|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Confused | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Exactly hitchy, I do feel that religion and religious belief are subjective and personal. I would NEVER claim that I have got it right, nor that it was the ONLY way, neither would I claim that for my church or for any church. As to Original Sin and what the RC church seems to be saying is that the concept is outdated and they don't teach it anymore as part of the RC faith. I told my priest that I have no time for the concept, I don't believe that God would burden tiny babies with it and the whole idea stinks. He said "Same as me then" (I mean he feels the same, not that he stinks!). I can justify my feeling on the subject by remembering that Jesus told his disciples that unless they became like little children they would not enter Heaven. He didn't check to see if the kiddies in question had been baptised first. OK, maybe weeds weren't the best example in the world since a weed is defined as a plant growing in the "wrong" place, but I'm sure you understand what I was getting at.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5147 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
trixie
thank you for the information and candor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Grace, you said this: "Furthermore, given our ability to usually get the facts wrongs, why should we worship our own rational thought over a supposed perfect in quality/nature God, that many would agree logic simply demands must exist." Now, to me this reads that you are pooh-poohing rational thought and inquiry in favor of worshipping a deity, and use as your reasoning that we "usually get the facts wrong", and in fact it is rather more rational to believe in God. You seem to be saying that the findings of science should be secondary to religious thought.
quote: Ahhh, an engineer. I wish I had a dollar for every time I had some engineer tell me how much they love science, only to have them misrepresent it repeatedly. I am sorry to tell you that this instance is not an exception.
quote: ...except when it isn't predictable, and except when it isn't orderly.
quote: Mathematics and science are fundamentally different endeavors, you realize.
quote: ...emphasis upon "were". That has not been true for around 100 years. The majority of the greatest scientists of the 20th cetury were not Christians, and many were probably not believers at all. Furthermore, all of those great Christian scientists did not insert their religious views into their work. That's why they were great scientists. Lastly, your Argument from Authority is irrelevant to the argument.
quote: So, science concludes nothing, and also is entirely separate from this discussion? Please explain.
quote: You avoided my point. You claimed that God gave you morality. I said that morality does not come from God but is a social construct. As evidence I showed that people who society has decided has behaved immorally (murderers, thieves, etc.) are no more likely to be athiests, and in fact are quite likely to be believers, and in this country, are very likely to be Christian.
quote: Of course, I agree, but didn't you say this?: "In searching for ways to explain this truth, I(and many theists on this site) have encountered adequate amounts of evidence that could allow a rational person to have a reason to believe." "Evidence" is not the same as a "philosophical viewpoint". I mean, you aren't trying to say that metaphysical claims are equal to physical evidence, are you? That's why I aasked for clarification of what you meant when you said that.
quote: Agreed, of course.
quote: No, of course not.
quote: Perhaps a bit more care when choosing words (such as your use of the word "evidence") on this site would be advissed, then? Schrafinator: "Funny, I have had exactly the same experience, except that I shed all of those same feelings when I stopped believing."
quote: Then your theology is arrogant and, even worse from a rational, logical stance, unable to ever be shown to be in error. Who are you to tell me what I believed at any given time in my life? How dare you tell me that I wasn't a "real" believer? Who is better than I am at determining and reporting my own beliefs? You? Secondly, don't you see that you have fallen into the irrational "No True Scotsman" fallacy? I believed. I was unhappy. I became happy after I stopped believing. Fallacious conclusion: I was not a believer. Schrafinator: "Grace, your religious tunnel vision is showing."
quote: You avoided my point again. You said this:
quote: Then I said this in reply: Schrafinator: "Funny, all of those millions of Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists around the world, who combined outnumber Christians by quite a lot, probably are quite certain of their eternal reward." I then said you had religious tunnel vision. My point was that you made the claim that a life without Christ is a pretty unpleasant one, filled with uncertainty and pain. I pointed out that there were many more Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, combined, than there are Christians, and that I didn't think that most of these non-Christians led as uncertain, hurt-filled life as you were implying. The tunnel vision comment was meant to illustrate a tendency of many christians to ignore and discount other major world religions, even though several of them have been around much longer than Christianity.
quote: I am glad you think this, but this is in contrast to what you said:
quote: quote: quote: I am Agnostic. I don't know if God exists or not. What "evidence" suggests that God/gods exist? Now, I'd like to restate something that you skipped over in my message...
quote: Schrafinator: "I would strongly disagree! All of these things can be and are explained in terms of human nature and social constructs. The explanations may not be comforting or reassuring to you, but they are explanations, nonetheless." No comment?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4088 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
I've only looked at the first page of posts, so I'm probably answering too fast, but I just have to answer.
