Originally posted by Aelfinn Interesting, it appears that we've had thoughts along the same lines, but came to a different conclusion. I always had been bothered by those same concepts. When I learned about the Nicean council, and thought about what the existance of such actually meant, particularly at that time and place in history, it led me to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church, and subsequently its progeny, was flawed at its roots in one of the worst ways possible. The Church's role in society today gave me no indication that matters had changed, except that they had a little less direct control. I believe the primary turning point down the path I chose to take was that I could find no rational reason for a benevolent god to abandon his people without an untainted guide.
Hmmm. What is this tainted guide of which you speak?
If you mean the Church, then it is merely sinful human nature asserting itself time and again. If you mean the Bible, well, it is what it is -- it is not really a "guide," as such, but a testimony of God's interaction with a set of humans. It is more than and less than any guide.
But for a moment, let us imagine God leaving us something like a perfect guide. What would that do to Liberty? It would destroy it.
Just as irrevocable proof of God would also destroy freedom. Destroy freedom you destroy love. Destroy love and you destroy the reason why man was created.
That'd just suck.
Now if you do not believe that a good creed was established at Nicea, I would disagree with you. If you do not agree with the Canon of the new testament 9which was actually established by later ecumenical councils I believe), I would also disagree. The Bible we have is that which people could agree to with near unanimity, and the other gospels and epistles while interesting, could not be verified and would have made the Bible much more tainted.
A really GREAT book on this is The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger. That and his other book, The Text of the New Testament are indispensible if you really want a very well researched history of the Bible.
Either way you do have a guide. It's called the Holy Spirit. You are however free to misuse it, lie about it, fake it, and so on -- again, God will never remove your freedom -- but it's there ready to counsel both of us whenever we ask it to. We just have to listen.
Like Yoda says...you will know, when you are calm, at peace.
Both really. The Church in my view is particularly unreliable because it was founded on the principle of giving men power, and still continues to serve that purpose.
The Bible itself is less clear cut, it was written by mankind, the first portion by and for a crude, nearly barbaric nomadic race like thousands of others, then the following books by dozens of individuals whose motives remain unclear and contradictory in nature. Finally both parts were heavily edited by men who wanted a new means to solidify control of a rapidly destabilizing empire. With any other text, any of those three would have been enough to make me chuck it in the trash if it failed to be entertaining as pure fiction. The one thing that makes me hesitate in that regard is the fact that it continues to hold a few good lessons on living life well.
P.S. I still wonder why the Nicean councils threw out the story of Lillith. I'm debating between a few wives twisting ears, and them deciding to be a little less obvious with the chauvinistic principles.
Well, it is still the best record we have of the peoples it describes, and points toward the one called the Messiah, who was realized in Christ.
What is amazing is not how poor it is as history, but how good it is as history. compared with other similar documents of that part of the world.
The councils threw out anything that Jews themselves regarded as apocryphal at the time of jesus. the Jews at the time threw out that which they could not find a record of dating back their ancient times.
Again, I HIGHLY recommend the two books I mentioned above. Nobody has studied the facts here about scripture better than Metzger. Seems to me there's some tainted education about the history of the Bible there... heh.
There is something worth noting though.
Note that the Church is NOT the Catholoc Church, at least as the Bible desrcribes it. the Church are the totality of believers.
Note that it is the Bible that brought about the Protestant reformation -- particularly Martin Luther reading Romans, Galations, and Psalms and realizing that salvation comes from faith, not works -- which pretty much destroyed the power of the Church.
Then it was the Bible that brought about the Grace revolution that i am part of, where we see in Jesus words and deeds something about the character of the God we worship that says that faith is the PRODUCT of salvation, not its cause, and the cause of salvation is God's Grace. This started in the early 1800s and is still going on.
The Bible checks the Church, and these things are worked out within the Church through reformation. No other religion has this dynamic, and I think its pretty cool.
Originally posted by girlgeek I have YET to meet an atheist OR a Christian that has the goal of "expanding their knowledge" when entering into one of these so-called "discussions."
I have three co-workers with whom I usually discuss religion (and politics). One is Catholic, one is Muslim, and one is born again. I will refrain from disclosing what I am.
The discussions do not center around religion, but rather around a specific point of a religion. And they do not itterate that point, but are a series of questions regarding that point. Eventually, through that series of questions, inconsistencies occur.
For example, the born again believes that Christ died for our sins, and only thru belief in Jesus Christ is your soul saved. Obviously the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself would take exception to this, all for different reasons. So we talk about this point.
We ask him how someone could believe that Jesus dies for their sins, and accept God, if, by your actions, you continue to sin, and make no effort to live as God would like you to live. Eventually the born again sees the incongruity with saying you believe, but not acting as you believe, and reinforces the belief of the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself that actions do matter. Pror to that he had argued actions did NOT matter. That a murderer could continue to commit murder and as long as he believed that Jesus died for his sins he would ascend to heaven. By the way, the Muslim opposed this view, and asked whether the man that uses a suicide belt to kill on an Israeli bus will go to heaven if he believes in Jesus, rather than being a Muslim. These really can be funny and interesting discussions.
The same is true of creationism and evolution. If God created everything, did he then not create science? And if God created science, did he not create evolution? So, could evolution be part of God's plan?
Same is true for homosexuality. If God created everything, did he create things such as sin? If God created things such as sin, did God also create things such as homosexuality? If Jesus died for our sins, did Jesus die for things like sin and homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin in God's eyes? Or is that man's interpretation?
Is it possible to believe in God, but not believe in Man's interpretation of God?
Explore as questions, debate the questions, and follow the debate through to a conclusion. If you wish to debate whether Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or unbelief are correct, all you will do is engage in the old "my religion is correct and your's is wrong" endless debate.
I agree with the POSSIBILITIES of discussion that you put forth there, and you are fortunate to have four people that are able to stay on topic and truly DISCUSS. However, I stand by the statement I made, that not only have I, personally, not met any atheists or Christians that are able to DO what you have stated here....I also suggest that if any EXIST that are ABLE to stay on topic without EVENTUALLY coming to the "I'm right, you're wrong" assertion (no matter how subtlely cloaked) they are a very, very, very rare individual.
The reason, I believe, that it is most difficult for these specific two belief systems to discuss their beliefs is because ONE believes (KNOWS) that evidence for truth is based on scientific fact, analysis, and the hard evidence that is derived from such intellectual and learned research. Those things, by their way of thinking, are directly equivalent to truth and fact. The other believes (KNOWS) that faith is not reliant upon scientific evidence, research, or proven fact. They believe that those standards, by which the atheist judges reasonable beliefs and thinking, are literally "foolishness" because "God's" ways are beyond knowing and understanding for the humble nature of humanity. (They have a scripture they quote here about the foolishness of man's reasoning, according to scripture.)
You can quote to them direct research that "proves" that their beliefs are, at the very LEAST, "flawed" when it comes to their factual assessment, and they will laugh in your face. Because "facts" often fly in the face of spiritual "beliefs" that are not only born of blind faith, but REQUIRE blind faith by their god, according to their holy scriptures. And of this "faith" that will undoubtedly laugh at pure human reasoning, logic, and scientific evidence, he/she is PROUD, because it "proves" that they "have the faith of a child," which their biblical "beliefs" assert is IDEAL and to be strived toward.
Now...when you try to have a conversation between two people who are so diametrically opposed as to what they see as REAL, evident, proven, and truthful....you WILL eventually hit a brick wall, that will generally end with the Christian stating...."I do not have to PROVE the reason for my faith to you. This is what I believe, because it is what my heart tells me is truth, and the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," or some other phrase we've all heard. At this point, your "discussion" is over.
Christians cannot "argue, debate, or very often discuss" with an atheist without coming to this stalemate, because....they are arguing, debating, and discussing with two ENTIRELY different parameters of measurement. These specific two belief systems do not measure evidence of truth by the same ruler.
NOTE: It might also be noteworthy to observe that even two people who BOTH consider themselves "Christian" OFTEN cannot agree on some of the very questions you put forth in your post above. They may or may not be able to discuss those issues, but the moment an atheist steps into the conversation and begins to apply logic and reason to spiritually based topics of conversation, all bets are off, and no one can give solid and unconflicted logical reasons for their differing beliefs on these specific issues, even though those "discussing" proclaim the same religious persuasion as "Christian." Self-proclaimed Christians place varying different degrees of importance, understanding and interpretation on what their scriptures actually SAY, and even how they have been translated from the original languages they were written in.
Originally posted by girlgeek I have YET to meet an atheist OR a Christian that has the goal of "expanding their knowledge" when entering into one of these so-called "discussions."
I have three co-workers with whom I usually discuss religion (and politics). One is Catholic, one is Muslim, and one is born again. I will refrain from disclosing what I am.
The discussions do not center around religion, but rather around a specific point of a religion. And they do not itterate that point, but are a series of questions regarding that point. Eventually, through that series of questions, inconsistencies occur.
For example, the born again believes that Christ died for our sins, and only thru belief in Jesus Christ is your soul saved. Obviously the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself would take exception to this, all for different reasons. So we talk about this point.
We ask him how someone could believe that Jesus dies for their sins, and accept God, if, by your actions, you continue to sin, and make no effort to live as God would like you to live. Eventually the born again sees the incongruity with saying you believe, but not acting as you believe, and reinforces the belief of the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself that actions do matter. Pror to that he had argued actions did NOT matter. That a murderer could continue to commit murder and as long as he believed that Jesus died for his sins he would ascend to heaven. By the way, the Muslim opposed this view, and asked whether the man that uses a suicide belt to kill on an Israeli bus will go to heaven if he believes in Jesus, rather than being a Muslim. These really can be funny and interesting discussions.
The same is true of creationism and evolution. If God created everything, did he then not create science? And if God created science, did he not create evolution? So, could evolution be part of God's plan?
Same is true for homosexuality. If God created everything, did he create things such as sin? If God created things such as sin, did God also create things such as homosexuality? If Jesus died for our sins, did Jesus die for things like sin and homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin in God's eyes? Or is that man's interpretation?
Is it possible to believe in God, but not believe in Man's interpretation of God?
Explore as questions, debate the questions, and follow the debate through to a conclusion. If you wish to debate whether Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or unbelief are correct, all you will do is engage in the old "my religion is correct and your's is wrong" endless debate.
I agree with the POSSIBILITIES of discussion that you put forth there, and you are fortunate to have four people that are able to stay on topic and truly DISCUSS. However, I stand by the statement I made, that not only have I, personally, not met any atheists or Christians that are able to DO what you have stated here....I also suggest that if any EXIST that are ABLE to stay on topic without EVENTUALLY coming to the "I'm right, you're wrong" assertion (no matter how subtlely cloaked) they are a very, very, very rare individual.
