Repent for being a Mac user!!

[nkuvu]

Originally posted by The Madhatter
Just a quick clarification, I'll come back later and see what's going on.

"Christianity is a thinking man's religion"...

I am sorry I caused a misunderstanding. I didn't mean that smart, thinking people choose Christianity, or that other religions aren't for thinking people, only that being a Christian and adhering to our beliefs does take much thought. I said this in contrast to what I so often hear, that Christianity consists of blind faith, and that is what I wanted to point out, that it certainly is not to be taken ignorantly.

Heh. I had to laugh out loud at this one.

I had a talk with a Christian a few yeas back, and he asked me about how I could decide what is right and wrong without the bible (a question which I believe I have already answered earlier in this thread). I explained, then asked him how he decided. "The Bible tells me what is right and wrong." The questions continued in this manner for quite some time, and each of his answers was "The Bible tells me so." When confronted with things such as contradictions in the bible, he adamantly refused to acknowledge any possibility that the bible may be wrong. "It's all right here in the Bible. You don't need anything else."

Needless to say, this was not someone I consider to be a thinking person. Have you taken the time to learn about my beliefs? Have you examined all other religions? To me, a thinking person is open minded. Therefore, if you haven't even looked at anything else, how can you claim to be a thinking person? (That's a general you, not you specific, btw)

I'm not saying that you can't be a thinking person to be a Christian. But you're saying that if you're a Christian, you are a thinking person. Which I think is a load of hooey.

 

[MDLarson]

I'd like to jump in real quick again and maybe clarify something. For me, the integrity of the Bible is absolutely important. Like I've stated before, if the Bible is truly wrong, I, a Bible-believing Christian should be pitied. I don't want somebody's acceptance simply because they believe in relativism. Above all, I want to know the truth.

If there's an apparent contradiction in the scriptures, I'd like to investigate it and hopefully come up with an acceptable remedy. This was the area I was hoping to get into sometime with this thread, but unfortunately I don't have the time these days.

A note about why I think people have morals without believing in the Bible (I'm going to sound religious); We have an inherant conscience that tells us what is right and wrong. This (I believe) is a product of the eating of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden (the knowledge of Good and Evil). I view the Bible as being the "manual for life," if I may use the cliché.

Illustration: We all know how to assemble a book shelf, but to build the book shelf as the manufacturer intended and to build it well, we should follow instruction manual. You should be able to see the parallels.

 

[nkuvu]

If there's an apparent contradiction in the scriptures, I'd like to investigate it and hopefully come up with an acceptable remedy. This was the area I was hoping to get into sometime with this thread, but unfortunately I don't have the time these days.

Have you read the questionnaire I posted a little bit ago? There are a few inconsistencies there that could use some explaining. Not that I think this would help on the time issue, but at least you'd have some pointers on where to look.

And no offense is meant by the following, so don't read it if you're easily offended:

In general, I do pity the Christians. There are very very few Christians that I know that have looked into any other religion. I have never met one who has examined every one that I can think of off the top of my head. This is not a huge list (if you dismiss Christianity itself):
All sects of Christianity
Judaism
Hinduism
Islamic religions
Buddhism
Taoism (more a philosophy, really, but hey, who's nitpicky? )
Confucianism
Jainism
Wiccan
Animism

I am no expert in any of these religions, but have at least a passing acquaintance with them. And yet every firm believer in Christianity that I have met insist that theirs is the One True Way. How the heck do you know if you don't even know the other major highlights?

I also pity anyone who cannot make up their own mind about things, without referring to a 2000 year old book (give or take a century (my bible history isn't that great, so I may be off by quite a bit)). I am not pointing at anyone here, I don't know you that well. But I have known Christians who cannot think for themselves, as I think I demonstrated in my last post.


I apologize in advance for stepping on anyone's toes. I truly don't mean to attack any one faith. It's just that Christianity is the religion I have had the most experience with, and the most unpleasant experiences.

Oh, almost forgot: Don't apologize for sounding religious if you are religious and people know it. I assume that I sound like a Taoist in a lot of what I write, because I am a Taoist.

 

[RacerX]

by Matt
If there's an apparent contradiction in the scriptures, I'd like to investigate it and hopefully come up with an acceptable remedy.

Okay, what were your answers to some of the 130 questions on the questionnaire that nkuvu posted a few pages back?

This (I believe) is a product of the eating of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden (the knowledge of Good and Evil).

