Religious debate (split from main board)

#701
#701
jamesd1628 said:
So then your position on Christianity is the equivalent of your position on the flying spaghetti monster. Which I'm guessing means you're pretty darn convinced of your position and don't think you will ever change your mind (i.e., you are convinced that no evidence will ever arise to convince you otherwise). I'm trying to understand in what way that makes you open-minded, which is where this inquiry started.
Click to expand...

You must be a brother of lawgator. You have some pretty fine lawya speak.
 
#702
#702
jamesd1628 said:
So then your position on Christianity is the equivalent of your position on the flying spaghetti monster. Which I'm guessing means you're pretty darn convinced of your position and don't think you will ever change your mind (i.e., you are convinced that no evidence will ever arise to convince you otherwise). I'm trying to understand in what way that makes you open-minded, which is where this inquiry started.
Click to expand...

It seems as if you have missed a few of my posts where I addressed this issue. Here is another attempt for toy.

I am saying that the evidence for each position is equal, as I don't give credence to a view simply because a lot of people believe it - evidence helps a little more. Now, I might give Christianity a slight boost simple because it has a larger history of philosophical explication...but that doesn't help much because A) christian theology and apologetics is not particularly good or fruitful, and B) I am confident that given enough time, FSM believers could come up with a bit of their own.

Anyway, that I currently see the evidence as equal for each position does not mean that either position could not come up with a legitimate proof (though the FSM has shortcomings insofar as it is documented as a joke, and Christianity is only speculated as being a joke). If scientific research found existence of a god; if evolutionary theory completely failed as a scientific paradigm; if there were some impressive evidence for the existence of god; or if there were a knock-down argument for the existence of god, then I would be compelled to at least rethink my position.

Here is a question for you. Apple is talking about coming out with a new 'tablet'. This has rumors of being something like a cross between an iphone and a notebook. We currently have no information regarding its specs. I could sit here and posit that, via inside sources, I know that it will be a fully functional laptop with a full Iphone-esque touchscreen and phone capabilities. I could add in any number of additional, and unlikely, bits of information about this product. You, however, must remain agnostic in general. You may even strongly disagree with some of my assertions. Does this mean, though, that if Apple came out with a product identical to my claims that you would refuse to believe in it? Does this mean that you would shun press releases and stick dogmatically to your beliefs? NO! The fact that someone may even have their mind currently made up does not mean that they are closed-minded and refuse to heed new evidence. Only a mind so closed by dogmatism could possibly dream up that argument.
 
#703
#703
Closed-mindedness = certainty + a refusal to heed new evidence. It is a way of orienting oneself to future propositions, rather than a way of holding current propositions. I admit that this past sentence is slightly controversial, so I will say that even if you hold a belief with absolute certainty, you cannot be dogmatic unless you hold yourself in a certain way regarding future ideas.
 
#704
#704
The entire idea of salvation in Christianity is a bit troublesome.

The idea that the only way to salvation lies through Jesus is the central idea of Christianity. In fact, it is really the only one that matters, as Christians will tell you all of their faith is built on that simple notion.

But this idea is built on a few assumptions about the world:

1) Man is inherently born sinful (because of the original sin of Adam and Eve).

2) Sin is a bad thing and we should strive to avoid all forms of it.

The first may be a nice metaphor, but it is ridiculous if you examine it factually.

For one, it is a known fact that there never was any "Adam and Eve". Despite the popular denial of such, the evolution of species, including humans, is an established fact. There never was a breeding population of only two humans because for one, such a population cannot sustain a species due to a lack of genetic diversity, and if such a pair existed our gene pool would show evidence of it today.

The reason why we can know this lies inside the human cell. In each of your cells there are tiny "organelles" called mitochondria. They're basically tiny energy factories for the cell. They convert glucose (blood sugar) and oxygen into ATP, which is used to store energy throughout the cell. But each mitochondria carries its own DNA, completely separate from your normal genome. Unlike your normal genome, half of which comes from your father and half of which comes from your mother, your mitochondria come entirely from your mother alone.

