We Need Another Christianity Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]Hold Up wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Hold Up wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Hold Up wrote:

I see Atheism as the Lack of Theism. More along the lines of taking the position that there are no “dieties”. Labeling “something” as God is rather naive, and intellectually lazy at best. (My opinion, of course).

God can’t be proven or disproven. But the justifications for the lack of proof are rather humorous.[/quote]

Really? You didn’t you your home work you naughty boy…Now you sound stupid. Shame.[/quote]

As most here that are debating, lacking in credibility…despite apparent study.
[/quote]

Prove me wrong.[/quote]

On the definition that Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity? [/quote]

No on this:
"When using the Scientific Method, “God” is not in the mix and Never affects the outcome. “God” doesn’t violate the laws of physics. Which means one should take all the supernatural explanations for events out of written (by people) texts, and analyze appropriately.

Philosophical discussions on God/Religion… (appears to be the only argument for existence) I’ll abstain."

In that ‘God’ isn’t subject to the scientific method, therefore he does not exist.

Like I told somebody else, I love science as much as the next guy, but if you look at history, it’s has spent most of it’s life being wrong. Same with many theories today. Relativity and QM both break down at the extremes, you have mutliple theories including various flavors of string threory to try an reconcile it, but it is incomplete. Now you have introduced at least the possibility that the speed of light threshold can be compromised, etc., etc.

A lot of atheists make the mistake of replacing religion with science. They may know a lot about one and not the other. I know about both, and they are not conflicting ideas, they are different disciplines all together. It’s a mistake that both do the same thing, they don’t at all.

262

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
Sexmachine,

Many words have been used to describe me, but “clever” is not one of them.

My post is inspired by my opinion that Christian faith is symptomatic of a masochistic need to be punished, to be continuously observed and so on. You all tell me I don’t have a firm grasp of the scriptures and fair enough, I accept that. However, it doesn’t take more than perusing the NT to see that Jesus would convict us of thought crime, for example. And lest ye forget, I can see how Christians act and speak, how their minds work (no they are not all the same I’m not saying that).

Pat,

I appreciate what your saying, but coming to the logical conclusion of there being an ultimate, omnipresent, omnipotent being doesn’t validate the belief you have in the life and teachings of Jesus. My own father tells me he believes in God because he believes in Jesus. Well… I don’t. See, it doesn’t matter if Aristotle and Socrates ever lived, because their logic and methods stand on their own without help of virgin births or any other incredulous claims.
[/quote]

One step at a time. Don’t you need to believe in God first before you can know anything about him?
I appreciate the respectful tone. If you are, I will be too.
[Edit] The principles Jesus taught work today as they always have. Love your neighbor, threat everybody with love and respect, love your enemy, do unto others, all work in practice whether Jesus existed or not, or whether he was born to a virgin or whether he walked water or not. He moral tenets work, I would argue you do indeed practice some of them from time to time.

Keep in mind the Bible isn’t ‘a book’ it’s a lot of books. Each has it’s own purpose and reason for being. It’s really hard to make the blanket statement ‘The Bible says…’ Yeah it says a lot of things.

263

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Hold Up wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Hold Up wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Hold Up wrote:

I see Atheism as the Lack of Theism. More along the lines of taking the position that there are no “dieties”. Labeling “something” as God is rather naive, and intellectually lazy at best. (My opinion, of course).

God can’t be proven or disproven. But the justifications for the lack of proof are rather humorous.[/quote]

Really? You didn’t you your home work you naughty boy…Now you sound stupid. Shame.[/quote]

As most here that are debating, lacking in credibility…despite apparent study.
[/quote]

Prove me wrong.[/quote]

On the definition that Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity? [/quote]

No on this:
"When using the Scientific Method, “God” is not in the mix and Never affects the outcome. “God” doesn’t violate the laws of physics. Which means one should take all the supernatural explanations for events out of written (by people) texts, and analyze appropriately.

Philosophical discussions on God/Religion… (appears to be the only argument for existence) I’ll abstain."

In that ‘God’ isn’t subject to the scientific method, therefore he does not exist.

Like I told somebody else, I love science as much as the next guy, but if you look at history, it’s has spent most of it’s life being wrong. Same with many theories today. Relativity and QM both break down at the extremes, you have mutliple theories including various flavors of string threory to try an reconcile it, but it is incomplete. Now you have introduced at least the possibility that the speed of light threshold can be compromised, etc., etc.

A lot of atheists make the mistake of replacing religion with science. They may know a lot about one and not the other. I know about both, and they are not conflicting ideas, they are different disciplines all together. It’s a mistake that both do the same thing, they don’t at all. [/quote]

Of course you can subject God to the Scientific Method. Sounds like a fruitless venture. When forming and testing theories, there is no need to account for supernatural entities or events.