And if none of that existed, morals and ethics are out the window for you. I fear that some day you may come to some hard realizations. I truly don't believe you are ready for the universe of the real. People like you really need this type of stuff, and fortunately you are willing to fight to keep your eyes closed to the greater world around you. I did not realize to what extent your dependance on this stuff was. Given all this, please consider not following this thread. I would hate for it to damage your faith.

 

[scruffy]

Whoo! That hierophant questionaire is just a bit slanted against Christianity, wouldn't you say? (Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

Here is another questionaire, at The Philosopher's Magazine (a UK publication), that might be interesting to some here. Only 17 questions, so it should be reasonably quick. It isn't biased, or tries not to be in any case; it's just an examination of the logical consistency of one's beliefs on God - any logically consistent set of answers is "right".

Taoists (like nkuvu and me, apparently) might have a hard time picking a true/false answer to some of the questions, depending on how we think they are defining 'God', but that's just by the way.

Also, you might want to check out some of their other games, they can be fun.

 

[nkuvu]

Slanted? No way.

Keep in mind that this questionnaire was designed to be given to people who come to your door selling religion. This makes the tone quite a bit more bearable IMO. I'm not suggesting that this be copied off and distributed down by the church. It's a direct reaction to having someone try to force their religion on the author. But it does seem to have a lot of valid questions, and a lot of references to apparent contradictions in the bible. As you can see from some of the notes, this is not the first version of this questionnaire, and the latest revisions have been toned down in anger. I'd hate to be a recipient of the first draft.

I haven't looked at your link, yet, scruffy -- but I'm about to. Just wanted to fire off a quick response, so if someone does go to the website I linked they might have a better idea of where it is coming from.

Edit:
I like the link you posted, scruffy. Especially since I finished it with no direct hits and two bitten bullets. I disagree with one of the bullets, because it basically explained something ("You said this, so you implied that") and I agreed. That's exactly how I feel about it. I'll wait to expand those thoughts until more people have seen it...

 

[RacerX]

ask by scruffy
That hierophant questionaire is just a bit slanted against Christianity, wouldn't you say?

I would say that it is directed at Christianity, yes. I don't see that being a bad thing.

out of nowhere
(Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)

Is there a point to that? Was it supposed to be funny? Does it have a point in this thread (or anywhere on this site)?

Lets get to these questions (which are far more than true and false, even though those are your only choices for answers except for question #1)

1. God exists. Personally, asking myself, I would say no. When asked in general, I would have to answer that I don't know because I would not want my views to effect the views of someone who has not reach a conclusion.

2. If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality. This is absolutely false. Morals and ethics can be shown as a logical construct of duty and reason. Of primary importance is intentions. If you make a choice with good intentions, it is a good choice no matter what the consequences. If you make a choice with bad intentions, it is bad no matter if the out come is actually good. In this way, to have morals and ethics requires acts of selflessness that are not rewarded (when acting for a reward, the act becomes selfish and the intentions were misguided... my problem with the reward of heaven).

3. Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything. I would guess true. The problem is that any being that would meet my definition of God would have little to do with us, and would not be a reflection of humanity in any form. What is the nature of God? It is most likely beyond freedom and beyond anything, I would suspect.

4. Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible. False. Why would a God care?

5. Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything. Once again we run up against the nature of God, which we could not possibly know.

6. Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true. The theory of evolution is a theory. Our best model that fits all the facts that are currently available. As a theory it is able to be reworked as more information becomes available, but even at this stage, the general idea is very sound and far beyond Biblical fairy tales in meeting with the actual facts as we know them today.

7. It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions. One is often left with many unanswered questions which we must fill in the blanks for. I believe that there are two paths placed before everyone. One is to use answers that others have come up with because working on the problems themselves requires too much energy. The other is to actively search for the answers even if you know that the answers are not coming in your own lifetime. Most people choose the easy path (no matter what their beliefs are).

8. Any being that it is right to call God must know everything that there is to know. Once again we run up against the nature of God, which we could not possibly know. This line of questioning shows poor insight on the part of the writer (or a lack of effort).

9. Torturing innocent people is morally wrong. True, unless it is scruffy's wife beating joke I guess.

10. If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist. Okay, whatever.

11. People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose. What higher purpose would that be?

12. If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. I believe that morals and ethics are a construct of human reason, and why would a God care either way? Do we really need to be the focus of a God if there is one?