My faith, as of late, has come into question. Well, if your faith is in a literal Bible, then I'm glad to hear that. As you are seeing for yourself already, literalism doesn't work. If your faith is in God, then evolution is no issue already. I not only believe in God, but I moved my family into a spiritual community and gave my rather profitable business to it as well as everything else I own. That was all easy, of course. What has been hard has been enduring the work of God as he makes me the kind of person who can stay friends with other persons forever. Anyway, I'm one of those radical, give up everything, live for God all the time kind of people, and I love evolution. Giving up young earth creation was really difficult at first, but not only is evolution obviously true, but it's an awesome picture of the universe. A giant explosion, catapulting unimaginable quantities of matter at unimaginable speeds with the universe exploding in size to contain it all. Then a quiet gathering of that matter, then incredible fireworks as stars burst to life and light. Then more explosions, as the awesome power and beauty of supernovas created and dispersed the very molecules that you and I are made of. We're stardust! That's without getting into the evolution of life as we know it. I totally love it, and I think God did it, and I think it's a hundred times more awesome than what Moses heard God did.
Are the majority of creationist arguments like this? nothing more than deceit laid within a shred of truth? Yes. I was converted to evolution before I joined the community/village/church I am part of, and most of us are evolutionist now (and I'd guess we'll soon all be). To those of us who have led the evolution revolution (:-P) the most convincing argument for evolution is the sorry behavior of young earth creationists. That's just the truth. One man here--actually, the leader here--once said, "I don't know if I believe in evolution, but I sure don't want anyone thinking I agree with those creationists."
Secondly i wonder why it is that a lack of proof on the creation side is acceptable while reams of it is of course necessary to even begin an argument pro evolution. Well, to agree with what has already been said, the answer is that for many American Christians the Bible has become their god. When you mount evidence against young earth creation, you threaten to cast down their idol. Thanks for listenin'...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4088 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
anyway, if we can pick and choose from the bible what stories we want to believe and which we think are only metaphors, then christianity becomes totally subjective. According to the Bible, "As many as are led by the Spirit of God are the Sons of God," and (about Christ), "To all who received him, he gave them the power to become the children of God." In another place it says, "You have received an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things." So now, according to the Bible, exactly why is Christianity not supposed to be a "totally" subjective religion? It seems to me your "objective" religion is a colossal failure. Is there somewhere that your "objective" religion has produce the unity that proves God sent Jesus (John 17:20-23) or caused the rest of us to know you are disciples by your love for one another (John 13:35)? As far as I can tell your "objective" religion produces three new divisions a week (from US News and World Report back in 1984) and makes the rest of us think you can't get along with one another. So, again, what was wrong with Christianity becoming totally subjective?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4088 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
besides its lovely tone and ad hominim attack Personally, I thought Trixie's post was interesting and pleasant in its content and kind, even sweet, in its approach--notably so. I was rather surprised when you replied to such a great post like this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5147 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
do you think that i believe religion can be objective?
