percy writes: So what. The first thing you have to do is consider the author's intent. If you're reading a book by Agatha Christie then you know that it's not be taken literally. If you read Lewis' Narnia series you know that it's not meant to be understood as something that really happened but at the same time know that is also meant as metaphor. If you read Churchill's "History of the English Speaking People" then it is clear that he intends it as a factual account. In the case of the Bible it is all 3. Of course though, that something that is written to be understood as an actual account of an occurrence isn't necessarily true or even close to true.
You can't claim that any words a writer sets to paper are evidence because then you have to do that for everything, not just all the world's religions but even all the world's myths and fantasies. Percy writes: ..and you know that how. Numerous people have written about Jesus over the years and you simply reject what they all wrote.
But you've driven some stakes in the ground, like that Jesus was real and there's evidence for it. There isn't. Percy writes: Again, there is no difference in nature between everyday evidence and scientific evidence. It's all just observations. Science is just more detailed, instrumented, structured and controlled in gathering its evidence, sort of like the difference between "It got hot" and "It reached a temperature of 147.3°C." Sadly here's the lead story from CNN today. "Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Florida'. Is that evidence on it's own that Ian hit Florida?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It is also true that you find it absolutely necessary to prop up the reliability of the Bible without regard to the truth. Even the order in which the Gospels were written causes you to make obviously false claims. How many of Streeter’s arguments “go away” if you assume that Matthew was the first? None of them. Zero out of five. Yet you claimed that all of them would “go away” even after seeing those arguments. Would someone who cared about the truth do that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
GDR writes: The Bible is evidence. The bible is only evidence that some people wrote some stories. Unknown men wrote those stories, not even the widest eyed believer claims that a god wrote those stories. Many of the stories in those books are fantastical but are not regarded as metaphor - they are foundational to the belief. But the Jews that were there at the time did not believe those stories, nor did those that later became Muslims. It seems that the majority at the time of the events were not persuaded by them. There are several other books that other religions believe to be true that you do not. You believe the Christian book - or at least those parts of it that you personally feel comfortable with - is true only because it was the book that your parents and culture believes. Had you been born in another place, you would not believe it. We know that the stories were not created until many years after the main character's death by unknown people who did not witness any of them. We also know that they were edited, redacted and collated centuries later by the most powerful empire in the world for political reasons then promoted by another political organisation that grew to be even more powerful and also equally corrupt - the Catholic church. We know that the stories in the books are inconsistent, some are contradictory and its predictions of important future events failed to happen. The evidence that a book exists is not evidence that the stories written in them actually happened. It's the weakest of all evidence. To become credible evidence of actual events the stories need corroborating evidence and given that the most important stories for the believer are so fantastical they need a lot of it. But there is no evidence at all.
Sadly here's the lead story from CNN today. "Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Florida'. Is that evidence on it's own that Ian hit Florida? Here's that fake equivalence again. The bible stories are as factual as news stories huh? I suspect you don't need us to point you to the many ways you could personally and very quickly corroborate the storm story as being factually correct but it does point out the difference between a story and a fact. Facts can be independently verified, mere stories can not be.
I have no scientific evidence. We can however come to our conclusions based on life experience and observation In principle, the qualifier, “scientific” in that statement is redundant. Evidence is simply evidence and all evidence is observational. What makes it real evidence is that it is independent of the observer. It must be verifiable by others, particularly others that are skeptical of it. What you call “life experience and observation” only become evidence if others can replicate it. What you have is a belief which does not require evidence. What you call evidence is almost entirely confirmation bias.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Tangle writes: Fair enough. We know that the book(s) were not simply dropped from the sky, falling into the lap of King James or Pope Innocent(until proven Guilty) .
The bible is only evidence that some people wrote some stories. Tangle, ex Catholic writes: The early Catholics were by and large inspired by pictures etched on the walls of Cathedrals.(The Stations Of The Cross, for example) Most folks couldn't read. I guess we could thus discuss oral tradition and as jar deftly put it, Tales told 'round a campfire. At this point, the Source (the author or authors of the scroll)becomes as important as Content (what the scroll says.) If the prophet Isaiah was himself a story on a scroll, I would ask whether Isaiah was allowed at some point in time to write the scroll himself, or whether he was simply a character in a scroll written by some random guy. (Bronze Age Ex-Goatherder who learned to make scrolls, perhaps? ) Many of the stories in those books are fantastical but are not regarded as metaphors - they are foundational to the belief. I need to do a bit more research before completing this train of thought."A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Phat writes: Fair enough. We know that the book(s) were not simply dropped from the sky Had they done so and had they been typed in multiple languages - both old and new - On an indestructible A4 media that we still can't comprehend, there would be a reason to believe that the messages it contained was not simply man made.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Correct me if I'm wrong but in your view, and in the view of others, it appears to me that the only evidence that is allowed is scientific evidence. Observational conclusions are not based on evidence. Correct me if I'm wrong but in your view, and in the view of others, it appears to me that the only evidence that is allowed is scientific evidence.
There is only one type of evidence. Observational; what you try to insultingly call 'scientific' to distinguish between actual evidence and your emotional desires. Observational (scientific) evidence is the stuff that conveys its reality consistently to all observers and informs all conclusions. Observational evidence is the only evidence this universe provides for anything. Any conclusions can only be based on the observational evidence. Conclusions cannot be drawn in the absence of observational evidence and logical analysis. You can't do that with your religious fantasies. You can never portray the thoughts in your head in any more than arbitrary terms. Your personal thoughts are not evidence of reality. Nor are 100 million similar thoughts. Each adherent has different conceptions of the same deity. There is no consistency and must be rejected as evidence.
There is no scientific evidence. We can all marvel at new life, the fact that we can see beauty if a flower, that we can experience joy or so, that we can experience empathy etc. We then can simply form our own conclusions, non-scientifically. No one ever said you can't experience emotional joy or awe at the beauty of life. You can conclude any emotional thing you so desire. That is great observational scientific evidence that you are a human and you are alive. But when you insist that feeling emanates from some universal sky daddy you have reached conclusions that are not evident and cannot be supported. This is fantasy.
The Bible, the Qur'an, the Book of Buddah, the Book of Mormon etc physically exist. Why aren't they considered evidence. Those books are evidence. They are evidence of the disjointed fantastical emotional musings of the human species. They are evidence that deities and their powers are home grown human fantasies. And as has been said already, just because the book is real does not mean the stories in it are real. As far as evidence is concerned the provenance of your bible is suspect at best. It's history is fraught with inconsistent copies of the same text and known copyist insertions and changes. It is evidence of human meddling with the text in later copies. None with any efficacy. Might as well be a sloppy copy of Jumanji for all the reality it contains. Evidence is a much stronger term than you care to accept. Emotion is too weak, variable, inconsistent and cannot not count as evidence. {ABE} You should know by now that your bible is too inconsistent to be evidence of anything. And your strong emotional reaction to the beauty of life is your emotional response and is not consistent observer to observer. Not everyone appreciates kittens. Thus your personal emotions are not evidence of reality. So, in place of these, what evidence do you propose gives any credence to your thoughts on this cosmic entity? You cannot believe without reason. What reason?Edited by AZPaul3, : edit Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024