13. It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists. It is a pointless exercises for most, but for others (like our friend Matt) the foundations of morals and ethics are only valid with a reward and punishment system in play.

14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Not believing in something because of a lack of evidence has nothing to do with Faith. To believe in something when there is an overwhelming lack of evidence, now that is truly the definition of Faith.

15. The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions. Bizarre.

16. If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72. Circles and squares are human abstractions, and I heard of someone who wrote a 100+ page proof of how 1 + 1 = 3. Why would a God care about any of this?

17. It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of the conviction that God exists. I have no problem with people believing as they want. I do have a problem with people needing others to believe like themselves in order to reach a level of comfort.

 

[bighairydog]

Firstly, Cheers Racer for your answere, which I enjoyed reading, and your formatting, which I have stoled to save myself work ;o)

Secondly, this reply is riddled with splenning nistikes, because I don't have time to proof-read, because I'm a bad boy and I should really be reading about insect pest managment.

I've tried to answer these as truthfully as possible, and according to the cgi, am at least being completely consistant:

1. God exists. I would call myself as agnostic, so I don't know. Had the question asked to me whether the god that the Jews call Yahweh, the Christians call Jehovah and the Muslims call Allah exists, I would say I believe not. At least not in the forms that they are described in the relavant holy texts.

2. If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality. Absolutely not. I think morality is an emergent property of human personality in a social context. I also note that much of morality is exactly coincident with what you would expect humans to do if their behaviour evolved for the purposes of maximising fitness, e.g. strong family loyalty and aviodance of inbreeding.

3. Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything. I don't think so. If this were true, my position as an agnostic would be flawed, as I also think absolute omnipotence is not possible.

4. Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible. False: Why should a god care? It might, but this is not an essential property of a hypothetical god.

5. Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything. See Q3.

6. Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true. I think it is true, because it is defined as something that is logically inescapible. Given the provisos that you have (a)Inheritance (b)Any effect of inherited characteristics on survival, Evolution will occur. QED, end of story. Any arguments against evolution result from arguing against straw men that are not actually evolution per se. An example of such a straw man would be that evolution implies non-creation; it doesn't, it just implies change since creation.

7. It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions. If you have a firm inner conviction, then that is belief. You therefore have no choice to believe it or not, you already do. This is therefore a null question, but basically, the answer is yes.

8. Any being that it is right to call God must know everything that there is to know. As per 3, substitutint 'omnipotence' for 'omniscience'

9. Torturing innocent people is morally wrong. True.

10. If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist. Yup, sure is.

11. People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose. Ditto Racer's answer: What higher purpose would that be?

12. If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. False, as I said, morality is a human construct

13. It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists. No. Nothing is certain, a feeling that I think god exists would be enough for me, I just don't have that feeling.

14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. In some ways, Yes. Absolute atheism: "I know that there is no god", is a statement of faith unless you have good evidence of absence. However, I don't think most atheists say that, I think most of them on reflection say "I have no reason to believe that there is a god, and therefore my default action is to behave as if there is none".

15. The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions. Nutcase...

16. If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72. If a sufficiantly powerful god exists, she can make humans redefine their own constructs to make it so that these examples are possible, but then again so could a sufficiantly powerful hypnotist P

17. It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of the conviction that God exists. As per Q13, a feeling is enough. People can believe what they want. However, I think that evangilism should require more than just a feeling.


Wow, that was fun...

Bernie )

 

[MDLarson]

Originally posted by RacerX
I truly don't believe you are ready for the universe of the real. People like you really need this type of stuff, and fortunately you are willing to fight to keep your eyes closed to the greater world around you. I did not realize to what extent your dependance on this stuff was. Given all this, please consider not following this thread. I would hate for it to damage your faith.

What an arrogant thing to say! Do you really believe I'm as fragile as you make me out to be? I don't know if you've ever been the minority, but when it comes to my faith, I'm one of only a handful of my kind around here, and I'm doing my best with the time I'm given.

Is it my age? I'm 22, and Ed has sometimes insulted me by using the phrase "young man". Is it my disposition? We've met personally and you seem like a nice enough guy, so I'm confused that you would show this much ignorance about me.

I have gone into this thread with the attitude of informing readers of my belief, and to learn more about what makes the typical non-Christian tick. You do not scare me, nor does anybody else on the board. I am humbled when it comes to molecular biology and some of the other scientific fields you guys are familiar with, but I am not scared nor as fragile as you make me out to be.