The reason, I believe, that it is most difficult for these specific two belief systems to discuss their beliefs is because ONE believes (KNOWS) that evidence for truth is based on scientific fact, analysis, and the hard evidence that is derived from such intellectual and learned research. Those things, by their way of thinking, are directly equivalent to truth and fact. The other believes (KNOWS) that faith is not reliant upon scientific evidence, research, or proven fact. They believe that those standards, by which the atheist judges reasonable beliefs and thinking, are literally "foolishness" because "God's" ways are beyond knowing and understanding for the humble nature of humanity. (They have a scripture they quote here about the foolishness of man's reasoning, according to scripture.)
You can quote to them direct research that "proves" that their beliefs are, at the very LEAST, "flawed" when it comes to their factual assessment, and they will laugh in your face. Because "facts" often fly in the face of spiritual "beliefs" that are not only born of blind faith, but REQUIRE blind faith by their god, according to their holy scriptures. And of this "faith" that will undoubtedly laugh at pure human reasoning, logic, and scientific evidence, he/she is PROUD, because it "proves" that they "have the faith of a child," which their biblical "beliefs" assert is IDEAL and to be strived toward.
Now...when you try to have a conversation between two people who are so diametrically opposed as to what they see as REAL, evident, proven, and truthful....you WILL eventually hit a brick wall, that will generally end with the Christian stating...."I do not have to PROVE the reason for my faith to you. This is what I believe, because it is what my heart tells me is truth, and the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," or some other phrase we've all heard. At this point, your "discussion" is over.
Christians cannot "argue, debate, or very often discuss" with an atheist without coming to this stalemate, because....they are arguing, debating, and discussing with two ENTIRELY different parameters of measurement. These specific two belief systems do not measure evidence of truth by the same ruler.
I highly recommend you read a few books by people who came to belief in God through reason and evidence, not what "their heart" told them.
Anthony Flew (There Is God) was a leading athiest, in fact, for a generation people quoted his papers on the subject when debating the subject, came to belief after years of challenging himself with evidence. CS Lewis was the same. The Case For Christ by Lee Stobel is also a good start on seeing that the gap between reason and faith is only as far apart as a person wants it to be. Also Alister McGrath is good on this was well, as is Polkinghorne, who was a nuclear physicist who later went on to become a Anglican minister. NT Wright never checks his reason at the door either.
If you wanna really head out there into quantum mechanics and highly abstract physics, a good start is The Physics of Immortality by Frank Tipler.
There are no doubt MANY believers who hold their beliefs irrationally, or non-rationally. Those are usually quite weak at apologetics.
I am in no way endorcing all the views of all the people above, just throwing them out there for the discussion so that if anyone wants to see the more rational string of religious thinkers, they can.
I am not saying carbon dating is wrong, I just believe the time frame is way off. Yes there may be scientific methods, however, someone thought of how old that layer or rock is and then the assumption was born for that. How do you know for certian, that layer of rock is 4 million years old? Was there a man, living and recorded it 4 million years ago? No.
This is where I stopped reading this thread. This person obviously does not understand carbon dating and radioactive half life. He'll acknowledge the existence of hydrogen atoms even though he has not actually seen one himself. BUT He will deny the existence of evolution and the fossil record even though he has seen fossils of dinosaurs (Satan placed trilobite fossils everywhere to TEST YOUR FAITH!)
Why can't god have created man through evolution? Why can't the mysteries of science bring us closer to god?
Am I to take the bible literally?
If you want me to believe in your god please explain the fossil record to me. Please explain how Johah survived 3 days and nights in the belly of a fish. If after the great flood, the sons of Noah populated the 3 great continents (Europe, Asia and Africa) where did the Aztecs and the Native Americans come from? Leviticus talks about the rules of slave ownership...
Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
There are so many crazy stories in a book that was written in a time when people thought the earth was flat and that witches sank.
When ever I get into this discussion people tell me "well... the bible says.." and then it stops there.
Like love, you can't fake faith. I believe in what Jesus stands for but I'm not convinced he was who he says he was no more than I'm convinced David Koresh was who he said he was. Science can provide empirical data to support facts and theories. People of faith provide the bible. That is why it is called "faith".
You either believe or you don't.
This subject is always like two slow rolling trains moving toward each other and it ends up being the proverbial train wreck.
Obviously you don't understand the bible sir. No, I don't fully understand carbon dating but I know enough. I have stated many times of why EVOLUTION CAN NOT WORK ACCORDING TO GOD's WORD. I use the bible for my arguement and you use science. And you just used a bible verse. Man, people like you ruin arguements. Sorry fishermage, you spoke too soon. Oh, because the bible says the four corners of the earth, that automatically means they believed the earth was flat? No, do you comprehend the cardinal directions? North, South, East and West? Four corners, not in a literall translation. When I see people say evolution, I stop there. Know both sides of the coin before you ramble about stupid nothings. Because it makes you look bad. And we all know most people like you are self loathing. Better get your ego back. Your just lost.
Christianity is a historical faith that can be verified from both secular history and archeology . . . but since we have been discussing Islam and Christianity, consider for a moment the origin of the Koran. Muhammad claims to have received messages from God and penned down these revelations, right . . . who else heard these voices? Who else saw these visions? Do we even have one witness, or one shred of corroborating evidence it was really God speaking to Muhammad? On the other hand, the origin of the Bible spans some 1,500 years with multiple authors and yet we find a consistent testimony of real people, places, and events. There is actually a 400 year gap between the Old and New Testaments and yet they completely harmonize with one another.
Also, Biblical prophecy is another verifiable witness that is uniquely found in the Judeo-Christian faith. For example, the prophet Daniel specifically spoke of the rise and fall of four world kingdoms that would directly affect the people of God (see Daniel 2 & 7). Any history book will confirm that these kingdoms did indeed rise and fall accordingly. The Old Testament prophets also spoke with detailed accuracy of the life of the coming messiah and no one other than Jesus fulfilled these prophecies. In fact there is no other world religion that can be recognized for its historical and prophetic witness.
Their is only one holy book that made a prophecy that came true,and Israel became a state once again.As you can see Israel enemies surround this tiny state just as it was fortold.The whole world will turn against Israel just as we see right now.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
"Well the bible says..." Then it stops there. So it's alright to discredit the bible, but when I discredit something in science its not ok? Stupid nothings? That hurts. I am sorry. Are you bleeding? I'll send a Cleric asap. What happened to turning the other cheek? I did, but when I did turn the check you slapped for it again. "A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself"
"Well the bible says..." Then it stops there. So it's alright to discredit the bible, but when I discredit something in science its not ok? Stupid nothings? That hurts. I am sorry. Are you bleeding? I'll send a Cleric asap. What happened to turning the other cheek? I did, but when I did turn the check you slapped for it again. "A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself"
""I am not saying carbon dating is wrong, I just believe the time frame is way off"
You "believe" the time frame is way off. Belief = Faith. You are not a scientist... I want you to explain to me scientifically how you feel the time frame is way off when you don't understand it to begin with.
That means you are adding your belief system to science... just like I'm adding my science to your beliefs. You admit yourself you don't know much about "radio carbon dating" but you know enough to know it is wrong.
Then I should be able to say...
"I am not saying the bible is wrong, I just BELIEVE it is way off".
"Well the bible says..." Then it stops there. So it's alright to discredit the bible, but when I discredit something in science its not ok? Stupid nothings? That hurts. I am sorry. Are you bleeding? I'll send a Cleric asap. What happened to turning the other cheek? I did, but when I did turn the check you slapped for it again. "A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself"
""I am not saying carbon dating is wrong, I just believe the time frame is way off"
You "believe" the time frame is way off. Belief = Faith. You are not a scientist... I want you to explain to me scientifically how you feel the time frame is way off when you don't understand it to begin with.
That means you are adding your belief system to science... just like I'm adding my science to your beliefs. You admit yourself you don't know much about "radio carbon dating" but you know enough to know it is wrong.
Then I should be able to say...
"I am not saying the bible is wrong, I just BELIEVE it is way off".
Kind of annoying statement is it not?
It is when the statement is one sided. When you say you have the belief that it was 65 million years ago as well. Sorry, just like to be equal here. Gotta balance it out. But I do see your point here.
Like you said, yes it's my belief that the time frame is way off and it's your belief that the time is correct. So please explain it to my scientifically. For me, see Kent Hovind. I am sure he can explain it better than I can.
It is when the statement is one sided. When you say you have the belief that it was 65 million years ago as well. Sorry, just like to be equal here. Gotta balance it out. But I do see your point here.
Like you said, yes it's my belief that the time frame is way off and it's your belief that the time is correct. So please explain it to my scientifically. For me, see Kent Hovind. I am sure he can explain it better than I can.
Kent Hovind?
He suggests that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time... his proof? There are items of pottery and cave drawing depicting dinosaurs.
He is also serving a 10 year sentence for numerious tax violations and obstructing federal agents.
There are many Christians who think this guy is a loon.
It is when the statement is one sided. When you say you have the belief that it was 65 million years ago as well. Sorry, just like to be equal here. Gotta balance it out. But I do see your point here.
Like you said, yes it's my belief that the time frame is way off and it's your belief that the time is correct. So please explain it to my scientifically. For me, see Kent Hovind. I am sure he can explain it better than I can.
Kent Hovind?
He suggests that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time... his proof? There are items of pottery and cave drawing depicting dinosaurs.
He is also serving a 10 year sentence for numerious tax violations and obstructing federal agents.
Sorry...if anything the words of this man only strengthen my resolve in science further.
Oh really, interesting, didn't know that.
Off the subject because it's just the same stuff new people and I am getting sick of it.
I hope your not a razorbacks fan, because UK is killing them.
Since you deferred your arugment to Kent Hovind... I'll defer my argument to any one of the numerous scientists around the world. That said... I live in Alaska and do not follow college sports.
Originally posted by girlgeek I have YET to meet an atheist OR a Christian that has the goal of "expanding their knowledge" when entering into one of these so-called "discussions."
I have three co-workers with whom I usually discuss religion (and politics). One is Catholic, one is Muslim, and one is born again. I will refrain from disclosing what I am.
The discussions do not center around religion, but rather around a specific point of a religion. And they do not itterate that point, but are a series of questions regarding that point. Eventually, through that series of questions, inconsistencies occur.
For example, the born again believes that Christ died for our sins, and only thru belief in Jesus Christ is your soul saved. Obviously the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself would take exception to this, all for different reasons. So we talk about this point.