264

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
Sexmachine,

Many words have been used to describe me, but “clever” is not one of them.

My post is inspired by my opinion that Christian faith is symptomatic of a masochistic need to be punished, to be continuously observed and so on. You all tell me I don’t have a firm grasp of the scriptures and fair enough, I accept that. However, it doesn’t take more than perusing the NT to see that Jesus would convict us of thought crime, for example. And lest ye forget, I can see how Christians act and speak, how their minds work (no they are not all the same I’m not saying that).

Pat,

I appreciate what your saying, but coming to the logical conclusion of there being an ultimate, omnipresent, omnipotent being doesn’t validate the belief you have in the life and teachings of Jesus. My own father tells me he believes in God because he believes in Jesus. Well… I don’t. See, it doesn’t matter if Aristotle and Socrates ever lived, because their logic and methods stand on their own without help of virgin births or any other incredulous claims.
[/quote]

One step at a time. Don’t you need to believe in God first before you can know anything about him?
I appreciate the respectful tone. If you are, I will be too.[/quote]

Civility is a little over rated I find, but I’ll give it the old college try :slight_smile:

Believing in God… well all of us and all that is must certainly reside SOMEWHERE. Amirite? And there must be an ultimate truth to everything. The question becomes: how much do you trust your senses, which is basically all that we are, a bundle of sensations associated with the self (to quote David Hume).

Have you ever had a dream where you suddenly realize you’re in a dream? If so, what do you try to do when that happens?

265

[quote]pat wrote:

Fair enough, but you have no basis to say people are wrong or right and you have damn sure have no right to poke fun at anybody since is may be you who is wrong.[/quote]

Who have I made fun of?

I have no basis? I can say based on the relative world people are wrong or what they believe in is highly improbable at the very least.

If I told someone over the Internet they are wrong to believe lollipops are a better carb source than rice for body composition, would I have no basis?

I mean I can’t say with absolute certainty that it is true, since I haven’t observed firsthand how his body reacts to different foods.

266

[quote]pat wrote:

Absolutely not. I love science, I respect the discipline greatly, but I also understand it for what it is. Science uses an inductive reasoning. In a nut shell it establishes implied causation based on observed correlation. It’s a very important difference that deductive reasoning. Science gives us likely possibilities, deductive reasoning deals in absolutes. It’s a big difference. When you put your faith in something, you need to know it’s reality. Science infers things based on observation. As a result, historically, it has spent most it’s time being wrong. Just look at the history of science to know this to be true.

Now let me stop you before you go there. I love science. I am greatly interested in the stuff of science and it’s discoveries. I am not a biblical literalness. I believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, this current universe is between 13.5 and 15 billion years old. I believe that in 5 billion years the Andromeda galaxy will slam in to the Milky Way sending most of the stars in the outer bands (where we are) flying in to space so if we haven’t ended by then, that will certainly do it. I believe evolution is good solid science. I believe science and religion are completely different disciplines that intersect. All disciplines intersect at some point if you follow them to the bitter end.

[/quote]

The thing with science is it’s a self-correcting process. It is the most reliable method for obtaining information we have. Even if it’s been wrong in the past, it is the closest thing to a correct answer we have.

Another problem I have with a god belief is that once you insert a god, you stop looking for scientific answers.

In the past we attributed lightening to the Greek God Zeus. Imagine if we didn’t bother looking for a scientific explanation and chose instead to except the Zeus explanation as fact.

267

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Another problem I have with a god belief is that once you insert a god, you stop looking for scientific answers.

[/quote]

Friend, you have some of the most foundational scientific answers today due to the work of god-believing folk, long before you were born.

268

[quote]pat wrote:

No on this:
"When using the Scientific Method, “God” is not in the mix and Never affects the outcome. “God” doesn’t violate the laws of physics. Which means one should take all the supernatural explanations for events out of written (by people) texts, and analyze appropriately.

Philosophical discussions on God/Religion… (appears to be the only argument for existence) I’ll abstain."

In that ‘God’ isn’t subject to the scientific method, therefore he does not exist.

Like I told somebody else, I love science as much as the next guy, but if you look at history, it’s has spent most of it’s life being wrong. Same with many theories today. Relativity and QM both break down at the extremes, you have mutliple theories including various flavors of string threory to try an reconcile it, but it is incomplete. Now you have introduced at least the possibility that the speed of light threshold can be compromised, etc., etc.

A lot of atheists make the mistake of replacing religion with science. They may know a lot about one and not the other. I know about both, and they are not conflicting ideas, they are different disciplines all together. It’s a mistake that both do the same thing, they don’t at all. [/quote]

That I could all agree with, except with that God does not violate the laws of physics.

