Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 7:25 PM
342 online now:
kbertsche, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin) (3 members, 339 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,103 Year: 28,709/21,208 Month: 775/1,847 Week: 150/475 Day: 43/17 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
313233
34
3536Next
Author Topic:   The Marketing Of Christianity
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 497 of 536 (824378)
11-27-2017 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by ringo
11-27-2017 11:42 AM


Re: Food For Thought
If you honestly knew that Christianity was false, i could see you having no choice but not to believe. My point is that there is no definite evidence and thus the conclusion is that you decided not to believe. Its not as if you had a solid 100% case for doing so. Remember that I reject Crashfrogs mantra: The Absence of Evidence is not the Evidence of Absence in my mind. Honestly.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by ringo, posted 11-27-2017 11:42 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by ringo, posted 11-28-2017 10:49 AM Phat has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26711
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 498 of 536 (824390)
11-27-2017 6:31 PM


Superficial versus soul commitment to Christ
Seems to me this discussion shows that the people who fall away from Christianity are ones who grew up in the church. They learned all the doctrine and as ringo says just went with the flow. So they had a merely superficial commitment even though they outwardly lived as part of the community.

abe: What this means is that they were not born again. Christianity is a transformation, not just a belief system. Even those who grew up in the church have to become converted to be Christians. "Conversion" isn't just a matter of superficial belief either, it's to be understood as an actual change, a real conversion from one condition to another. /abe

I was sent to church as a child, but I can't say it really stuck although I felt a pang of loss when I gave it up as a teenager, under the influence of "enlightened" sophisticated friends, and lived without it for the next thirty years. When I came back to it in my mid forties, completely through a blitz of reading up on religions, it was brand new to me. I found out then that I'd never understood what the gospel is all about, I had to learn it all from scratch. I remembered the Lord's Prayer and the 23rd Psalm and a few hymns and the Christmas Carols but that was about it. (And recognizing clearly for the first time what the carols are actually celebrating reduced me to tears of joy and thanks, and they often still do that to me). I had to give up quite a few things I had believed as an atheist and some of it was a hard struggle, but when I gave myself to Christ in my forties it was a done deal, I could not ever lose it, it was sealed by knowing that the Bible is really God's communication to us, and by many personal experiences of His providence in my life, answered prayer, even some supernatural events. I've lost a lot of my original passion and want to get it back if I can, but the basics I know will never leave me, God Himself, Jesus Christ, will never leave me, in reality or in my own mind.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by ringo, posted 11-28-2017 10:58 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 499 of 536 (824417)
11-28-2017 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 497 by Phat
11-27-2017 4:19 PM


Re: Food For Thought
Phat writes:

My point is that there is no definite evidence and thus the conclusion is that you decided not to believe. Its not as if you had a solid 100% case for doing so.


You contradict yourself. If there is "no definite evidence" that IS a solid 100% case. If there was ANY definite evidence, it would be less than 100%.

But I'm not even the one who says there's "no definite evidence". I'm just saying there isn't enough evidence to make the case for God, etc. plausible. Bigfoot is more plausible than God but I don't believe he exists. Even leprechauns are more plausible than God.

Phat writes:

Remember that I reject Crashfrogs mantra: The Absence of Evidence is not the Evidence of Absence in my mind.


Your mind is wrong. If the evidence should be there but isn't, that's evidence of absence. The only excuse you have for the lack of evidence is that God is hiding, which is ridiculously lame.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Phat, posted 11-27-2017 4:19 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 501 by Phat, posted 11-28-2017 1:04 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 500 of 536 (824418)
11-28-2017 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 498 by Faith
11-27-2017 6:31 PM


Re: Superficial versus soul commitment to Christ
Phat writes:

... I felt a pang of loss when I gave it up as a teenager...


I was just the opposite. I felt a sense of relief much like the descriptions of "salvation" that I had heard all my life.

Faith writes:

... under the influence of "enlightened" sophisticated friends....