We ask him how someone could believe that Jesus dies for their sins, and accept God, if, by your actions, you continue to sin, and make no effort to live as God would like you to live. Eventually the born again sees the incongruity with saying you believe, but not acting as you believe, and reinforces the belief of the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself that actions do matter. Pror to that he had argued actions did NOT matter. That a murderer could continue to commit murder and as long as he believed that Jesus died for his sins he would ascend to heaven. By the way, the Muslim opposed this view, and asked whether the man that uses a suicide belt to kill on an Israeli bus will go to heaven if he believes in Jesus, rather than being a Muslim. These really can be funny and interesting discussions.
The same is true of creationism and evolution. If God created everything, did he then not create science? And if God created science, did he not create evolution? So, could evolution be part of God's plan?
Same is true for homosexuality. If God created everything, did he create things such as sin? If God created things such as sin, did God also create things such as homosexuality? If Jesus died for our sins, did Jesus die for things like sin and homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin in God's eyes? Or is that man's interpretation?
Is it possible to believe in God, but not believe in Man's interpretation of God?
Explore as questions, debate the questions, and follow the debate through to a conclusion. If you wish to debate whether Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or unbelief are correct, all you will do is engage in the old "my religion is correct and your's is wrong" endless debate.
I agree with the POSSIBILITIES of discussion that you put forth there, and you are fortunate to have four people that are able to stay on topic and truly DISCUSS. However, I stand by the statement I made, that not only have I, personally, not met any atheists or Christians that are able to DO what you have stated here....I also suggest that if any EXIST that are ABLE to stay on topic without EVENTUALLY coming to the "I'm right, you're wrong" assertion (no matter how subtlely cloaked) they are a very, very, very rare individual.
The reason, I believe, that it is most difficult for these specific two belief systems to discuss their beliefs is because ONE believes (KNOWS) that evidence for truth is based on scientific fact, analysis, and the hard evidence that is derived from such intellectual and learned research. Those things, by their way of thinking, are directly equivalent to truth and fact. The other believes (KNOWS) that faith is not reliant upon scientific evidence, research, or proven fact. They believe that those standards, by which the atheist judges reasonable beliefs and thinking, are literally "foolishness" because "God's" ways are beyond knowing and understanding for the humble nature of humanity. (They have a scripture they quote here about the foolishness of man's reasoning, according to scripture.)
You can quote to them direct research that "proves" that their beliefs are, at the very LEAST, "flawed" when it comes to their factual assessment, and they will laugh in your face. Because "facts" often fly in the face of spiritual "beliefs" that are not only born of blind faith, but REQUIRE blind faith by their god, according to their holy scriptures. And of this "faith" that will undoubtedly laugh at pure human reasoning, logic, and scientific evidence, he/she is PROUD, because it "proves" that they "have the faith of a child," which their biblical "beliefs" assert is IDEAL and to be strived toward.
Now...when you try to have a conversation between two people who are so diametrically opposed as to what they see as REAL, evident, proven, and truthful....you WILL eventually hit a brick wall, that will generally end with the Christian stating...."I do not have to PROVE the reason for my faith to you. This is what I believe, because it is what my heart tells me is truth, and the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," or some other phrase we've all heard. At this point, your "discussion" is over.
Christians cannot "argue, debate, or very often discuss" with an atheist without coming to this stalemate, because....they are arguing, debating, and discussing with two ENTIRELY different parameters of measurement. These specific two belief systems do not measure evidence of truth by the same ruler.
I highly recommend you read a few books by people who came to belief in God through reason and evidence, not what "their heart" told them.
Anthony Flew (There Is God) was a leading athiest, in fact, for a generation people quoted his papers on the subject when debating the subject, came to belief after years of challenging himself with evidence. CS Lewis was the same. The Case For Christ by Lee Stobel is also a good start on seeing that the gap between reason and faith is only as far apart as a person wants it to be. Also Alister McGrath is good on this was well, as is Polkinghorne, who was a nuclear physicist who later went on to become a Anglican minister. NT Wright never checks his reason at the door either.
If you wanna really head out there into quantum mechanics and highly abstract physics, a good start is The Physics of Immortality by Frank Tipler.
There are no doubt MANY believers who hold their beliefs irrationally, or non-rationally. Those are usually quite weak at apologetics.
I am in no way endorcing all the views of all the people above, just throwing them out there for the discussion so that if anyone wants to see the more rational string of religious thinkers, they can.
And just WHY do you "recommend" this? Did I elude in ANY way shape or form as to what my own personal beliefs are, or are you just assuming, since I am not obviously siding with faith, nor science, that you know what my beliefs are? This....right here....is why religious discussion or debate is fruitless. One person always makes the assumption that they are more "enlightened" or "educated" (depending on which system of beliefs you ascribe to) than the other person in the discussion. Immediately that sets the discussion or debate up to fail in "enlightening" or "educating" either person, because one (or both) have then taken a position of pride, or even arrogance, which renders them lacking in the humility (capacity) to possibly learn and discover.
Incidentally, I will disclose that I am a born again Christian (09-10-1972). I believe that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ, and that we work out our salvation from there on out through our communion with God through the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that salvation is "fire insurance," I believe it is only an INITIAL entering into a JOURNEY of faith, it is not the end of the matter. Incidentally, I do NOT subscribe to many, many other beliefs that self-proclaimed "Christians" seem to cling to like a life raft on a raging sea of uncertainty. I am not so insecure in my own faith as to assume it is my job to be "Junior Holy Spirit" and interject myself into another's ideas, beliefs, and creeds, because I am not so arrogant as to hold the opinion that I am all-knowing and all-seeing and that I have all (or perhaps ANY) of the answers that another person seeks. MY God, leads each person on their OWN path, and He is big enough that He doesn't need MY help. LOL
I also believe that science is an inarguable factor in all things that we see around us, and that if God wanted to create all that we see by using spit balls and a straw...He could have. I do not think that evolution and Christianity (nor any other world religion) are mutually exclusive. I do not believe that Christians have all the answers. I do not believe that science has all the answers. I do not believe that any ONE institution or order of beliefs has all the answers. I also don't believe that to have faith (nor to be an atheist) it is necessary for every QUESTION to HAVE an answer.
I DO believe that the teachings of Jesus Christ have the power, if followed, to bring light, life, and peace into a world that desperately needs LOVE, not judgment and condemnation. I believe that "Christians" very very often, do not follow the teachings of Christ, but rather use assorted other "scriptures", often out of context, (including writings by disciples that were written to SPECIFIC people to solve specific problems AT THAT TIME) to attempt to control and manipulate, as the Church has ALWAYS done throughout history. Religion is, and always will be, the very definition of evil. Religion is man's attempt to control. Spirituality and religion are two utterly separate things. One is connected to the divine, the other is connected to legalism, human power, control, and manipulation. I do NOT ascribe to those things.
NOTE: The above is a statement of my own PERSONAL beliefs and views from experience and study, and it is not up for debate. I continue to evolve in my spirituality, however, that journey has nothing to DO with anyone ELSE's study, beliefs, or opinions on the matter. It is MY journey ALONE. It grows and changes as I, myself, grow, change, and discover. Someone ELSE'S "revelations" have no altering affect on my own, as they are not mine.
Opinions are like assholes, which is why these threads are always filled to the brim, not to say that I'm not guilty of doing my fair share of asshole wiping on this carpet.
To address some things I saw in the thread and do not care to quote (if you do the same to me I won't hold it against you for symmetry) out of laziness:
The biggest flaw in Pascal's wager is that he does not consider the possibility that other religions that contradict his own are correct; there could be an entire pantheon you'd have to worship, or none at all: Maybe the god(s) that are required to worship don't want you to acknowledge their existence.
Point is that constructing solutions for problems that you can't solve without building them rigorously and consistently is generally not helpful.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Just give up on it with him, some people just aren't very open to other religions or beliefs, beyond battling it out with them, theirs not a whole lot you can do except drop the subject.
I found that discussing religion with other people is not something you can do every day......You often have to find a good opportunity when to discuss things, whether it be atheism or about various religions......
Atheists and religious types should get along famously. An atheist is someone who believes there is no God-- with no empirical proof to support that position. A religious person who believes in God(s),believes without empirical proof as well.
So what's there to argue about? Your positions are both equally valid and invalid. What exactly is there to explain? Considering both are equally valid, I always find it odd anyone would come down on the atheist side of things. I mean, if the theist is wrong, you both end up dead and gone in the hereafter. If the theist is right, he's in heaven. You, the atheist? Hmmm. Not good. So, logically speaking, athetists are bone stupid.
Atheists and religious types should get along famously. An atheist is someone who believes there is no God-- with no empirical proof to support that position. A religious person who believes in God(s),believes without empirical proof as well. So what's there to argue about? Your positions are both equally valid and invalid. What exactly is there to explain? Considering both are equally valid, I always find it odd anyone would come down on the atheist side of things. I mean, if the theist is wrong, you both end up dead and gone in the hereafter. If the theist is right, he's in heaven. You, the atheist? Hmmm. Not good. So, logically speaking, athetists are bone stupid.
I pointed out the flaw in that reasoning above.
So, it's just you.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Atheists and religious types should get along famously. An atheist is someone who believes there is no God-- with no empirical proof to support that position. A religious person who believes in God(s),believes without empirical proof as well. So what's there to argue about? Your positions are both equally valid and invalid. What exactly is there to explain? Considering both are equally valid, I always find it odd anyone would come down on the atheist side of things. I mean, if the theist is wrong, you both end up dead and gone in the hereafter. If the theist is right, he's in heaven. You, the atheist? Hmmm. Not good. So, logically speaking, athetists are bone stupid.
I pointed out the flaw in that reasoning above.
So, it's just you.
What flaw? A typo? Explain or quit posting useless garbage.
Originally posted by girlgeek I have YET to meet an atheist OR a Christian that has the goal of "expanding their knowledge" when entering into one of these so-called "discussions."
I have three co-workers with whom I usually discuss religion (and politics). One is Catholic, one is Muslim, and one is born again. I will refrain from disclosing what I am.
The discussions do not center around religion, but rather around a specific point of a religion. And they do not itterate that point, but are a series of questions regarding that point. Eventually, through that series of questions, inconsistencies occur.
For example, the born again believes that Christ died for our sins, and only thru belief in Jesus Christ is your soul saved. Obviously the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself would take exception to this, all for different reasons. So we talk about this point.