I am INSULTED by you, RacerX, and would have expected such a message from you privately if you really are concerned about my faith. Because you posted the above publically, I can only believe you are setting out to embarass me.

Also, you must have misread my previous post when I said that I want to know the truth, whatever it is. Clearly, you would rather me live in my own little dream world than know the truth according to RacerX.

 

[bighairydog]

Reading Matt's post, I have to agree that the comments in this forum have gone beyond civil. Whilst this is the forum to discuss the taboo (according to Admin's classification), I have read some of the replies to Matt, Madhatter & Co's posts, and thought that they were not being as diplomatic as could be.

The fact is, that although the ideal of free discourse without emotional involvement is a noble one, and worth pursuing to further our rational knowledge of the universe, as humans we don't have an on/off switch on our human nature. Part of that nature is to be offended when people question our beliefs aggressively, and for that reason, even if a zealous post seems to demand an aggerssive reply, it is often best to be more placid.

Matt on RacerX
I am INSULTED by you, RacerX, and would have expected such a message from you privately if you really are concerned about my faith. Because you posted the above publically, I can only believe you are setting out to embarass me

I have to agree with this. My gripe is by no means with the reasoning of your posts, but their tone.

bye all

</melodramatic departure>

Bernie )

 

[RacerX]

by Matt
If it became obvious to me that the Bible was false, I would certainly be less inclined to follow the laws of the land. I don't know exactly what I would do.

This public statement has left me (and I suspect others) somewhat disturbed. Yes, this statement makes me afraid. Sorry if this hurts, but you made this statement in an open forum (not a privite message) and it is still in play for myself and others.

 

[RacerX]

To Matt, Bernie and others (who think I post too aggressively),

I am sorry if my posts seem harsh, they are meant to be direct and to the point. They are not meant to reflect any personal feelings against anyone (except trolls). As pointed out in Matt's case, these are responses to public statements in a public forum, private statements in a private messages are treated differently (as they should be). Matt seem to not be aware of the gravity of his statements, and my post was there to point out the implications of those statements. If he is going to stand by them... then stand by them all the way. If the implications are coming back to hurt him, the retract or amend the earlier statement. I have always honored retractions and amendments by people in this forum, and this would be no different.

I do censor myself and have posted less than half the responses that I have actually written. And I have rarely held anything that someone has posted against them outside of a thread (or topic if more than one thread is involved). I would hope that people are aware by this time that though I tend to be short and direct, I still respect people and their opinions (I just like to have the last word on things ).

As for being diplomatic, there is a time and a place for it, and varying degrees with which it should be applied. I have a hard time seeing where I have over stepped such bounds in this thread.

 

[nkuvu]

Quick note about the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It's a loaded question. If you answer Yes, it implies that you were beating your wife, but are doing so no longer. If you answer No, it declares that you are still beating your wife. A significant number of people tend to answer yes or no to this question. I believe that scruffy was associating the questionnaire questions to this sort of loaded question.

RacerX, I don't feel that you have posted anything aggressive or insulting. I understand MDLarson's initial reaction, but I do not think it warrants a censure or apology from you.

Let me paraphrase what I saw as the basic dialogue (separated by several posts, of course):
MDLarson: "If I found out that my beliefs were false I don't know what I'd do. I have to believe in the Bible."
RacerX: "Then perhaps an in depth discussion of where Christianity fails is not such a good idea for you."

Given this interpretation, I see no aggression or open hostility on either part. I feel that for a religion thread, this whole thread has been remarkably civil, and continues to be so.

Oh yeah, on the philosopher's questions: I "bit the bullet" for question 16. Basically their rationale was that I would have to agree that God could change logic and reason at any time, so rational, logical discussion about God is not possible. Which I fully agree with. Even without the premise of God being able to change logic and reason at any time, I feel that rational logical discussions about God are not possible. If we could perform scientific experiments to prove or disprove the existence of God, then we might be able to speak rationally. Until then, everything is based on faith and conjecture.

 

[bighairydog]

I guess I'm just an incouragable diplomat ;o)

Bernie )

 

[edX]

while i have much to say and no time to say it, i must interject here.