I was definitely not influenced by peer pressure. To this day I've hardly ever met a professing atheist face to face. All of the peer pressure has been in the opposite direction.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by Faith, posted 11-27-2017 6:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 501 of 536 (824427)
11-28-2017 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 499 by ringo
11-28-2017 10:49 AM


Re: Food For Thought
ringo writes:

I'm just saying there isn't enough evidence to make the case for God, etc. plausible. Bigfoot is more plausible than God but I don't believe he exists. Even leprechauns are more plausible than God.

I'd love to hear your rationale for this one!

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by ringo, posted 11-28-2017 10:49 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by jar, posted 11-28-2017 3:56 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 503 by ringo, posted 11-29-2017 2:07 PM Phat has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29763
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 502 of 536 (824435)
11-28-2017 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by Phat
11-28-2017 1:04 PM


evidence and plausibility
Phat writes:

ringo writes:

I'm just saying there isn't enough evidence to make the case for God, etc. plausible. Bigfoot is more plausible than God but I don't believe he exists. Even leprechauns are more plausible than God.

I'd love to hear your rationale for this one!

Phat, is there evidence of finding new species of animals?

Phat is there evidence of finding new species of primates?

Phat, is there evidence of the existence of little people?

Phat is there evidence of the existence of anything supernatural?

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by Phat, posted 11-28-2017 1:04 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 503 of 536 (824479)
11-29-2017 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by Phat
11-28-2017 1:04 PM


Re: Food For Thought
Phat writes:

ringo writes:

I'm just saying there isn't enough evidence to make the case for God, etc. plausible. Bigfoot is more plausible than God but I don't believe he exists. Even leprechauns are more plausible than God.


I'd love to hear your rationale for this one!

I'd like to hear your objections.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by Phat, posted 11-28-2017 1:04 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by Phat, posted 11-29-2017 2:25 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 504 of 536 (824480)
11-29-2017 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 503 by ringo
11-29-2017 2:07 PM


Re: Food For Thought
I suppose in the strict definition of what plausibility means, I have no argument. Bigfoot could end up being a new species of animal. A Leprechaun could be some evolved rat. It does frustrate me to some degree how you see no need for God, however.

Besides, Aquinas took us on that route in reasoning for the existence of the universe.

quote:
1. The universe exists.

2. It could not be the cause of itself.

3. It could not come from nothing.

4. It could not be an effect in an infinite series of causes and effects


I would argue that it is more plausible to believe in an infinite God Creator rather than an infinite pilotless and self-creating universe. And I could care less about Hawkings take on it.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 503 by ringo, posted 11-29-2017 2:07 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 505 by ringo, posted 11-29-2017 2:36 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 506 by Tangle, posted 11-29-2017 3:29 PM Phat has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 505 of 536 (824482)
11-29-2017 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by Phat
11-29-2017 2:25 PM


Re: Food For Thought
Aquinas writes:

It could not be the cause of itself.


Why not?

Aquinas writes:

It could not come from nothing.


Why not?

Aquinas writes:

It could not be an effect in an infinite series of causes and effects


Why not?

And, of course, what Aquinas misses is that all of those could-nots also apply to God.

Phat writes:

I would argue that it is more plausible to believe in an infinite God Creator rather than an infinite pilotless and self-creating universe.


No, you would assert that. If you have an actual argument, present it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Phat, posted 11-29-2017 2:25 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5235
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 506 of 536 (824487)
11-29-2017 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by Phat
11-29-2017 2:25 PM


Re: Food For Thought
Phat writes:

It could not be the cause of itself.

3. It could not come from nothing.

4. It could not be an effect in an infinite series of causes and effects

Why do you put so much weight on opinions that are thousands of years old? These are just ideas, based on nothing but thoughts. Thoughts that can't have been informed by any real knowledge of how our universe actually works.

On the other hand we have people like Prof Hawkings who tell us that the energy in the universe cancels out to zero, so if there is zero energy in total a God is not necessary to create it. Something can come from nothing.