We ask him how someone could believe that Jesus dies for their sins, and accept God, if, by your actions, you continue to sin, and make no effort to live as God would like you to live. Eventually the born again sees the incongruity with saying you believe, but not acting as you believe, and reinforces the belief of the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself that actions do matter. Pror to that he had argued actions did NOT matter. That a murderer could continue to commit murder and as long as he believed that Jesus died for his sins he would ascend to heaven. By the way, the Muslim opposed this view, and asked whether the man that uses a suicide belt to kill on an Israeli bus will go to heaven if he believes in Jesus, rather than being a Muslim. These really can be funny and interesting discussions.
The same is true of creationism and evolution. If God created everything, did he then not create science? And if God created science, did he not create evolution? So, could evolution be part of God's plan?
Same is true for homosexuality. If God created everything, did he create things such as sin? If God created things such as sin, did God also create things such as homosexuality? If Jesus died for our sins, did Jesus die for things like sin and homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin in God's eyes? Or is that man's interpretation?
Is it possible to believe in God, but not believe in Man's interpretation of God?
Explore as questions, debate the questions, and follow the debate through to a conclusion. If you wish to debate whether Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or unbelief are correct, all you will do is engage in the old "my religion is correct and your's is wrong" endless debate.
I agree with the POSSIBILITIES of discussion that you put forth there, and you are fortunate to have four people that are able to stay on topic and truly DISCUSS. However, I stand by the statement I made, that not only have I, personally, not met any atheists or Christians that are able to DO what you have stated here....I also suggest that if any EXIST that are ABLE to stay on topic without EVENTUALLY coming to the "I'm right, you're wrong" assertion (no matter how subtlely cloaked) they are a very, very, very rare individual.
The reason, I believe, that it is most difficult for these specific two belief systems to discuss their beliefs is because ONE believes (KNOWS) that evidence for truth is based on scientific fact, analysis, and the hard evidence that is derived from such intellectual and learned research. Those things, by their way of thinking, are directly equivalent to truth and fact. The other believes (KNOWS) that faith is not reliant upon scientific evidence, research, or proven fact. They believe that those standards, by which the atheist judges reasonable beliefs and thinking, are literally "foolishness" because "God's" ways are beyond knowing and understanding for the humble nature of humanity. (They have a scripture they quote here about the foolishness of man's reasoning, according to scripture.)
You can quote to them direct research that "proves" that their beliefs are, at the very LEAST, "flawed" when it comes to their factual assessment, and they will laugh in your face. Because "facts" often fly in the face of spiritual "beliefs" that are not only born of blind faith, but REQUIRE blind faith by their god, according to their holy scriptures. And of this "faith" that will undoubtedly laugh at pure human reasoning, logic, and scientific evidence, he/she is PROUD, because it "proves" that they "have the faith of a child," which their biblical "beliefs" assert is IDEAL and to be strived toward.
Now...when you try to have a conversation between two people who are so diametrically opposed as to what they see as REAL, evident, proven, and truthful....you WILL eventually hit a brick wall, that will generally end with the Christian stating...."I do not have to PROVE the reason for my faith to you. This is what I believe, because it is what my heart tells me is truth, and the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," or some other phrase we've all heard. At this point, your "discussion" is over.
Christians cannot "argue, debate, or very often discuss" with an atheist without coming to this stalemate, because....they are arguing, debating, and discussing with two ENTIRELY different parameters of measurement. These specific two belief systems do not measure evidence of truth by the same ruler.
I highly recommend you read a few books by people who came to belief in God through reason and evidence, not what "their heart" told them.
Anthony Flew (There Is God) was a leading athiest, in fact, for a generation people quoted his papers on the subject when debating the subject, came to belief after years of challenging himself with evidence. CS Lewis was the same. The Case For Christ by Lee Stobel is also a good start on seeing that the gap between reason and faith is only as far apart as a person wants it to be. Also Alister McGrath is good on this was well, as is Polkinghorne, who was a nuclear physicist who later went on to become a Anglican minister. NT Wright never checks his reason at the door either.
If you wanna really head out there into quantum mechanics and highly abstract physics, a good start is The Physics of Immortality by Frank Tipler.
There are no doubt MANY believers who hold their beliefs irrationally, or non-rationally. Those are usually quite weak at apologetics.
I am in no way endorcing all the views of all the people above, just throwing them out there for the discussion so that if anyone wants to see the more rational string of religious thinkers, they can.
And just WHY do you "recommend" this? Did I elude in ANY way shape or form as to what my own personal beliefs are, or are you just assuming, since I am not obviously siding with faith, nor science, that you know what my beliefs are? This....right here....is why religious discussion or debate is fruitless. One person always makes the assumption that they are more "enlightened" or "educated" (depending on which system of beliefs you ascribe to) than the other person in the discussion. Immediately that sets the discussion or debate up to fail in "enlightening" or "educating" either person, because one (or both) have then taken a position of pride, or even arrogance, which renders them lacking in the humility (capacity) to possibly learn and discover.
Incidentally, I will disclose that I am a born again Christian (09-10-1972). I believe that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ, and that we work out our salvation from there on out through our communion with God through the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that salvation is "fire insurance," I believe it is only an INITIAL entering into a JOURNEY of faith, it is not the end of the matter. Incidentally, I do NOT subscribe to many, many other beliefs that self-proclaimed "Christians" seem to cling to like a life raft on a raging sea of uncertainty. I am not so insecure in my own faith as to assume it is my job to be "Junior Holy Spirit" and interject myself into another's ideas, beliefs, and creeds, because I am not so arrogant as to hold the opinion that I am all-knowing and all-seeing and that I have all (or perhaps ANY) of the answers that another person seeks. MY God, leads each person on their OWN path, and He is big enough that He doesn't need MY help. LOL
I also believe that science is an inarguable factor in all things that we see around us, and that if God wanted to create all that we see by using spit balls and a straw...He could have. I do not think that evolution and Christianity (nor any other world religion) are mutually exclusive. I do not believe that Christians have all the answers. I do not believe that science has all the answers. I do not believe that any ONE institution or order of beliefs has all the answers. I also don't believe that to have faith (nor to be an atheist) it is necessary for every QUESTION to HAVE an answer.
I DO believe that the teachings of Jesus Christ have the power, if followed, to bring light, life, and peace into a world that desperately needs LOVE, not judgment and condemnation. I believe that "Christians" very very often, do not follow the teachings of Christ, but rather use assorted other "scriptures", often out of context, (including writings by disciples that were written to SPECIFIC people to solve specific problems AT THAT TIME) to attempt to control and manipulate, as the Church has ALWAYS done throughout history. Religion is, and always will be, the very definition of evil. Religion is man's attempt to control. Spirituality and religion are two utterly separate things. One is connected to the divine, the other is connected to legalism, human power, control, and manipulation. I do NOT ascribe to those things.
NOTE: The above is a statement of my own PERSONAL beliefs and views from experience and study, and it is not up for debate. I continue to evolve in my spirituality, however, that journey has nothing to DO with anyone ELSE's study, beliefs, or opinions on the matter. It is MY journey ALONE. It grows and changes as I, myself, grow, change, and discover. Someone ELSE'S "revelations" have no altering affect on my own, as they are not mine.
You were the one who said that science and faith are diametrically opposed. I, in attempting to say, it ain't necessarily so, tried to be helpful and recommend the stories of believers who do not share what you said. They believe that Science and Faith are fully compatible, sometimes complimentary, sometimes necessary components of a greater world view.
I'm sorry if i wasn't clear -- it didn't really matter what your personal views were about God, in this context, it was what your personal views were about faith, science and how it related to discussion.
I find taht dialogue is possible, natural, and wonderful. It is exceptionally difficult on the internet, because you took what i wrote to be in a completely different tone than in which it was written, and then responded in what certainly sounds like a rather angry tone.
Sorry I used poor words or whatever that got you all...well whatever led you to answer the way you did.
I pretty much agree with most of what you said, just not the way you said it.
One last issue: you don't find that reading the words of others helps you on your journey? We can't share and grow together? You really believe that all spirituality is something we must do behind locked doors?
Atheists and religious types should get along famously. An atheist is someone who believes there is no God-- with no empirical proof to support that position. A religious person who believes in God(s),believes without empirical proof as well. So what's there to argue about? Your positions are both equally valid and invalid. What exactly is there to explain? Considering both are equally valid, I always find it odd anyone would come down on the atheist side of things. I mean, if the theist is wrong, you both end up dead and gone in the hereafter. If the theist is right, he's in heaven. You, the atheist? Hmmm. Not good. So, logically speaking, athetists are bone stupid.
Actually I believe what I believe (in God) because of empirical proof, at least sufficient proof for me. It's not scientific, testable, repeatable proof, but I don't find that necessary for a thing like a being that transcends space and time. the historical empirical proof combined with the experience of my own life, and the lives of many people I find credible is plenty for me.
Nobody is this discussion is bone stupid -- we just disagree, a natural human thing and the beginning of dialogue. If we agree on everything...all we have is...uh huh...pretty boring.
I love sharing and learning from others and their spirituality. I am a Jewish Christian with a pagan soul, who tries to walk the Tao mindfully. I've also got a bit of Coyote in me, and consider God and my relationship with Sophia (His wisdom and a definitely feminine aspect, even in the Jewish Christian tradition) to be a loving relationship that grows as I learn more about His creation and my place in it. I got that from Islam, Sufism most specifically.
I came to Christ AFTER exploring most of these things and "drawing all iinto myself."
I love to share this love with all.
I never mock atheists, agnostics, or any other religions, because in most cases, I've been there and back again, and am always questioning, doubting, and testing. I believe that my God thinks that's a good thing.
I am a Jewish Christian with a pagan soul, who tries to walk the Tao mindfully. I've also got a bit of Coyote in me, and consider God and my relationship with Sophia (His wisdom and a definitely feminine aspect, even in the Jewish Christian tradition) to be a loving relationship that grows as I learn more about His creation and my place in it. I got that from Islam, Sufism most specifically.
You never want to make it simple, do you.
I am a Deist. I look at the world - the universe - and know that a higher being helped bring it into existence. However, the "meddling" ends there. I don't believe God, or whatever any one religion calls him/her, interferes within the lives of mortals. Our known existence was merely a creative project and, when finished, we were simply left alone to live our lives how good, or bad, we wished to do so.
I am a Jewish Christian with a pagan soul, who tries to walk the Tao mindfully. I've also got a bit of Coyote in me, and consider God and my relationship with Sophia (His wisdom and a definitely feminine aspect, even in the Jewish Christian tradition) to be a loving relationship that grows as I learn more about His creation and my place in it. I got that from Islam, Sufism most specifically.
You never want to make it simple, do you.
