How Much Do You Know About Christianity?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1281

[quote]pushharder wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
…As such, they must be kept away from children by any means necessary.

In a world where determinism rules, WHY?

In a world where “right and wrong” are mere constructs of neurological activity, WHY?

It is BAD for society, which in turn will be BAD for me. A society that allows pedophilia to go unchecked is not a society I want to be a part of.

Millions of ex-Catholics agree with me.

ZING!

More like Zig-Zag.

You know what I meant. If “Right and Wrong” are mere products of matter and energy then who are you or I to say what is Right and Wrong?[/quote]

I’m not saying its Right or Wrong, I’m saying its bad for me if this behavior is allowed, so I am against it. And since the consequences of the behavior are severe, so too must be the deterrents.

1283

[quote]pushharder wrote:
pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
In Quebec?

If you’re talking about the U.S. whatdafuk do you care? Mind your own business.

Because your Christian groups link up with our Christian groups. For some odd reason, some of the most retarded fads that begin in the US (such as the anti-vax movement or the ID movement) soon find their way here, often starting in the “we-wish-we-were-Texas” western provinces.

Ahhhhh…the heart of the matter. The French-Anglo conflict rears its ugly head here
on the Nation of Testosterone. Thanks for that revealing glimpse, Cardinal Pook.

Our current science minister does not buy evolution and is a creationist. 'magine that.

Interesting. He MUST be a dumb fuck, huh?

Guess what else happened recently? There were deep cuts made to the Canadian science research budget. Who need R&D when it’s all in the Bible, right?

And this was the fault of creationists and Christians?

Maybe for you. Science is a well defined tool to learn about the world as long as it meets my atheistic standards.

Fixed that for you.

If you weren’t simply interested in subverting it to defend pre-ordained conclusions, you might even like it. ~As quoted by Bishop Pook yesterday during Mass.

Finally. Pushy’s little brain manages to grab a smidgen of glucose and forms a thought. Alleluia!

You’re right. I reserve all of my glucose for post workout implementation. Your smidgeon leaks out your big toe.

Yap, yap, yap.

Been over all this before.

[/quote]

You sure make a strong case for your position.

1285

[quote]pushharder wrote:
In Quebec?

If you’re talking about the U.S. whatdafuk do you care? Mind your own business.[/quote]

This has to to be the single most retarded answer ever. What the USA does affects what the rest of the world does.

1286

[quote]pushharder wrote:
In Quebec?

If you’re talking about the U.S. whatdafuk do you care? Mind your own business.[/quote]

This has to to be the single most retarded answer ever. What the USA does affects what the rest of the world does.

1287

[quote]pushharder wrote:
In Quebec?

If you’re talking about the U.S. whatdafuk do you care? Mind your own business.[/quote]

This has to to be the single most retarded answer ever. What the USA does affects what the rest of the world does.

1288

[quote]Chushin wrote:
I’m genuinely surprised that you only concern yourself with those things that directly impact you personally at the present time. [/quote]

Those aren’t the only concerns, but if there are present concerns, it’s better to address those first, before taking on distant, potential problems that might not even realize.

1289

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
I have already pulled this apart for you, how does it not work? Show me.

Find our old thread and read. Wikipedia has a fair summary of the whole thing. Or just google “Kalam Cosmological Argument” and you’ll have reams of sites “for” and “against” you can peruse. Having read enough of both to be bored to tears by that approach, I have found most of the against much more convincing and generally thorough in their analysis.

You’re free to disagree, but nothing is proven one way or another.
[/quote]
The cosmological augment is as sound as a logical argument could be. The only weakness it has is not a weakness in the argument itself, it is ourselves and our inability to verify all of it’s premises. While it leaves room for some decent, the refutations are easily refuted as well.
I am well aware of the old thread, I pulled it apart earlier in this thread too, some where around pg. 25.
As far a presenting a “weaker” version of the argument, I don’t see how I did that since I posted several links to several versions of cosmological argument, not a version of my own.
[/quote]

Please provide your other explanations for “things”, existence, life, etc. Where does it come from, why is it here? Why does everything follow the laws and principals we discover about their behavior, why are they bound to it?

The true answer is: We don’t know. We might know someday, or we might never know. Maybe we can’t know.

That answer, as unsatisfying as it may be, is truer than any imaginary answer you make up to satisfy the question.

If you prefer a fantasy answer, fine, I don’t mind. I do mind when large group of people start trying to force their fantasy answer on everyone; or try to limit the freedoms of others by invoking God-given unchangeable dogma. I’ll take my laws secular, reasoned and amendable, thank you very much.
[/quote]

What a cop out…So you don’t have an explination and don’t want to be bothered by one, but your damn sure there is no God. That is your argument? You don’t know, but by golly, there ain’t no God because you haven’t seen him?

1290

[quote]pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
pookie wrote:
…I do mind when large group of people start trying to force their fantasy answer on everyone…

Heed your own words, Budd.