He might, but when he does the laws of physics do not apply and scientific inquiry is useless.

Which leads to it not being science anyway, but via a different route.

Or you are arguing the “even God cannot violate the laws of physics” idea, which after all also has a long and proud tradition.

269

[quote]Hold Up wrote:

Of course you can subject God to the Scientific Method. Sounds like a fruitless venture. When forming and testing theories, there is no need to account for supernatural entities or events. [/quote]

No.

God is by definition untestable.

270

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Another problem I have with a god belief is that once you insert a god, you stop looking for scientific answers.

[/quote]

That is false, the Catholic church by and large believed in a God who created a rational universe.

Whether that was the basis of their relationship with science or whether they started to believe that to keep the relationship with science they had is debatable, but that is part of their ongoing revelation, the deeper inquiry into Gods creation.

A believe in a supernatural being, can do both, it is what you make it.

271

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Absolutely not. I love science, I respect the discipline greatly, but I also understand it for what it is. Science uses an inductive reasoning. In a nut shell it establishes implied causation based on observed correlation. It’s a very important difference that deductive reasoning. Science gives us likely possibilities, deductive reasoning deals in absolutes. It’s a big difference. When you put your faith in something, you need to know it’s reality. Science infers things based on observation. As a result, historically, it has spent most it’s time being wrong. Just look at the history of science to know this to be true.

Now let me stop you before you go there. I love science. I am greatly interested in the stuff of science and it’s discoveries. I am not a biblical literalness. I believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, this current universe is between 13.5 and 15 billion years old. I believe that in 5 billion years the Andromeda galaxy will slam in to the Milky Way sending most of the stars in the outer bands (where we are) flying in to space so if we haven’t ended by then, that will certainly do it. I believe evolution is good solid science. I believe science and religion are completely different disciplines that intersect. All disciplines intersect at some point if you follow them to the bitter end.

[/quote]

The thing with science is it’s a self-correcting process. It is the most reliable method for obtaining information we have. Even if it’s been wrong in the past, it is the closest thing to a correct answer we have.

Another problem I have with a god belief is that once you insert a god, you stop looking for scientific answers.
[/quote]
No you don’t, or you shouldn’t. What you are positing is called a ‘God of gaps’ modality. ‘God of gaps’ arguments basically said that what was unknown is due to God. Most theists don’t do that today.
To say religions don’t self correct is not historically accurate. I am sure you as many atheists will happily point out many mistakes that have been done on behalf of religions through out history. Just like with anything else, you insert the human element and humans are bound to fuck things up. Religions self correct too. But they correct course back to what they should originally been doing. The point is to keep your eye on the prize.
Religion is kind of like following the stars for naval navigation, when you see you going off course, you correct the ship to point it back in the right direction. This will happen until the end of man.

Science doesn’t have a prize in mind. It’s job is to test and make observations and give us the best guess based on the information we have. Like I said there are places the two intersect, but they that doesn’t mean they are the same thing. Cooking and science intersect, but cooking isn’t science.

In the past we attributed lightening to the Greek God Zeus. Imagine if we didn’t bother looking for a scientific explanation and chose instead to except the Zeus explanation as fact.

[/quote]

272

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No on this:
"When using the Scientific Method, “God” is not in the mix and Never affects the outcome. “God” doesn’t violate the laws of physics. Which means one should take all the supernatural explanations for events out of written (by people) texts, and analyze appropriately.

Philosophical discussions on God/Religion… (appears to be the only argument for existence) I’ll abstain."

In that ‘God’ isn’t subject to the scientific method, therefore he does not exist.

Like I told somebody else, I love science as much as the next guy, but if you look at history, it’s has spent most of it’s life being wrong. Same with many theories today. Relativity and QM both break down at the extremes, you have mutliple theories including various flavors of string threory to try an reconcile it, but it is incomplete. Now you have introduced at least the possibility that the speed of light threshold can be compromised, etc., etc.

A lot of atheists make the mistake of replacing religion with science. They may know a lot about one and not the other. I know about both, and they are not conflicting ideas, they are different disciplines all together. It’s a mistake that both do the same thing, they don’t at all. [/quote]

That I could all agree with, except with that God does not violate the laws of physics.
[/quote]
But you don’t believe in God, so how can you say something that does not exist violates the laws of physics?
Second, you know the argument necessarily posits that if Necessary Being=God, he must necessarily sit outside the causal chain. Anything that does that is not subject to any laws what-so-ever.

You must have read something wrong. There is no way I would ever say ^^ that.

273

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Another problem I have with a god belief is that once you insert a god, you stop looking for scientific answers.