I am a Deist. I look at the world - the universe - and know that a higher being helped bring it into existence. However, the "meddling" ends there. I don't believe God, or whatever any one religion calls him/her, interferes within the lives of mortals. Our known existence was merely a creative project and, when finished, we were simply left alone to live our lives how good, or bad, we wished to do so.
I believe that an infinite being who loves His creation with an infinite love has all the time in infinity to be with us every moment of every one of out lives, and still has time to cook some eggs.
I have seen too much evidence of his interference, and too much evidence where he has made claims of interference and proved it by mucking with Time and Death to give evidence for that belief.
I believe He answers prayers, when it pleases Him (probably means he will intervene when He finds something we are doing compelling or interesting and the help wouldn't mess up the space time continuum), but my point is that He is intimately involved in His creation and it is all kept going by the passive effects of the Holy Spirit running on automatic -- that which we call energy one century or quantum reality in another, and perhaps through strings in another.
I feel he is more than a Divine watchmaker, although I thoroughly understand and appreciate that view, and feel we MUST hold that view when we practice the art of science. That is when we explore the set rules of His creation.
I do however believe firmly that we all have a relationship with Him right here and now and He is always with all of us all the time forever and always.
Why? For the same reason a dog licks his balls. Because He can.
Betcha never heard stuff like THAT in Church!
EDIT: Oh, and I WAS making it simple! I left a bunch out -- like my whole stint with ritual magick lol.
Atheists and religious types should get along famously. An atheist is someone who believes there is no God-- with no empirical proof to support that position. A religious person who believes in God(s),believes without empirical proof as well. So what's there to argue about? Your positions are both equally valid and invalid. What exactly is there to explain? Considering both are equally valid, I always find it odd anyone would come down on the atheist side of things. I mean, if the theist is wrong, you both end up dead and gone in the hereafter. If the theist is right, he's in heaven. You, the atheist? Hmmm. Not good. So, logically speaking, athetists are bone stupid.
I pointed out the flaw in that reasoning above.
So, it's just you.
What flaw? A typo? Explain or quit posting useless garbage.
Naw, that's already your job along with failing to scroll up, or even understand whose reasoning you are using.
Go google Pascal's Wager and scroll up to what I had posted before you.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I believe that an infinite being who loves His creation with an infinite love has all the time in infinity to be with us every moment of every one of out lives, and still has time to cook some eggs. Why? For the same reason a dog licks his balls. Because He can.
Those two lines brought a smile upon my face. Arthur Dent was brought to mind for some reason.
Comments
Hmmm. What is this tainted guide of which you speak?
If you mean the Church, then it is merely sinful human nature asserting itself time and again. If you mean the Bible, well, it is what it is -- it is not really a "guide," as such, but a testimony of God's interaction with a set of humans. It is more than and less than any guide.
But for a moment, let us imagine God leaving us something like a perfect guide. What would that do to Liberty? It would destroy it.
Just as irrevocable proof of God would also destroy freedom. Destroy freedom you destroy love. Destroy love and you destroy the reason why man was created.
That'd just suck.
Now if you do not believe that a good creed was established at Nicea, I would disagree with you. If you do not agree with the Canon of the new testament 9which was actually established by later ecumenical councils I believe), I would also disagree. The Bible we have is that which people could agree to with near unanimity, and the other gospels and epistles while interesting, could not be verified and would have made the Bible much more tainted.
A really GREAT book on this is The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger. That and his other book, The Text of the New Testament are indispensible if you really want a very well researched history of the Bible.
Either way you do have a guide. It's called the Holy Spirit. You are however free to misuse it, lie about it, fake it, and so on -- again, God will never remove your freedom -- but it's there ready to counsel both of us whenever we ask it to. We just have to listen.
Like Yoda says...you will know, when you are calm, at peace.
Both really. The Church in my view is particularly unreliable because it was founded on the principle of giving men power, and still continues to serve that purpose.
The Bible itself is less clear cut, it was written by mankind, the first portion by and for a crude, nearly barbaric nomadic race like thousands of others, then the following books by dozens of individuals whose motives remain unclear and contradictory in nature. Finally both parts were heavily edited by men who wanted a new means to solidify control of a rapidly destabilizing empire. With any other text, any of those three would have been enough to make me chuck it in the trash if it failed to be entertaining as pure fiction. The one thing that makes me hesitate in that regard is the fact that it continues to hold a few good lessons on living life well.
P.S. I still wonder why the Nicean councils threw out the story of Lillith. I'm debating between a few wives twisting ears, and them deciding to be a little less obvious with the chauvinistic principles.
Well, it is still the best record we have of the peoples it describes, and points toward the one called the Messiah, who was realized in Christ.
What is amazing is not how poor it is as history, but how good it is as history. compared with other similar documents of that part of the world.
The councils threw out anything that Jews themselves regarded as apocryphal at the time of jesus. the Jews at the time threw out that which they could not find a record of dating back their ancient times.
Again, I HIGHLY recommend the two books I mentioned above. Nobody has studied the facts here about scripture better than Metzger. Seems to me there's some tainted education about the history of the Bible there... heh.
There is something worth noting though.
Note that the Church is NOT the Catholoc Church, at least as the Bible desrcribes it. the Church are the totality of believers.
Note that it is the Bible that brought about the Protestant reformation -- particularly Martin Luther reading Romans, Galations, and Psalms and realizing that salvation comes from faith, not works -- which pretty much destroyed the power of the Church.
Then it was the Bible that brought about the Grace revolution that i am part of, where we see in Jesus words and deeds something about the character of the God we worship that says that faith is the PRODUCT of salvation, not its cause, and the cause of salvation is God's Grace. This started in the early 1800s and is still going on.
The Bible checks the Church, and these things are worked out within the Church through reformation. No other religion has this dynamic, and I think its pretty cool.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I have three co-workers with whom I usually discuss religion (and politics). One is Catholic, one is Muslim, and one is born again. I will refrain from disclosing what I am.
The discussions do not center around religion, but rather around a specific point of a religion. And they do not itterate that point, but are a series of questions regarding that point. Eventually, through that series of questions, inconsistencies occur.
For example, the born again believes that Christ died for our sins, and only thru belief in Jesus Christ is your soul saved. Obviously the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself would take exception to this, all for different reasons. So we talk about this point.
We ask him how someone could believe that Jesus dies for their sins, and accept God, if, by your actions, you continue to sin, and make no effort to live as God would like you to live. Eventually the born again sees the incongruity with saying you believe, but not acting as you believe, and reinforces the belief of the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself that actions do matter. Pror to that he had argued actions did NOT matter. That a murderer could continue to commit murder and as long as he believed that Jesus died for his sins he would ascend to heaven. By the way, the Muslim opposed this view, and asked whether the man that uses a suicide belt to kill on an Israeli bus will go to heaven if he believes in Jesus, rather than being a Muslim. These really can be funny and interesting discussions.
The same is true of creationism and evolution. If God created everything, did he then not create science? And if God created science, did he not create evolution? So, could evolution be part of God's plan?
Same is true for homosexuality. If God created everything, did he create things such as sin? If God created things such as sin, did God also create things such as homosexuality? If Jesus died for our sins, did Jesus die for things like sin and homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin in God's eyes? Or is that man's interpretation?
Is it possible to believe in God, but not believe in Man's interpretation of God?
Explore as questions, debate the questions, and follow the debate through to a conclusion. If you wish to debate whether Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or unbelief are correct, all you will do is engage in the old "my religion is correct and your's is wrong" endless debate.
I agree with the POSSIBILITIES of discussion that you put forth there, and you are fortunate to have four people that are able to stay on topic and truly DISCUSS. However, I stand by the statement I made, that not only have I, personally, not met any atheists or Christians that are able to DO what you have stated here....I also suggest that if any EXIST that are ABLE to stay on topic without EVENTUALLY coming to the "I'm right, you're wrong" assertion (no matter how subtlely cloaked) they are a very, very, very rare individual.
The reason, I believe, that it is most difficult for these specific two belief systems to discuss their beliefs is because ONE believes (KNOWS) that evidence for truth is based on scientific fact, analysis, and the hard evidence that is derived from such intellectual and learned research. Those things, by their way of thinking, are directly equivalent to truth and fact. The other believes (KNOWS) that faith is not reliant upon scientific evidence, research, or proven fact. They believe that those standards, by which the atheist judges reasonable beliefs and thinking, are literally "foolishness" because "God's" ways are beyond knowing and understanding for the humble nature of humanity. (They have a scripture they quote here about the foolishness of man's reasoning, according to scripture.)
You can quote to them direct research that "proves" that their beliefs are, at the very LEAST, "flawed" when it comes to their factual assessment, and they will laugh in your face. Because "facts" often fly in the face of spiritual "beliefs" that are not only born of blind faith, but REQUIRE blind faith by their god, according to their holy scriptures. And of this "faith" that will undoubtedly laugh at pure human reasoning, logic, and scientific evidence, he/she is PROUD, because it "proves" that they "have the faith of a child," which their biblical "beliefs" assert is IDEAL and to be strived toward.
Now...when you try to have a conversation between two people who are so diametrically opposed as to what they see as REAL, evident, proven, and truthful....you WILL eventually hit a brick wall, that will generally end with the Christian stating...."I do not have to PROVE the reason for my faith to you. This is what I believe, because it is what my heart tells me is truth, and the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," or some other phrase we've all heard. At this point, your "discussion" is over.
Christians cannot "argue, debate, or very often discuss" with an atheist without coming to this stalemate, because....they are arguing, debating, and discussing with two ENTIRELY different parameters of measurement. These specific two belief systems do not measure evidence of truth by the same ruler.
NOTE: It might also be noteworthy to observe that even two people who BOTH consider themselves "Christian" OFTEN cannot agree on some of the very questions you put forth in your post above. They may or may not be able to discuss those issues, but the moment an atheist steps into the conversation and begins to apply logic and reason to spiritually based topics of conversation, all bets are off, and no one can give solid and unconflicted logical reasons for their differing beliefs on these specific issues, even though those "discussing" proclaim the same religious persuasion as "Christian." Self-proclaimed Christians place varying different degrees of importance, understanding and interpretation on what their scriptures actually SAY, and even how they have been translated from the original languages they were written in.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
I have three co-workers with whom I usually discuss religion (and politics). One is Catholic, one is Muslim, and one is born again. I will refrain from disclosing what I am.
The discussions do not center around religion, but rather around a specific point of a religion. And they do not itterate that point, but are a series of questions regarding that point. Eventually, through that series of questions, inconsistencies occur.
For example, the born again believes that Christ died for our sins, and only thru belief in Jesus Christ is your soul saved. Obviously the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself would take exception to this, all for different reasons. So we talk about this point.