Hence, barring mutations, your mitochondria are the same as your mothers, but not necessarily your fathers. If there were a single mother to all people today, such as Eve, we would see the evidence in mitochondrial DNA. Every person's would be a slight variation of the same overall plan (the variation due to mutations that built up over 6,000 years). Of course, all people were wiped out at some point, but only one line would have been kept alive through Noah's family. But instead we don't see that. By inspecting different people's mitocondrial DNA, geneticists can actually estimate based on their diversity how separated groups of people are, as well as how small their breeding population was in the past. And it shows no evidence of a single mother at any point in history.

So, what can we conclude? Adam and Eve never actually existed. That means that the original sin described in Genesis never even happened. So now (unless you interpret the whole thing as a metaphor) we have to determine that the entire point of salvation is lacking. What's there to be saved from if there is no original sin? The entire argument that you can't just be a good person, you have to be good and you have to accept Jesus, falls on its face.

Going back to our list of assumptions, let's look at number 2. Is it really true that all sin is bad and should be avoided? Obviously things like murder and theft are bad, but what about "Honoring thy father and mother"? Surely its a good virtue, but how many children grow up in abusive homes? Should they be condemned to hell because they resist abuse? And what about "remembering the sabbath and keeping it holy"? Does that mean that working on the sabbath or missing church should be rewarded by an eternity of pain and suffering? Patterns I notice when talking with Christians is that they love to go on and on about how good their moral code is, by bringing up obvious taboos such as murder and theft. But they never want to talk about the Bible's many rules against such things as wearing mixed fabrics, eating non-kosher, and working on the sabbath.

Not to mention the fact that whenever you bring up the Bible's orders to execute sons who disobey their parents, people who work on the Sabbath, and girls who marry despite not being virgins, you are instantly dismissed as a rude atheist. Can you imagine what their reaction would be if someone like O'Hair ever wrote such a pack of abject brutality as ethical guidelines for the atheist? How willing, do you think, would the Christian be to accept the feeble excuse that Richard Dawkins later "undid" her commandments in his new book? The Christian mind, while sometimes grounded in goodwill, is ultimately, ironically, the most hypocritical in imagination. With one breath they extoll the virtues of their prophet's teachings, and in the next they loudly inform everyone of how much they pray for those who disagree (Matthew 6:5-6).

The reason why an atheist is so obsessed with Christianity is not because they are bitter, or because they secretly believe in god. It is because the Christian faith is such an intriguing mess of contradictions and hypocrisy. There is no more ironic statement than a Christian telling an atheist to be open-minded. Here we have a person who takes the fact that their faith has no basis in evidence as a good sign, a person who when they feel doubtful, reassure themselves that doubting their faith is a sign that it is more likely to be correct, a person who views anyone outside their faith to be at best hopelessly misguided and at worst to be little more than an animal. And this person is telling someone who is aware enough to apply the same skepticism the Christian applies to every other faith in the human imagination to their faith to be "more open-minded".

It is no coincidence that Christians do not preach to their followers to be more open-minded about Muhammed, and tell them to keep in mind that the Muslim faith might be correct. It is because a Christian really doesn't understand the concept of being open-minded. To be open-minded is to be free of all prejudices both against something and FOR something. Because giving special credence to the Christian faith is the same as being closed-minded towards some other faith. Christians want all the privilege of being the strong and correct majority, while retaining the moral high ground of being a persecuted minority.
 
Last edited:
#705
#705
IPorange said:
This thread has taught me a lot about mainstream Christians and how they see others, and it isn't very good. I've never thought of Christianity as a "cult," but it is starting to sound like one with no one being able to be an authority on anything unless they believe the same as Christians. Not even their own experiences.
Click to expand...

It's a fuzzy line between a cult and a religion. The only clear cut seems to be size. Scientology, for instance, is widely viewed as a cult, but when you look at their actions, they are really no different than some sects of Christianity, in how they deal with the unsaved.
 
#707
#707
Cartervol said:
I really don't get it about the Gators. They've had a good run and i guess these guys actually think Urban will be around. Urb is a drama queen, i guess kids like drama queens. I just don't get it. Maybe these kids now days are more in touch with their feminine side:jpshakehead::puke5::dunno:
Click to expand...