[/quote]

That is false, the Catholic church by and large believed in a God who created a rational universe.
[/quote]
In the middle ages, sure. People believed in dragons. Sciece thought the Earth was flat, the sun went around it, and stars were points of light.
Look at what the Catholic Church says now.
Further, ultimately we still believe in God and that he is the creator, the source of all existence. That hasn’t changed. What changed is the method. We use philosophy and science to back up philosophy these days and have for quite a while now.
Don’t believe me, go look it up.

[quote]
Whether that was the basis of their relationship with science or whether they started to believe that to keep the relationship with science they had is debatable, but that is part of their ongoing revelation, the deeper inquiry into Gods creation.

A believe in a supernatural being, can do both, it is what you make it. [/quote]

I don’t believe God is supernatural, I think his existence is the most natural and necessary thing in existence.

274

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t believe God is supernatural, I think his existence is the most natural and necessary thing in existence.[/quote]

If he fucks with the rules for what reason ever, he is just that, supernatural.

The only way you could have both God as a necessity and Him still being God is that he could fuck with us but chooses not to.

275

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t believe God is supernatural, I think his existence is the most natural and necessary thing in existence.[/quote]

If he fucks with the rules for what reason ever, he is just that, supernatural.

The only way you could have both God as a necessity and Him still being God is that he could fuck with us but chooses not to.

[/quote]

If he’s subject to the rules he wouldn’t be a very powerful God, would he? ‘The rules’ are part of the causal chain that all roll up to Him, ultimately.

276

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t believe God is supernatural, I think his existence is the most natural and necessary thing in existence.[/quote]

If he fucks with the rules for what reason ever, he is just that, supernatural.

The only way you could have both God as a necessity and Him still being God is that he could fuck with us but chooses not to.

[/quote]

If he’s subject to the rules he wouldn’t be a very powerful God, would he? ‘The rules’ are part of the causal chain that all roll up to Him, ultimately.[/quote]

Ya, what I wrote was rubbish.

You would have to want all that AND to preserve the scientific method, then he would have to choose not to violate his own laws.

Otherwise “God did it” would be the only answer.

277

There’s “God did it.”

Then, there’s “God did it. Now, let’s explore how he did it, to the best of our human limitations.”

278

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Hold Up wrote:

Of course you can subject God to the Scientific Method. Sounds like a fruitless venture. When forming and testing theories, there is no need to account for supernatural entities or events. [/quote]

No.

God is by definition untestable. [/quote]

Hmmm. Can you not test the success/failure rate of prayer? How bout testing the success/failure rate of raising someone from the dead, or walking on water, etc.? Seems using God Like Faith should be easier and more successful since every “Christian” has access to it and its the same faith that conquered Satan and raised Jesus from the dead, right?

Any supposed miracle been proven? Seems that can be tested, no?

279

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t believe God is supernatural, I think his existence is the most natural and necessary thing in existence.[/quote]

If he fucks with the rules for what reason ever, he is just that, supernatural.

The only way you could have both God as a necessity and Him still being God is that he could fuck with us but chooses not to.

[/quote]

If he’s subject to the rules he wouldn’t be a very powerful God, would he? ‘The rules’ are part of the causal chain that all roll up to Him, ultimately.[/quote]

Ya, what I wrote was rubbish.

You would have to want all that AND to preserve the scientific method, then he would have to choose not to violate his own laws.

Otherwise “God did it” would be the only answer. [/quote]

Depends on what you are talking about… The scientific method is just the stuff of science. That’s a narrow scope really. Anomalies are built in to the scientific method since it functions on probabilities and uses statistically significant data versus absolutes. God sits out side of that. It’s a function of his creation rather than the other way around.

He seldom violates scientific laws, when he does we generally like to call those miracles…It may or may not be the case depends on what you are talking about and how verifiable it is. For the record, if someone yells ‘Miracle!’ I will also be skeptical first. I don’t believe the Virgin Mary appeared on a piece of toast or a road sign.

280

[quote]Hold Up wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Hold Up wrote:

Of course you can subject God to the Scientific Method. Sounds like a fruitless venture. When forming and testing theories, there is no need to account for supernatural entities or events. [/quote]

No.

God is by definition untestable. [/quote]

Hmmm. Can you not test the success/failure rate of prayer? How bout testing the success/failure rate of raising someone from the dead, or walking on water, etc.? Seems using God Like Faith should be easier and more successful since every “Christian” has access to it and its the same faith that conquered Satan and raised Jesus from the dead, right?

Any supposed miracle been proven? Seems that can be tested, no?
[/quote]

Well that’s not God, that’s miracles and provided you have access to them you can test them to one degree or another. There is one in particular that comes to mind and it has been tested, but I am loathed to discuss it with you as I sense you’ll jump on any chance to make mockery.