We ask him how someone could believe that Jesus dies for their sins, and accept God, if, by your actions, you continue to sin, and make no effort to live as God would like you to live. Eventually the born again sees the incongruity with saying you believe, but not acting as you believe, and reinforces the belief of the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself that actions do matter. Pror to that he had argued actions did NOT matter. That a murderer could continue to commit murder and as long as he believed that Jesus died for his sins he would ascend to heaven. By the way, the Muslim opposed this view, and asked whether the man that uses a suicide belt to kill on an Israeli bus will go to heaven if he believes in Jesus, rather than being a Muslim. These really can be funny and interesting discussions.
The same is true of creationism and evolution. If God created everything, did he then not create science? And if God created science, did he not create evolution? So, could evolution be part of God's plan?
Same is true for homosexuality. If God created everything, did he create things such as sin? If God created things such as sin, did God also create things such as homosexuality? If Jesus died for our sins, did Jesus die for things like sin and homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin in God's eyes? Or is that man's interpretation?
Is it possible to believe in God, but not believe in Man's interpretation of God?
Explore as questions, debate the questions, and follow the debate through to a conclusion. If you wish to debate whether Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or unbelief are correct, all you will do is engage in the old "my religion is correct and your's is wrong" endless debate.
I agree with the POSSIBILITIES of discussion that you put forth there, and you are fortunate to have four people that are able to stay on topic and truly DISCUSS. However, I stand by the statement I made, that not only have I, personally, not met any atheists or Christians that are able to DO what you have stated here....I also suggest that if any EXIST that are ABLE to stay on topic without EVENTUALLY coming to the "I'm right, you're wrong" assertion (no matter how subtlely cloaked) they are a very, very, very rare individual.
The reason, I believe, that it is most difficult for these specific two belief systems to discuss their beliefs is because ONE believes (KNOWS) that evidence for truth is based on scientific fact, analysis, and the hard evidence that is derived from such intellectual and learned research. Those things, by their way of thinking, are directly equivalent to truth and fact. The other believes (KNOWS) that faith is not reliant upon scientific evidence, research, or proven fact. They believe that those standards, by which the atheist judges reasonable beliefs and thinking, are literally "foolishness" because "God's" ways are beyond knowing and understanding for the humble nature of humanity. (They have a scripture they quote here about the foolishness of man's reasoning, according to scripture.)
You can quote to them direct research that "proves" that their beliefs are, at the very LEAST, "flawed" when it comes to their factual assessment, and they will laugh in your face. Because "facts" often fly in the face of spiritual "beliefs" that are not only born of blind faith, but REQUIRE blind faith by their god, according to their holy scriptures. And of this "faith" that will undoubtedly laugh at pure human reasoning, logic, and scientific evidence, he/she is PROUD, because it "proves" that they "have the faith of a child," which their biblical "beliefs" assert is IDEAL and to be strived toward.
Now...when you try to have a conversation between two people who are so diametrically opposed as to what they see as REAL, evident, proven, and truthful....you WILL eventually hit a brick wall, that will generally end with the Christian stating...."I do not have to PROVE the reason for my faith to you. This is what I believe, because it is what my heart tells me is truth, and the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," or some other phrase we've all heard. At this point, your "discussion" is over.
Christians cannot "argue, debate, or very often discuss" with an atheist without coming to this stalemate, because....they are arguing, debating, and discussing with two ENTIRELY different parameters of measurement. These specific two belief systems do not measure evidence of truth by the same ruler.
I highly recommend you read a few books by people who came to belief in God through reason and evidence, not what "their heart" told them.
Anthony Flew (There Is God) was a leading athiest, in fact, for a generation people quoted his papers on the subject when debating the subject, came to belief after years of challenging himself with evidence. CS Lewis was the same. The Case For Christ by Lee Stobel is also a good start on seeing that the gap between reason and faith is only as far apart as a person wants it to be. Also Alister McGrath is good on this was well, as is Polkinghorne, who was a nuclear physicist who later went on to become a Anglican minister. NT Wright never checks his reason at the door either.
If you wanna really head out there into quantum mechanics and highly abstract physics, a good start is The Physics of Immortality by Frank Tipler.
There are no doubt MANY believers who hold their beliefs irrationally, or non-rationally. Those are usually quite weak at apologetics.
I am in no way endorcing all the views of all the people above, just throwing them out there for the discussion so that if anyone wants to see the more rational string of religious thinkers, they can.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I am not saying carbon dating is wrong, I just believe the time frame is way off. Yes there may be scientific methods, however, someone thought of how old that layer or rock is and then the assumption was born for that. How do you know for certian, that layer of rock is 4 million years old? Was there a man, living and recorded it 4 million years ago? No.
This is where I stopped reading this thread. This person obviously does not understand carbon dating and radioactive half life. He'll acknowledge the existence of hydrogen atoms even though he has not actually seen one himself. BUT He will deny the existence of evolution and the fossil record even though he has seen fossils of dinosaurs (Satan placed trilobite fossils everywhere to TEST YOUR FAITH!)
Why can't god have created man through evolution? Why can't the mysteries of science bring us closer to god?
Am I to take the bible literally?
If you want me to believe in your god please explain the fossil record to me. Please explain how Johah survived 3 days and nights in the belly of a fish. If after the great flood, the sons of Noah populated the 3 great continents (Europe, Asia and Africa) where did the Aztecs and the Native Americans come from? Leviticus talks about the rules of slave ownership...
Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
There are so many crazy stories in a book that was written in a time when people thought the earth was flat and that witches sank.
When ever I get into this discussion people tell me "well... the bible says.." and then it stops there.
Like love, you can't fake faith. I believe in what Jesus stands for but I'm not convinced he was who he says he was no more than I'm convinced David Koresh was who he said he was. Science can provide empirical data to support facts and theories. People of faith provide the bible. That is why it is called "faith".
You either believe or you don't.
This subject is always like two slow rolling trains moving toward each other and it ends up being the proverbial train wreck.
Obviously you don't understand the bible sir. No, I don't fully understand carbon dating but I know enough. I have stated many times of why EVOLUTION CAN NOT WORK ACCORDING TO GOD's WORD. I use the bible for my arguement and you use science. And you just used a bible verse. Man, people like you ruin arguements. Sorry fishermage, you spoke too soon. Oh, because the bible says the four corners of the earth, that automatically means they believed the earth was flat? No, do you comprehend the cardinal directions? North, South, East and West? Four corners, not in a literall translation. When I see people say evolution, I stop there. Know both sides of the coin before you ramble about stupid nothings. Because it makes you look bad. And we all know most people like you are self loathing. Better get your ego back. Your just lost.
Christianity is a historical faith that can be verified from both secular history and archeology . . . but since we have been discussing Islam and Christianity, consider for a moment the origin of the Koran. Muhammad claims to have received messages from God and penned down these revelations, right . . . who else heard these voices? Who else saw these visions? Do we even have one witness, or one shred of corroborating evidence it was really God speaking to Muhammad? On the other hand, the origin of the Bible spans some 1,500 years with multiple authors and yet we find a consistent testimony of real people, places, and events. There is actually a 400 year gap between the Old and New Testaments and yet they completely harmonize with one another.
Also, Biblical prophecy is another verifiable witness that is uniquely found in the Judeo-Christian faith. For example, the prophet Daniel specifically spoke of the rise and fall of four world kingdoms that would directly affect the people of God (see Daniel 2 & 7). Any history book will confirm that these kingdoms did indeed rise and fall accordingly. The Old Testament prophets also spoke with detailed accuracy of the life of the coming messiah and no one other than Jesus fulfilled these prophecies. In fact there is no other world religion that can be recognized for its historical and prophetic witness.
Their is only one holy book that made a prophecy that came true,and Israel became a state once again.As you can see Israel enemies surround this tiny state just as it was fortold.The whole world will turn against Israel just as we see right now.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
"Well the bible says..." Then it stops there.
Stupid nothings? That hurts.
What happened to turning the other cheek?
"A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself"
""I am not saying carbon dating is wrong, I just believe the time frame is way off"
You "believe" the time frame is way off. Belief = Faith. You are not a scientist... I want you to explain to me scientifically how you feel the time frame is way off when you don't understand it to begin with.
That means you are adding your belief system to science... just like I'm adding my science to your beliefs. You admit yourself you don't know much about "radio carbon dating" but you know enough to know it is wrong.
Then I should be able to say...
"I am not saying the bible is wrong, I just BELIEVE it is way off".
Kind of annoying statement is it not?
""I am not saying carbon dating is wrong, I just believe the time frame is way off"
You "believe" the time frame is way off. Belief = Faith. You are not a scientist... I want you to explain to me scientifically how you feel the time frame is way off when you don't understand it to begin with.
That means you are adding your belief system to science... just like I'm adding my science to your beliefs. You admit yourself you don't know much about "radio carbon dating" but you know enough to know it is wrong.
Then I should be able to say...
"I am not saying the bible is wrong, I just BELIEVE it is way off".
Kind of annoying statement is it not?
It is when the statement is one sided. When you say you have the belief that it was 65 million years ago as well. Sorry, just like to be equal here. Gotta balance it out. But I do see your point here.
Like you said, yes it's my belief that the time frame is way off and it's your belief that the time is correct. So please explain it to my scientifically. For me, see Kent Hovind. I am sure he can explain it better than I can.
It is when the statement is one sided. When you say you have the belief that it was 65 million years ago as well. Sorry, just like to be equal here. Gotta balance it out. But I do see your point here.
Like you said, yes it's my belief that the time frame is way off and it's your belief that the time is correct. So please explain it to my scientifically. For me, see Kent Hovind. I am sure he can explain it better than I can.
Kent Hovind?
He suggests that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time... his proof? There are items of pottery and cave drawing depicting dinosaurs.
He is also serving a 10 year sentence for numerious tax violations and obstructing federal agents.
There are many Christians who think this guy is a loon.
It is when the statement is one sided. When you say you have the belief that it was 65 million years ago as well. Sorry, just like to be equal here. Gotta balance it out. But I do see your point here.
Like you said, yes it's my belief that the time frame is way off and it's your belief that the time is correct. So please explain it to my scientifically. For me, see Kent Hovind. I am sure he can explain it better than I can.
Kent Hovind?
He suggests that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time... his proof? There are items of pottery and cave drawing depicting dinosaurs.
He is also serving a 10 year sentence for numerious tax violations and obstructing federal agents.
Sorry...if anything the words of this man only strengthen my resolve in science further.
Oh really, interesting, didn't know that.