Where did I suggest that atheism be legislated on everyone?

Where did I suggest that Christianity be legislated on everyone?

As I pointed out to Pat, various Christian groups are trying to get prayer in schools, creationism taught as scientific, wish to decide who can marry who and how; outlaw abortions for any reason, shut down scientific research involving genetics; etc. all based on the Big Book of Stuff they hold as being absolutely true.
[/quote]

Ok, so there are activist atheist groups out there too, so what? People acting dumb, doesn’t invalidate an entire religion, ideology, methodology, etc. Stupid people exist every where.

1291

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
pushharder wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:

Your just assigning properties to the soul that it does not have. The soul isn’t the same as personality or behavior. The brain controls that stuff. You physical and spiritual matter act upon each other, but not in the ways you are thinking they do.

If the brain, which I’m arguing is a purely physical entity, controls my actions and personality in their entirety, what’s left over for the soul to do and be judged by?

Would you entertain the idea that the soul and the brain work together in some yet to be explained fashion?

I would argue that the soul does not influence you at all, rather you affect it. If the soul had control over you, you would not have freewill. You soul is you in that it is what makes you alive and tethers you the the metaphysical world. It is part of the life force yet each person has an individual one.
Your going to get to animals so I’ll go ahead and address it, yes they have some form of it, that are connected to the “life force” as all living things are. It is not the same as ours, we have the freewill to deny our nature animals cannot consciously do that. All living things, plant and animal are connected to the life energy which is a single unifying force that unite all living things in that aspect. The depth of that connection is debatable, however, it is a connection of some sort. Life takes and gives energy a kind that is unique and has yet to be defined as to what exactly “it” is.
I know the terminology makes make sound like a yoga practicing crystal worshiper, I assure that’s not the case. That “level” is just a lower level of spirituality, but it’s a metaphysical step toward the source.

I’m not real sure where you’re coming from here, ie what your particular beliefs are, so I’m going to assume you believe the soul lives on forever and is punished or rewarded for your behavior here on earth. If that’s not what you believe, feel free to correct me and ignore my question below.

If my soul has no control over me or what I do, then how is it fair to judge and punish my soul for the things I’ve done?
[/quote]

All I am saying is that you gave the soul attributes it does not have. It does not control behaviour, it is not your personality, etc. Rather you act on it.

I don’t know everything about the soul, it is still a mystery in many respects.I don’t know why we have one, what it’s for, etc.

1292

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
It seems people are recognizing that the brain and environment influence the choices we make. Given that, what proof do you have that anything exists beyond the brain and environment? Why is it necessary to come up with a magical construct to explain something that is already explainable? If the brain and environment can influence our choices 50% or 75% why not 100%?

I stated earlier that people are assigning all kinds of attributes to soul that it does not posses. If the soul was the main arbitrator of your behavior you would not have freewill right? We act on the soul not the other way around.

The choice is provided, often times by environment. The brain analyzes the facts and an act of will exercises the choice. “Will” is not a physical thing. It may be postulated by the brain, but in it self is something different otherwise it would not be different.

I think you missed his point. There is ample evidence of the influence the things in this world have on our behavior. Just because we can’t build a complete enough case to show that 100% of our behavior is dictated by this world, doesn’t give us license to assume that “will” and souls are at work.
[/quote]
Sure environment has a huge influence on behavior and so does genetics, but we are not simply reactive creatures. We make considerations, we weigh decisions, etc. We are not robots.
[/quote]
On another note, you seem to have a lot of non-physical entities in your theology. How do you believe they interact with one another and us? Also, if I’m not my soul, and I’m not entirely my physical self, what am I? Just trying to get a feel of where you’re coming from.
[/quote]

This is the more interesting question. Some examples of metaphysical entities we deal with everyday are: ideas, love, group think(mob mentality), concepts, premonitions, thoughts, groupings,etc.
These are all things that exist, but they cannot be measured and they darn sure aren’t physical in anyway. You can generate an image in your mind of a car, and while an electo-chemical reaction was require to generate the image, the image is not the same as the chemical reaction. You can’t create a mental image in a petri dish.
Once you understand that you actually deal with non-physical objects all the time. What’s beyond that doesn’t seem so far fetched, hell it actually becomes more likely.

This did not come from theology or any religion. It started with Plato. Look up Plato’s “forms”. It’s the only thing he ever really contributed that was worth a damn, however it was/is a big deal. Here is a link.

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/platform.htm

1293

The illusion of choice;

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html

On the subject of free will I urge people who interested to try meditating. While doing this, focus on observing your thoughts as they appear. It eventually becomes apparent that “you” are not necessarily the author of your thoughts.

1294

[quote]pat wrote:
…our inability to verify all of it’s premises.[/quote]

The premises are unverifiable, but the argument is rock solid and ergo, the conclusion is true. Yup, you’re a sharp one.