Now you've been informed that science, based on some mind destroying maths, thinks that it's possible that the universe can arrive from nothing many times before but you religiously ignore it and yet again fall back to this ancient and bad philosophy.

I'm struggling to understand how you can simultaeously over-emphasise some old and poor thinking and seemigly totally ignore a modern evidence based view. I'm not saying Hawking is right - I mean how the hell would I know? - but surely you can't just ignore it? Or do you just forget?

Curiously, RAZD would mention cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias at this point.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Phat, posted 11-29-2017 2:25 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by Phat, posted 11-29-2017 3:51 PM Tangle has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 507 of 536 (824488)
11-29-2017 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by Tangle
11-29-2017 3:29 PM


Re: Food For Thought
I'll admit to confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. The more I study this stuff, the more I am convinced that it is not possible to prove. Thus we are left with the choice to believe or not to believe.

And a lot depends first on whether the individual wants or needs belief.

A lot also depends on whether or not the belief is plausible.

As for me, I need the belief. I need the hope. I need an eternal Father figure in my life. I cannot pretend that belief is an option for me...in my case.

Perhaps it all is a part of my dysfunctional brain chemistry. Holding on to a probability...no matter how small of a number it is.

Also, I enjoy defending the issues until someone pops the balloon and crows about there being no evidence and no chance.

They wont take away my probability, however. I simply wont let go.

And it angers me that they wont agree with my logic that there always will be a probability. (That God exists and that God relates to each of us individually)

I have traditionally defended my belief as an internal certainty but can let go of that certainty as long as nobody attempts to snatch the probability.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by Tangle, posted 11-29-2017 3:29 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 508 by Tangle, posted 11-29-2017 6:07 PM Phat has responded
 Message 509 by ringo, posted 11-30-2017 10:55 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5235
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 508 of 536 (824510)
11-29-2017 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by Phat
11-29-2017 3:51 PM


Re: Food For Thought
Phat writes:

I have traditionally defended my belief as an internal certainty but can let go of that certainty as long as nobody attempts to snatch the probability.

That's ok then as no-one here will tell you that the probability of there being no god is zero. Because - and how many times have you heard this too? - no-one can prove a negative. So it will always and forever remain a possibility.

So you can keep your (infinitely small) probability and being a gambler that should be good enough for you. But it does allow you to consider alternatives.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Phat, posted 11-29-2017 3:51 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 513 by Phat, posted 12-03-2017 11:18 AM Tangle has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 509 of 536 (824549)
11-30-2017 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 507 by Phat
11-29-2017 3:51 PM


Re: Food For Thought
Phat writes:

They wont take away my probability, however. I simply wont let go.


There's always a chance that you'll win the lottery - but is it a good investment?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Phat, posted 11-29-2017 3:51 PM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 510 by jar, posted 11-30-2017 10:58 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29763
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 510 of 536 (824550)
11-30-2017 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 509 by ringo
11-30-2017 10:55 AM


Re: Food For Thought
ringo writes:

There's always a chance that you'll win the lottery - but is it a good investment?

There is evidence though that people actually do win lotteries so while it is a stupid investment the probability of someone winning approaches 100% while there is no evidence of anything supernatural.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by ringo, posted 11-30-2017 10:55 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by Phat, posted 11-30-2017 11:05 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 511 of 536 (824552)
11-30-2017 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 510 by jar
11-30-2017 10:58 AM


Re: Food For Thought
Interesting that you two would bring gambling up. One of my own personal fallacies in that area is the fact that I take the truth statement: Somebody will win and switch its true implication into my own statement, namely I will win.

This latest round of EvC conversation has sparked my inner cognitive dissonance and is making me rash and erratic. Thankfully I have my meds.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by jar, posted 11-30-2017 10:58 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by ringo, posted 11-30-2017 11:09 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
313233
34
3536Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017