Off the subject because it's just the same stuff new people and I am getting sick of it.
I hope your not a razorbacks fan, because UK is killing them.
Since you deferred your arugment to Kent Hovind... I'll defer my argument to any one of the numerous scientists around the world.
That said...
I live in Alaska and do not follow college sports.
Well we have a player from Alaska on our team =D.
I have three co-workers with whom I usually discuss religion (and politics). One is Catholic, one is Muslim, and one is born again. I will refrain from disclosing what I am.
The discussions do not center around religion, but rather around a specific point of a religion. And they do not itterate that point, but are a series of questions regarding that point. Eventually, through that series of questions, inconsistencies occur.
For example, the born again believes that Christ died for our sins, and only thru belief in Jesus Christ is your soul saved. Obviously the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself would take exception to this, all for different reasons. So we talk about this point.
We ask him how someone could believe that Jesus dies for their sins, and accept God, if, by your actions, you continue to sin, and make no effort to live as God would like you to live. Eventually the born again sees the incongruity with saying you believe, but not acting as you believe, and reinforces the belief of the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself that actions do matter. Pror to that he had argued actions did NOT matter. That a murderer could continue to commit murder and as long as he believed that Jesus died for his sins he would ascend to heaven. By the way, the Muslim opposed this view, and asked whether the man that uses a suicide belt to kill on an Israeli bus will go to heaven if he believes in Jesus, rather than being a Muslim. These really can be funny and interesting discussions.
The same is true of creationism and evolution. If God created everything, did he then not create science? And if God created science, did he not create evolution? So, could evolution be part of God's plan?
Same is true for homosexuality. If God created everything, did he create things such as sin? If God created things such as sin, did God also create things such as homosexuality? If Jesus died for our sins, did Jesus die for things like sin and homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin in God's eyes? Or is that man's interpretation?
Is it possible to believe in God, but not believe in Man's interpretation of God?
Explore as questions, debate the questions, and follow the debate through to a conclusion. If you wish to debate whether Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or unbelief are correct, all you will do is engage in the old "my religion is correct and your's is wrong" endless debate.
I agree with the POSSIBILITIES of discussion that you put forth there, and you are fortunate to have four people that are able to stay on topic and truly DISCUSS. However, I stand by the statement I made, that not only have I, personally, not met any atheists or Christians that are able to DO what you have stated here....I also suggest that if any EXIST that are ABLE to stay on topic without EVENTUALLY coming to the "I'm right, you're wrong" assertion (no matter how subtlely cloaked) they are a very, very, very rare individual.
The reason, I believe, that it is most difficult for these specific two belief systems to discuss their beliefs is because ONE believes (KNOWS) that evidence for truth is based on scientific fact, analysis, and the hard evidence that is derived from such intellectual and learned research. Those things, by their way of thinking, are directly equivalent to truth and fact. The other believes (KNOWS) that faith is not reliant upon scientific evidence, research, or proven fact. They believe that those standards, by which the atheist judges reasonable beliefs and thinking, are literally "foolishness" because "God's" ways are beyond knowing and understanding for the humble nature of humanity. (They have a scripture they quote here about the foolishness of man's reasoning, according to scripture.)
You can quote to them direct research that "proves" that their beliefs are, at the very LEAST, "flawed" when it comes to their factual assessment, and they will laugh in your face. Because "facts" often fly in the face of spiritual "beliefs" that are not only born of blind faith, but REQUIRE blind faith by their god, according to their holy scriptures. And of this "faith" that will undoubtedly laugh at pure human reasoning, logic, and scientific evidence, he/she is PROUD, because it "proves" that they "have the faith of a child," which their biblical "beliefs" assert is IDEAL and to be strived toward.
Now...when you try to have a conversation between two people who are so diametrically opposed as to what they see as REAL, evident, proven, and truthful....you WILL eventually hit a brick wall, that will generally end with the Christian stating...."I do not have to PROVE the reason for my faith to you. This is what I believe, because it is what my heart tells me is truth, and the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," or some other phrase we've all heard. At this point, your "discussion" is over.
Christians cannot "argue, debate, or very often discuss" with an atheist without coming to this stalemate, because....they are arguing, debating, and discussing with two ENTIRELY different parameters of measurement. These specific two belief systems do not measure evidence of truth by the same ruler.
I highly recommend you read a few books by people who came to belief in God through reason and evidence, not what "their heart" told them.
Anthony Flew (There Is God) was a leading athiest, in fact, for a generation people quoted his papers on the subject when debating the subject, came to belief after years of challenging himself with evidence. CS Lewis was the same. The Case For Christ by Lee Stobel is also a good start on seeing that the gap between reason and faith is only as far apart as a person wants it to be. Also Alister McGrath is good on this was well, as is Polkinghorne, who was a nuclear physicist who later went on to become a Anglican minister. NT Wright never checks his reason at the door either.
If you wanna really head out there into quantum mechanics and highly abstract physics, a good start is The Physics of Immortality by Frank Tipler.
There are no doubt MANY believers who hold their beliefs irrationally, or non-rationally. Those are usually quite weak at apologetics.
I am in no way endorcing all the views of all the people above, just throwing them out there for the discussion so that if anyone wants to see the more rational string of religious thinkers, they can.
And just WHY do you "recommend" this? Did I elude in ANY way shape or form as to what my own personal beliefs are, or are you just assuming, since I am not obviously siding with faith, nor science, that you know what my beliefs are? This....right here....is why religious discussion or debate is fruitless. One person always makes the assumption that they are more "enlightened" or "educated" (depending on which system of beliefs you ascribe to) than the other person in the discussion. Immediately that sets the discussion or debate up to fail in "enlightening" or "educating" either person, because one (or both) have then taken a position of pride, or even arrogance, which renders them lacking in the humility (capacity) to possibly learn and discover.
Incidentally, I will disclose that I am a born again Christian (09-10-1972). I believe that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ, and that we work out our salvation from there on out through our communion with God through the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that salvation is "fire insurance," I believe it is only an INITIAL entering into a JOURNEY of faith, it is not the end of the matter. Incidentally, I do NOT subscribe to many, many other beliefs that self-proclaimed "Christians" seem to cling to like a life raft on a raging sea of uncertainty. I am not so insecure in my own faith as to assume it is my job to be "Junior Holy Spirit" and interject myself into another's ideas, beliefs, and creeds, because I am not so arrogant as to hold the opinion that I am all-knowing and all-seeing and that I have all (or perhaps ANY) of the answers that another person seeks. MY God, leads each person on their OWN path, and He is big enough that He doesn't need MY help. LOL
I also believe that science is an inarguable factor in all things that we see around us, and that if God wanted to create all that we see by using spit balls and a straw...He could have. I do not think that evolution and Christianity (nor any other world religion) are mutually exclusive. I do not believe that Christians have all the answers. I do not believe that science has all the answers. I do not believe that any ONE institution or order of beliefs has all the answers. I also don't believe that to have faith (nor to be an atheist) it is necessary for every QUESTION to HAVE an answer.
I DO believe that the teachings of Jesus Christ have the power, if followed, to bring light, life, and peace into a world that desperately needs LOVE, not judgment and condemnation. I believe that "Christians" very very often, do not follow the teachings of Christ, but rather use assorted other "scriptures", often out of context, (including writings by disciples that were written to SPECIFIC people to solve specific problems AT THAT TIME) to attempt to control and manipulate, as the Church has ALWAYS done throughout history. Religion is, and always will be, the very definition of evil. Religion is man's attempt to control. Spirituality and religion are two utterly separate things. One is connected to the divine, the other is connected to legalism, human power, control, and manipulation. I do NOT ascribe to those things.
NOTE: The above is a statement of my own PERSONAL beliefs and views from experience and study, and it is not up for debate. I continue to evolve in my spirituality, however, that journey has nothing to DO with anyone ELSE's study, beliefs, or opinions on the matter. It is MY journey ALONE. It grows and changes as I, myself, grow, change, and discover. Someone ELSE'S "revelations" have no altering affect on my own, as they are not mine.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Opinions are like assholes, which is why these threads are always filled to the brim, not to say that I'm not guilty of doing my fair share of asshole wiping on this carpet.
To address some things I saw in the thread and do not care to quote (if you do the same to me I won't hold it against you for symmetry) out of laziness:
The biggest flaw in Pascal's wager is that he does not consider the possibility that other religions that contradict his own are correct; there could be an entire pantheon you'd have to worship, or none at all: Maybe the god(s) that are required to worship don't want you to acknowledge their existence.
Point is that constructing solutions for problems that you can't solve without building them rigorously and consistently is generally not helpful.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I found that discussing religion with other people is not something you can do every day......You often have to find a good opportunity when to discuss things, whether it be atheism or about various religions......
Atheists and religious types should get along famously. An atheist is someone who believes there is no God-- with no empirical proof to support that position. A religious person who believes in God(s),believes without empirical proof as well.
So what's there to argue about? Your positions are both equally valid and invalid. What exactly is there to explain? Considering both are equally valid, I always find it odd anyone would come down on the atheist side of things. I mean, if the theist is wrong, you both end up dead and gone in the hereafter. If the theist is right, he's in heaven. You, the atheist? Hmmm. Not good. So, logically speaking, athetists are bone stupid.
I pointed out the flaw in that reasoning above.
So, it's just you.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I pointed out the flaw in that reasoning above.
So, it's just you.
What flaw? A typo? Explain or quit posting useless garbage.
I have three co-workers with whom I usually discuss religion (and politics). One is Catholic, one is Muslim, and one is born again. I will refrain from disclosing what I am.
The discussions do not center around religion, but rather around a specific point of a religion. And they do not itterate that point, but are a series of questions regarding that point. Eventually, through that series of questions, inconsistencies occur.
For example, the born again believes that Christ died for our sins, and only thru belief in Jesus Christ is your soul saved. Obviously the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself would take exception to this, all for different reasons. So we talk about this point.
We ask him how someone could believe that Jesus dies for their sins, and accept God, if, by your actions, you continue to sin, and make no effort to live as God would like you to live. Eventually the born again sees the incongruity with saying you believe, but not acting as you believe, and reinforces the belief of the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself that actions do matter. Pror to that he had argued actions did NOT matter. That a murderer could continue to commit murder and as long as he believed that Jesus died for his sins he would ascend to heaven. By the way, the Muslim opposed this view, and asked whether the man that uses a suicide belt to kill on an Israeli bus will go to heaven if he believes in Jesus, rather than being a Muslim. These really can be funny and interesting discussions.
The same is true of creationism and evolution. If God created everything, did he then not create science? And if God created science, did he not create evolution? So, could evolution be part of God's plan?