Neither do you. Inventing answers gives you nothing. In fact, since it’s most probably wrong, it’s arguably worse than admitting ignorance.

Of course, you don’t seem to have the mental fortitude required to deal with “we don’t know” and require the comfort provided by an invisible daddy-figure watching over you.

I don’t know there is no God. Do you believe in fairies, elves, dragons, unicorns, Odin, Zeus, Sherlock Holmes, etc? Why not? Why are you sure these entities don’t exist?

You see, there’s the problem. For 99.9% of your interaction with the world, you reason exactly as any atheist does. You don’t worry about being eaten by a boogeyman in your closet, or being attacked by an under-bed monster. Why? Because there has never been any evidence of either of those creatures really existing, outside of fertile imaginations.

But when it comes to God, who has no more evidence for his existence than elves do, then you completely reverse your normal, reasonable process: You assume existence, and then find “evidence” to back it up. Anything we don’t yet understand well is “explained” by God’s intervention. A whole mythological edifice has been erected around that idea. But just as very detailed fictional universes - such as Star Wars, Star Trek or Lord of the Rings - can be imagined and documented down to the most excrutiatingly trivial factoid, similarly, the “God” meme has been built. Many thousand times over, by countless religions.

Even the best story is still just a story.

1295

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
…our inability to verify all of it’s premises.

The premises are unverifiable, but the argument is rock solid and ergo, the conclusion is true. Yup, you’re a sharp one.
[/quote]
Many of the premises are, but an inability to refute the argument makes it a strong one yes, it does.

I invented nothing. You haven’t be able to prove it is even a little wrong muchless most probably. You are just being lazy or just plain scared that seeking answers to such questions may disturb you little cocoon of ignorance.

As you require the comfort of not wanting to know, because examining such things may force you to change.

The other entities exist as stories and make believe. They do not exist out side of that because no exercise of pure reason and no evidence beyond that exists for them. They were created and invented to be stories. An uncaused-cause does not meet that same definition.

There is, of course, evidence for God’s existence. Even in your very being. You cannot give me a valid explanation for where “things” come from. You could not even give me a valid argument of alternative explanations to God’s existence. You just join the discussion to put down what a theist believes but you have no explanation yourself and offer nothing but a “trust me” factor.
Then you come with this crap that you cannot affirm a negative, which you could if God was a negative but you argue a void, not a negative.
If not God, then where does everything come from? If not God then what? If your best answer is you don’t know and you can’t be bothered to find out, then you got no business mocking what others believe. You haven’t a good reason to believe what you believe, but you hope like hell your right.

1296

[quote]pat wrote:
Many of the premises are, but an inability to refute the argument makes it a strong one yes, it does.[/quote]

Well, if it works that way, here goes:

Premise 1: There is no God.
Premise 2: Premise 1 is absolutely true.

Argument: Since both Premise 1 and 2 and true, then God does not exist.

See? My argument is just as strong as yours.

Oh, wait.

Premise 3: Pat is always wrong about everything.

See? Now my argument is way stronger and yours is puny, weak and wrong. Thanks Premise 3!

The rest of your crap bores me.

1298

[quote]pookie wrote:
You see, there’s the problem. For 99.9% of your interaction with the world, you reason exactly as any atheist does.
[/quote]

Exactly, everyone knows what it’s like to be an atheist. Everyone is in fact an atheist about many thousands of gods. Some of us just apply that logic consistently, and as Richard Dawkins says, go one god further.

1299

[quote]pat wrote:
If not God, then where does everything come from? If not God then what?[/quote]

By “god”, I’m sure you mean “my god”, rather than the thousands of other “gods” people have created for themselves over the millenia. Because literally billions of people have placed their faith in some god other than your own, and have believed just as devoutly in their god as you do in yours.

Or there may not be any “gods” at all. For example, it is very possible that matter and energy have always existed, without needing to posit some supernatural entity to create them. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for some support of this idea.

There’s no shame in admitting you don’t know. In fact, doing so is the most honest and admirable approach, when in fact you really don’t know. Making up stories to explain what you don’t know, and insisting those stories are true when you have no reliable objective evidence for them, and calling this insistence “faith” but refusing to recognize the “faith” of people that have made up very different stories from you, doesn’t earn you a gold star in the search for truth.

1300

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
Many of the premises are, but an inability to refute the argument makes it a strong one yes, it does.

Well, if it works that way, here goes:

Premise 1: There is no God.
Premise 2: Premise 1 is absolutely true.

Argument: Since both Premise 1 and 2 and true, then God does not exist.

See? My argument is just as strong as yours.

Oh, wait.

Premise 3: Pat is always wrong about everything.

See? Now my argument is way stronger and yours is puny, weak and wrong. Thanks Premise 3!

The rest of your crap bores me.
[/quote]

Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy, try again, hoss.