what i said was "if we can pick and choose from the bible what stories we want to believe and which we think are only metaphors, then christianity becomes totally subjective. i can believe it or not and anyone else is free to do the same. but passing off religious dogma as fact and reality based on subjective belief is definitely not science." my original assertion was that religion is subjective and science is objective. not once did i say that religion could be or was objective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
grace2u Inactive Member |
While I am currently engaged in a couple other forums that are discussing some of these issues, please allow me to direct you to those forums when it is fit to do. In particular concerning moral absolutism- see An object lesson by :ae:
When I say that pride, selfishness, hurt and ultimately a lonely death I simply mean the following: Pride-Do you not see this everywhere within the world? Even Christians are prideful at times. Myself included. In fact many times I am faced with my pride on this very forum.Selfishness-We are all ultimately selfish and self serving. While we may on occasion do selfless acts, we certainly are mostly selfish and looking out for number one. Again, myself included. In fact, I would even argue that when we commit selfless acts, at times those acts are still done for selfish reasons. Example, do we give to the poor to help the poor or for tax write offs or to appear nice to others and therefore get recognition? Marriage is a good example of how we are selfish. Hurt-Ultimately, sin creates hurt for ourselves and others. We also are faced with emotional pain and physical pain in this life. Lonely death- The end result is lonely because your maker is not there with you, to embrace you and comfort you. In contrast, a life with Christ has to offer forgiveness for the pride, the spirit to assist a believer to not act selfishly and forgiveness when they do, the hurt experienced is comforted by a friend who sticks closer than a brother(Christ, and the church at times) and finally your death is gain, not a loss in that you are glorified with Christ. When I say that the world has this to offer these things, I am speaking honestly and sincerely not trying to scare anyone. Note, I am not saying an atheist or agnostic can not live a happy joyful life, I concede they do. These are simple realities of the world we live in. Does it not seem apparent that the world is largely bent on destroying you so that it can gain. In some ways I regret even mentioning these concepts because I understand that it leaves the impression that we should believe out of fear for the contrary. What I am speaking of is within the context of two Christians talking together. Now, if Falkram is a Christian then he knows exactly what I am talking about when I refer to these things. I do not expect you to understand as these concepts are spiritual in nature and probably only make sense within the context of Christianity. When Christians struggle with various concepts we are to examine our lives and look at what Christ HAS DONE for us. We love Him not because we are smart and figured everything out, rather we love Him because He first loved us and revealed these things to us. When faced with struggles, we simply can examine our life with Christ and the contrary to see what He’s given us. We don’t look at the transcendental argument for the existence of God and say, oh yeah, I believe because of the impossibility of the contrary. We look at the evidence within our very own lives and remember Gods grace, mercy and compassion for us. That is why other believers have said Even if you prove the bible is not infallible, I will still believe or Though He slay me, yet I will still trust in Him. This kind of rational only comes from a person who has truly experienced Christ and has seen Him work in their lives-something that is improvable but real. That is to say, the evidence for a believer (when examining who Christ is and what He has done for them) is much more convincing than any alleged contradiction seen in scripture or perceived from our faulty senses. Now, for those who do not believe, we produce different arguments. Since you ask what evidence suggests this I will lend you a few of the arguments that exist, Arguments from —selfevident, transcendental, impossibility of the contrary(various versions), ontological, revealed theology(various versions), teleological, pascals wager(this boards favorite), individual experience(millions of testimonies), cosmological, from miracles(various versions), from life(various versions) from morality(various versions) In there final form with all their versions, all of these arguments could easily number in the hundreds. If one is correct, then God exists and most of them would even conclude that Christianity is true. While it is true that some of these have decent arguments to rebut them, not all do. Furthermore, the rebuttals themselves have flaws and are ultimately based on a whole string of presuppositions. So in light of this evidence, I ask what proof you have for the contrary(atheism). No doubt you’d say the burden of proof is on the one making the claim( I would agree with btw). You might even say something like if it’s not on you, then who is to say pink unicorns don’t exist on the moon. There is no evidence to suggest this so it is an unreasonable claim. There obviously is evidence for Christianity-else there wouldn’t be millions of us and the argument list would be much smaller. The argument for unicorns is simply that it’s possible they exist or maybe I had a dream that they did. When I say Christianity is the more rational choice I simply mean that if someone examined these arguments and found one that had a suggestion of truth to it, and then examined the counter claims(problem of evil and flood to name 2) a rational choice would be to concede that Christianity is likely true. You seem to expect a