Crazy jesus talk will get you far in the south. Look what it's done for the GOP.
 
#708
#708
Snakes on a Wii said:
The entire idea of salvation in Christianity is a bit troublesome.

The idea that the only way to salvation lies through Jesus is the central idea of Christianity. In fact, it is really the only one that matters, as Christians will tell you all of their faith is built on that simple notion.

But this idea is built on a few assumptions about the world:

1) Man is inherently born sinful (because of the original sin of Adam and Eve).

2) Sin is a bad thing and we should strive to avoid all forms of it.

The first may be a nice metaphor, but it is ridiculous if you examine it factually.

For one, it is a known fact that there never was any "Adam and Eve". Despite the popular denial of such, the evolution of species, including humans, is an established fact. There never was a breeding population of only two humans because for one, such a population cannot sustain a species due to a lack of genetic diversity, and if such a pair existed our gene pool would show evidence of it today.

The reason why we can know this lies inside the human cell. In each of your cells there are tiny "organelles" called mitochondria. They're basically tiny energy factories for the cell. They convert glucose (blood sugar) and oxygen into ATP, which is used to store energy throughout the cell. But each mitochondria carries its own DNA, completely separate from your normal genome. Unlike your normal genome, half of which comes from your father and half of which comes from your mother, your mitochondria come entirely from your mother alone.

Hence, barring mutations, your mitochondria are the same as your mothers, but not necessarily your fathers. If there were a single mother to all people today, such as Eve, we would see the evidence in mitochondrial DNA. Every person's would be a slight variation of the same overall plan (the variation due to mutations that built up over 6,000 years). Of course, all people were wiped out at some point, but only one line would have been kept alive through Noah's family. But instead we don't see that. By inspecting different people's mitocondrial DNA, geneticists can actually estimate based on their diversity how separated groups of people are, as well as how small their breeding population was in the past. And it shows no evidence of a single mother at any point in history.

So, what can we conclude? Adam and Eve never actually existed. That means that the original sin described in Genesis never even happened. So now (unless you interpret the whole thing as a metaphor) we have to determine that the entire point of salvation is lacking. What's there to be saved from if there is no original sin? The entire argument that you can't just be a good person, you have to be good and you have to accept Jesus, falls on its face.

Going back to our list of assumptions, let's look at number 2. Is it really true that all sin is bad and should be avoided? Obviously things like murder and theft are bad, but what about "Honoring thy father and mother"? Surely its a good virtue, but how many children grow up in abusive homes? Should they be condemned to hell because they resist abuse? And what about "remembering the sabbath and keeping it holy"? Does that mean that working on the sabbath or missing church should be rewarded by an eternity of pain and suffering? Patterns I notice when talking with Christians is that they love to go on and on about how good their moral code is, by bringing up obvious taboos such as murder and theft. But they never want to talk about the Bible's many rules against such things as wearing mixed fabrics, eating non-kosher, and working on the sabbath.

Not to mention the fact that whenever you bring up the Bible's orders to execute sons who disobey their parents, people who work on the Sabbath, and girls who marry despite not being virgins, you are instantly dismissed as a rude atheist. Can you imagine what their reaction would be if someone like O'Hair ever wrote such a pack of abject brutality as ethical guidelines for the atheist? How willing, do you think, would the Christian be to accept the feeble excuse that Richard Dawkins later "undid" her commandments in his new book? The Christian mind, while sometimes grounded in goodwill, is ultimately, ironically, the most hypocritical in imagination. With one breath they extoll the virtues of their prophet's teachings, and in the next they loudly inform everyone of how much they pray for those who disagree (Matthew 6:5-6).

The reason why an atheist is so obsessed with Christianity is not because they are bitter, or because they secretly believe in god. It is because the Christian faith is such an intriguing mess of contradictions and hypocrisy. There is no more ironic statement than a Christian telling an atheist to be open-minded. Here we have a person who takes the fact that their faith has no basis in evidence as a good sign, a person who when they feel doubtful, reassure themselves that doubting their faith is a sign that it is more likely to be correct, a person who views anyone outside their faith to be at best hopelessly misguided and at worst to be little more than an animal. And this person is telling someone who is aware enough to apply the same skepticism the Christian applies to every other faith in the human imagination to their faith to be "more open-minded".