Same is true for homosexuality. If God created everything, did he create things such as sin? If God created things such as sin, did God also create things such as homosexuality? If Jesus died for our sins, did Jesus die for things like sin and homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin in God's eyes? Or is that man's interpretation?
Is it possible to believe in God, but not believe in Man's interpretation of God?
Explore as questions, debate the questions, and follow the debate through to a conclusion. If you wish to debate whether Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or unbelief are correct, all you will do is engage in the old "my religion is correct and your's is wrong" endless debate.
I agree with the POSSIBILITIES of discussion that you put forth there, and you are fortunate to have four people that are able to stay on topic and truly DISCUSS. However, I stand by the statement I made, that not only have I, personally, not met any atheists or Christians that are able to DO what you have stated here....I also suggest that if any EXIST that are ABLE to stay on topic without EVENTUALLY coming to the "I'm right, you're wrong" assertion (no matter how subtlely cloaked) they are a very, very, very rare individual.
The reason, I believe, that it is most difficult for these specific two belief systems to discuss their beliefs is because ONE believes (KNOWS) that evidence for truth is based on scientific fact, analysis, and the hard evidence that is derived from such intellectual and learned research. Those things, by their way of thinking, are directly equivalent to truth and fact. The other believes (KNOWS) that faith is not reliant upon scientific evidence, research, or proven fact. They believe that those standards, by which the atheist judges reasonable beliefs and thinking, are literally "foolishness" because "God's" ways are beyond knowing and understanding for the humble nature of humanity. (They have a scripture they quote here about the foolishness of man's reasoning, according to scripture.)
You can quote to them direct research that "proves" that their beliefs are, at the very LEAST, "flawed" when it comes to their factual assessment, and they will laugh in your face. Because "facts" often fly in the face of spiritual "beliefs" that are not only born of blind faith, but REQUIRE blind faith by their god, according to their holy scriptures. And of this "faith" that will undoubtedly laugh at pure human reasoning, logic, and scientific evidence, he/she is PROUD, because it "proves" that they "have the faith of a child," which their biblical "beliefs" assert is IDEAL and to be strived toward.
Now...when you try to have a conversation between two people who are so diametrically opposed as to what they see as REAL, evident, proven, and truthful....you WILL eventually hit a brick wall, that will generally end with the Christian stating...."I do not have to PROVE the reason for my faith to you. This is what I believe, because it is what my heart tells me is truth, and the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," or some other phrase we've all heard. At this point, your "discussion" is over.
Christians cannot "argue, debate, or very often discuss" with an atheist without coming to this stalemate, because....they are arguing, debating, and discussing with two ENTIRELY different parameters of measurement. These specific two belief systems do not measure evidence of truth by the same ruler.
I highly recommend you read a few books by people who came to belief in God through reason and evidence, not what "their heart" told them.
Anthony Flew (There Is God) was a leading athiest, in fact, for a generation people quoted his papers on the subject when debating the subject, came to belief after years of challenging himself with evidence. CS Lewis was the same. The Case For Christ by Lee Stobel is also a good start on seeing that the gap between reason and faith is only as far apart as a person wants it to be. Also Alister McGrath is good on this was well, as is Polkinghorne, who was a nuclear physicist who later went on to become a Anglican minister. NT Wright never checks his reason at the door either.
If you wanna really head out there into quantum mechanics and highly abstract physics, a good start is The Physics of Immortality by Frank Tipler.
There are no doubt MANY believers who hold their beliefs irrationally, or non-rationally. Those are usually quite weak at apologetics.
I am in no way endorcing all the views of all the people above, just throwing them out there for the discussion so that if anyone wants to see the more rational string of religious thinkers, they can.
And just WHY do you "recommend" this? Did I elude in ANY way shape or form as to what my own personal beliefs are, or are you just assuming, since I am not obviously siding with faith, nor science, that you know what my beliefs are? This....right here....is why religious discussion or debate is fruitless. One person always makes the assumption that they are more "enlightened" or "educated" (depending on which system of beliefs you ascribe to) than the other person in the discussion. Immediately that sets the discussion or debate up to fail in "enlightening" or "educating" either person, because one (or both) have then taken a position of pride, or even arrogance, which renders them lacking in the humility (capacity) to possibly learn and discover.
Incidentally, I will disclose that I am a born again Christian (09-10-1972). I believe that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ, and that we work out our salvation from there on out through our communion with God through the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that salvation is "fire insurance," I believe it is only an INITIAL entering into a JOURNEY of faith, it is not the end of the matter. Incidentally, I do NOT subscribe to many, many other beliefs that self-proclaimed "Christians" seem to cling to like a life raft on a raging sea of uncertainty. I am not so insecure in my own faith as to assume it is my job to be "Junior Holy Spirit" and interject myself into another's ideas, beliefs, and creeds, because I am not so arrogant as to hold the opinion that I am all-knowing and all-seeing and that I have all (or perhaps ANY) of the answers that another person seeks. MY God, leads each person on their OWN path, and He is big enough that He doesn't need MY help. LOL
I also believe that science is an inarguable factor in all things that we see around us, and that if God wanted to create all that we see by using spit balls and a straw...He could have. I do not think that evolution and Christianity (nor any other world religion) are mutually exclusive. I do not believe that Christians have all the answers. I do not believe that science has all the answers. I do not believe that any ONE institution or order of beliefs has all the answers. I also don't believe that to have faith (nor to be an atheist) it is necessary for every QUESTION to HAVE an answer.
I DO believe that the teachings of Jesus Christ have the power, if followed, to bring light, life, and peace into a world that desperately needs LOVE, not judgment and condemnation. I believe that "Christians" very very often, do not follow the teachings of Christ, but rather use assorted other "scriptures", often out of context, (including writings by disciples that were written to SPECIFIC people to solve specific problems AT THAT TIME) to attempt to control and manipulate, as the Church has ALWAYS done throughout history. Religion is, and always will be, the very definition of evil. Religion is man's attempt to control. Spirituality and religion are two utterly separate things. One is connected to the divine, the other is connected to legalism, human power, control, and manipulation. I do NOT ascribe to those things.
NOTE: The above is a statement of my own PERSONAL beliefs and views from experience and study, and it is not up for debate. I continue to evolve in my spirituality, however, that journey has nothing to DO with anyone ELSE's study, beliefs, or opinions on the matter. It is MY journey ALONE. It grows and changes as I, myself, grow, change, and discover. Someone ELSE'S "revelations" have no altering affect on my own, as they are not mine.
You were the one who said that science and faith are diametrically opposed. I, in attempting to say, it ain't necessarily so, tried to be helpful and recommend the stories of believers who do not share what you said. They believe that Science and Faith are fully compatible, sometimes complimentary, sometimes necessary components of a greater world view.
I'm sorry if i wasn't clear -- it didn't really matter what your personal views were about God, in this context, it was what your personal views were about faith, science and how it related to discussion.
I find taht dialogue is possible, natural, and wonderful. It is exceptionally difficult on the internet, because you took what i wrote to be in a completely different tone than in which it was written, and then responded in what certainly sounds like a rather angry tone.
Sorry I used poor words or whatever that got you all...well whatever led you to answer the way you did.
I pretty much agree with most of what you said, just not the way you said it.
One last issue: you don't find that reading the words of others helps you on your journey? We can't share and grow together? You really believe that all spirituality is something we must do behind locked doors?
There I would disagree.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Actually I believe what I believe (in God) because of empirical proof, at least sufficient proof for me. It's not scientific, testable, repeatable proof, but I don't find that necessary for a thing like a being that transcends space and time. the historical empirical proof combined with the experience of my own life, and the lives of many people I find credible is plenty for me.
Nobody is this discussion is bone stupid -- we just disagree, a natural human thing and the beginning of dialogue. If we agree on everything...all we have is...uh huh...pretty boring.
I love sharing and learning from others and their spirituality. I am a Jewish Christian with a pagan soul, who tries to walk the Tao mindfully. I've also got a bit of Coyote in me, and consider God and my relationship with Sophia (His wisdom and a definitely feminine aspect, even in the Jewish Christian tradition) to be a loving relationship that grows as I learn more about His creation and my place in it. I got that from Islam, Sufism most specifically.
I came to Christ AFTER exploring most of these things and "drawing all iinto myself."
I love to share this love with all.
I never mock atheists, agnostics, or any other religions, because in most cases, I've been there and back again, and am always questioning, doubting, and testing. I believe that my God thinks that's a good thing.
fishermage.blogspot.com
You never want to make it simple, do you.
I am a Deist. I look at the world - the universe - and know that a higher being helped bring it into existence. However, the "meddling" ends there. I don't believe God, or whatever any one religion calls him/her, interferes within the lives of mortals. Our known existence was merely a creative project and, when finished, we were simply left alone to live our lives how good, or bad, we wished to do so.
You never want to make it simple, do you.
I am a Deist. I look at the world - the universe - and know that a higher being helped bring it into existence. However, the "meddling" ends there. I don't believe God, or whatever any one religion calls him/her, interferes within the lives of mortals. Our known existence was merely a creative project and, when finished, we were simply left alone to live our lives how good, or bad, we wished to do so.
I believe that an infinite being who loves His creation with an infinite love has all the time in infinity to be with us every moment of every one of out lives, and still has time to cook some eggs.
I have seen too much evidence of his interference, and too much evidence where he has made claims of interference and proved it by mucking with Time and Death to give evidence for that belief.
I believe He answers prayers, when it pleases Him (probably means he will intervene when He finds something we are doing compelling or interesting and the help wouldn't mess up the space time continuum), but my point is that He is intimately involved in His creation and it is all kept going by the passive effects of the Holy Spirit running on automatic -- that which we call energy one century or quantum reality in another, and perhaps through strings in another.
I feel he is more than a Divine watchmaker, although I thoroughly understand and appreciate that view, and feel we MUST hold that view when we practice the art of science. That is when we explore the set rules of His creation.
I do however believe firmly that we all have a relationship with Him right here and now and He is always with all of us all the time forever and always.
Why? For the same reason a dog licks his balls. Because He can.
Betcha never heard stuff like THAT in Church!
EDIT: Oh, and I WAS making it simple! I left a bunch out -- like my whole stint with ritual magick lol.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I pointed out the flaw in that reasoning above.
So, it's just you.
What flaw? A typo? Explain or quit posting useless garbage.
Naw, that's already your job along with failing to scroll up, or even understand whose reasoning you are using.
Go google Pascal's Wager and scroll up to what I had posted before you.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Those two lines brought a smile upon my face. Arthur Dent was brought to mind for some reason.