theist to be able to provide some type of inerrant proof that is 100% conclusive. I would argue that your demands are not rational demands and that your method of discovering truth in this area is flawed. For me personally understanding some of these arguments and then having experienced the reality of Christ, I am compelled to believe that this is true. Most of the arguments I see against Christianity are rather empty and much more inconclusive than the arguments for. Is this not a more rational choice for me? I suppose that it is for everyone, however add to this mix our nature to resist God and certainly it is logical that others would force themselves to reach other conclusions. I would argue that in order to reach a different conclusion you have to give yourself your own type of religious tunnel vision, that is you have to deny other evidences for Christ, in favor of a couple weak arguments against it. Finaly , your statements concerning scientist being nonbelievers is quite interesting. In fact, can you provide some evidence suggesting this is true? It might appear that there are more science minded people that are non-believers than there are, however I think this is simply an illusion. For one, most people (in the USA) believe in God. If we say it’s 90% (in the USA) then of this group, many are uneducated, not all are though-consistent with the population-maybe 30% have college degrees. Most atheists have an interest in science. Most people in general don’t, in fact even of those educated in a university (the 30%) only a third probably are educated in philosophy or science. This leaves 10 % Christians who are science minded while most atheists are. Of this 10% Christians, many believe that it is not consistent with Christ’s teachings to debate as we are now. I would obviously disagree, however many of the extremely smart Christian philosophers or scientists I know simply do not debate those who are not willing to truly listen. There are however other non-scientific minded (as you put it) Christians who want to share their faith. So you can easily see how it would appear at many times that the atheists are extremely smart and rational, while the believers appear to be sheep and not really knowing anything about logic, math or science, yet they are debating those who do. It is easy(even for an engineer) to make a non-science minded person appear as if they do not know anything about what they are talking about when it comes to science. So , the appearance is that Christianity is filled with foolish and irrational people. The reality of course, is that these uneducated Christians simply see what is obvious to them(and a large portion of the rest of the world) and are trying to explain it to others who will demand proof for every single concept the simple Christian provides. Since they do not understand logic or even the mind of these science minded people they simply look as if they are foolish. Now, the problem is, that when other non-science minded people (on the line or weak in their faith) observe a conversation like this they see the cards heavily in favor of the atheist. This then produces some ignorant agnostics or atheists who think they understand science but in reality don’t even know what a differential equation is. They then start placing unrealistic demands on theism and start assuming that the problem should be debated within the context of science as opposed to meta physical evidence being valid within a philosophical debate, where the discussion ultimately should be held. These people can then appear as if they understand science and when faced with a theist who doesn’t care about science can appear to be smarter. IMHO, it is simply an illusion that unfortunately traps many people into an irrational philosophical system. I don’t know how I got on this tangent, but going back to your original comment about scientists being non-Christians, please explain where you got this information. Now concerning your final comment that justice, morality, right and wrong, etc can be explained within an atheistic universe, I do agree that there are possible explanations for this BEHAVIOR within atheism however are these explanations more reasonable than the ones Christian theism provides, discussing the meta nature of such behaviors? Yes, you could argue that morality is taught by parents and society, etc, however I could also argue that it is a reflection of God. Concerning truth, I don’t want to start another debate —look at "where did God come from?" thread, but within atheism all is relative. This would seem to imply that it was ok for Hitler to kill Jews since in his society it was ok. Furthermore, why is it that the universe behave rationally? Why are mathematics possible, why do you assume logic to be a valid method of discovering truth? What is truth if everything is relative? How can the laws of thought be valid and so useful so often in different fields of science and philosophy? How can absolute truth NOT exist (since to claim it doesn’t exist is to declare an absolute)? While atheism can give explanations to these, I find the explanations to be quite lacking ultimately somewhat contradictory. Given the impossibility or unlikelihood of atheism being correct, why is it undecided for you? Either God exists or He doesn’t. Massive amounts of evidence suggest He does, while the evidence against His existence is quite small and lacking in epistemological substance. To me, being agnostic is just as irrational as being atheistic given the evidence for theism. At any rate, I apologize if I sound harsh or rude. In fact, I do not mean to implant fear or sound arrogant, only to reveal truth as I (and millions of other people-including scientists) see it. If I have missed some other points or misunderstood you please let me know, Take care,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Actually I don't expect a perfect argument for the existence of God - a GOOD one would do.