It is no coincidence that Christians do not preach to their followers to be more open-minded about Muhammed, and tell them to keep in mind that the Muslim faith might be correct. It is because a Christian really doesn't understand the concept of being open-minded. To be open-minded is to be free of all prejudices both against something and FOR something. Because giving special credence to the Christian faith is the same as being closed-minded towards some other faith. Christians want all the privilege of being the strong and correct majority, while retaining the moral high ground of being a persecuted minority.
Click to expand...

The old adage; "Better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.", is never more evident than in your case. :hi:
 
#709
#709
OrangeNYC said:
Crazy jesus talk will get you far in the south. Look what it's done for the GOP.
Click to expand...
:) Anti-Christ talk can destroy a nation, look what it has done to the north.(all drunks, divorced, and the chieldren fatherless):good!:Jesus is why everybody is moving south. Praise the name of Jesus.:eek:k:
 
#713
#713
crazy Jesus talk pulled me out of drugs and depression and nobody who knew me back then can believe the change.

Thank God Almighty for crazy Jesus talk.
 
#715
#715
Volsurance said:
crazy Jesus talk pulled me out of drugs and depression and nobody who knew me back then can believe the change.

Thank God Almighty for crazy Jesus talk.
Click to expand...

Welcome to VN. I wish I could have introduced my son to Jesus. I tried.
 
#716
#716
hmhawk said:
Welcome to VN. I wish I could have introduced my son to Jesus. I tried.
Click to expand...

We will never know until we get to heaven who God saved. The Bible describes people arriving in heaven after deathbed repentance and acceptance of the free gift of salvation...my heart hurts for your loss...
 
#717
#717
gsvol said:
The old adage; "Better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.", is never more evident than in your case. :hi:
Click to expand...

Care to explain how I'm a fool? Or are you content to simply nervously laugh it off?
 
#718
#718
gsvol said:
The old adage; "Better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.", is never more evident than in your case. :hi:
Click to expand...

Gsvol with the airtight rebuttal. We can shut this thread down now; thanks for the answers.
 
#719
#719
MikeHamiltonFan said:
We will never know until we get to heaven who God saved. The Bible describes people arriving in heaven after deathbed repentance and acceptance of the free gift of salvation...my heart hurts for your loss...
Click to expand...

Thanks MHF but it was not a material loss. I lost him to drugs and it hurts. I tried every thing I could even telling him my past. He made his bed and has to lie in it. It sux.
 
#720
#720
turambar85 said:
Gsvol with the airtight rebuttal. We can shut this thread down now; thanks for the answers.
Click to expand...

I suppose he's making reference to that psalm about how people who don't believe in god are fools. Unfortunately for him I never said that.

So I suspect it has something to do with the fact that he didn't understand my post, and wrote it off as the ramblings of a fool.
 
#725
#725
hmhawk said:
Welcome to VN. I wish I could have introduced my son to Jesus. I tried.
Click to expand...

Well if you keep Jesus close to you all the time, then your son is bound to run into him somethime. :eek:k:

Snakes on a Wii said:
Care to explain how I'm a fool? Or are you content to simply nervously laugh it off?
Click to expand...

No, you seem pretty smart, you'll figure it out on your own someday.

Everything you said was three dimentional, you must live in a very small world.



turambar85 said:
Gsvol with the airtight rebuttal. We can shut this thread down now; thanks for the answers.
Click to expand...

Actually I reopened the thread after Sankey's post nearly invoked Godwin's law and no one had answered for a good while.

Guess what, after I did, someone blessed us with some very good testimony, no thanks to you, thanks a lot. :)

Snakes on a Wii said:
I suppose he's making reference to that psalm about how people who don't believe in god are fools. Unfortunately for him I never said that.

So I suspect it has something to do with the fact that he didn't understand my post, and wrote it off as the ramblings of a fool.
Click to expand...

You assume you know more than you really know habitually, it makes you have a suspiscious mind.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top