For instance, the so-called "transcendantal argument" isn't even an argument. It is just a set of assertions. "Impossibility of the contrary" is not an argument either - in fact it is an empty assertion used in place of argument. The ontological argument is just a word game. If there was a GOOD argment for the existnece of God then why do people waste their time with these, when none of them is any good at all ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
schrafinator writes: I wish I had a dollar for every time I had some engineer tell me how much they love science, only to have them misrepresent it repeatedly. Why? You would only have a dollar. (Sorry, but this is just a pet peeve of mine...you may continue the debate ).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Unfortunately the association between creationism and engineers is so strong that it has aquired a name on the talk.origins newsgroup (the "Salem hypothesis"). Often creationist engineers even call themselves scientists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
PaulK, you don't have to tell me...my brother is an aerospace engineer and he was buying into all of that ID crappola, like the eye being too complex...the probability is too small for proteins to have evolved...bla, bla, bla (we don't discuss evolution too much anymore, so I'm not sure what he "believes" now). In my reply to schrafinator I was just trying to be a bit funny (and apparently I failed) about the common misuse of the words "each" and "every"
...as in: I wish I had a dollar for every time You would have a single dollar. I actually enjoyed reading schrafinator's post and pretty much agree with what was written.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: If by "prideful" you mean "arrogant and self-righteous", then I would say that most Christians I have encountered on these boards are quite prideful. So, I don't see how being a Christian helps in that department.
quote: Hmm, I wouldn't have used marriage as an example of selfishness; I think of my marriage as a give and take sort of partnership, but that's just me. Anyway, individual selfishness is always tempered by the culture and society in which that individual lives. It can be said that Americans are encouraged by our culture to be quite individually selfish, while the Japanese culture strongly encourages to suppress individual desires in favor of group harmony and cohesiveness. Interestingly, most Japanese are Buddhist, not Christian, yet we see less selfishness in that culture. If selfishness is such a terrible sin, then it seems that to eliminate it we should all become Buddhists.
quote: Of course, I don't believe that we need to invent something called "sin" to acknowledge that people hurt other people. It's just part of living in groups. Living with others always involves some conflict and negotiation. Do you have some data to back up the claim that believers in Christs hurt others less?
quote: So says you. Nobody knows what happens after you die, so everybody's ideas are equally valid.
quote: Well, so says you.
quote: I believe that you are honest and sincere, but the fact of the matter is that the message you are forced to deliver is one of fear of the unknown and fear of abandonment. That's the tone of your message.
quote: Right. How is this different from any other religion?
quote: Um, how do you know that it isn't your "faulty senses" (or perfectly normal senses and brain activity) that convinces you of all of these things? IOW, how do I tell the difference between one persons subjective experience of Christs and another person's objective experience of Allah and another person't subjective experience of Vishnu? I cannot, because each person's experience is completely unique and experienced only by them. That is why subjective experience is not rational.
quote:This then produces some ignorant agnostics or atheists who think they understand science but in reality don’t even know what a differential equation is.[/quote] One doesn't need to know what a differential equation is to understand science. Science is a method of inquiry and understanding the method doesn't require any math or equations at all.
quote: Yes, but which explanation has evidence, and the evidence can be observed and shown to people regardless of religious belief?
quote: It is not true that within Atheism all morals are relative.
quote: You don't understand much about Atheism, do you?
quote: Ah, here is where your mathematician mind gets in your way. Why do you expect life to provide you with all answers, free of contradiction? How is "God exists" a satisfying explanation to anything? It explains nothing.
quote: Or, we can't know if God exists or not.
quote: What evidence? You haven't provided any.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
God & evolution are not incompatible. ......Nor is age and appearance of age, depending on how literal you take what the Bible says and teaches.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
literalism doesn't work. Well brother, I guess that depends on how supernatural one considers God/Jehovah to be.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024