Matt - if calling you a young man is insulting to you , then you are terribly insecure with your age.There is no possible insult involved in the issue of age. You are how old you are . period. nothing is going to change that.

each age has its advantages and disabilities. and your perception is never going to change from wherever you are chronologically. I happen to have the advantage of being twice your age (or disadvantage if you consider that you will likely live to see things i will not). Believe it or not, i know what it is like to be limited by youth. i was there. and i would say that there are those older than me who understand things i cannot, but hopefully will if i should be so lucky as to live that long.

when you get upset about someone calling you what you are, then you are revealing how terribly defensive you are. The truth is upsetting to you. I would agree then that you might not want to get too involved in anything that challenges the truths that hold your world together. especially if you would be willing to turn against your morals and ethics should your premise for them be shattered. I think that was Coach's point.

 

[simX]

Originally posted by Ed Spruiell
Matt - if calling you a young man is insulting to you , then you are terribly insecure with your age.There is no possible insult involved in the issue of age. You are how old you are . period. nothing is going to change that.

Ed, you have to be a little more careful with what you say, as does RacerX. There are times when the term "young man" can have an arrogant or offensive tone. One of the best examples is when a parent chides his son by saying, "Young man, you have done something very bad. Go to your room!" While that's probably not a good example in this setting, and I admittedly don't know the context of your statement, you can't be quick to judge other people's feelings. Please be a little more sensitive before you start saying that people are getting defensive.

RacerX, you also need to be a little more careful. You've stated numerous times that it is scary that Matt needs the bible to have morals. You've stated it MANY, MANY times. Now you don't need to go on and say that Matt shouldn't follow this thread. He has come back and debated with you guys despite many very difficult questions. You don't need to look down on him saying that he can't handle what is being discussed in this thread. It's obvious that he can.

I am reminded of a thread which you and I, RacerX, were debating about pride of being American, and you had the same tone as you are starting to have here. Please have some restraint with your tone in your posts. There IS a way to be direct and to the point without being arrogant and offensive. Unfortunately, after a while, you seem to tend to become a little arrogant. Like you said yourself, you like to have the last word – fine, but at least be aware of what you say, how you say it, and the feeling you are getting across. In that other thread, you admittedly were getting me fuming from the way you looked down upon me and that you seemed to be oblivious that you did.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that you can't dictate the feelings that other people have, no matter if the effect that you had on them was intentional or not. But what you do have control of is your post, and you can change the effect that it has on other people by changing the specific words in your posts. Once you say it, however, you can't change the effect.

Please don't let this turn into the other thread where RacerX and I were debating and seemingly didn't get our points across. We have had many good points made in this thread, and the debate has never turned for the worse – unfortunately now it seems it is, and I want to stop that. You can pose your difficult questions to Matt and Co. as much as you want, and I'm sure he will be happy to try and answer them. But do it in a way that you won't push each other's buttons.

 

[RacerX]

Simone getting in to something that he shouldn't
RacerX, you also need to be a little more careful...

My opinion of where Matt was coming from is quite clear, and Matt knows my feelings on the subject in detail so I shall not labor on this point even if Simone feels the need to.

The meat of this post
I am reminded of a thread which you and I, RacerX, were debating about pride of being American, and you had the same tone as you are starting to have here...

As I recall, you were having a very hard time with producing an organized thought in that thread. Would you like to go back and finish what we started? I don't think I was finished, but you stopped posting and I wasn't going to push the issue... but I would be happy to start it up again. Is that what you want? Is that why you have brought this up here?

This is an in appropriate venue for that, and both your post (and Matt's for that matter) are very off topic. You are turning this into another thread like the other one. I don't think it needs to be that way... we should go back an finish the other one.

I have said that I don't hold things against people from other threads, this is apparently not true for our friend Simone.

If you want to finish this Simone, lets take it outside...

(um, outside this thread to the other thread, but I'm sure you knew what I meant ).

 

[simX]

Originally posted by RacerX
My opinion of where Matt was coming from is quite clear, and Matt knows my feelings on the subject in detail so I shall not labor on this point even if Simone feels the need to.

Your tone is also quite clear. You don't care whatsoever about Matt's feelings. Like I said, there is a way to be direct and to the point without being arrogant and offensive, but apparently you seem to think the contrary.

It seems to me that it's not me who's posting off-topic or who is having trouble making a coherent argument, RacerX, but you who is having trouble seeing the obvious connection. My point is that people are getting upset because of things that you have said, and you aren't one to say that they don't have these feelings. You could simply be a little more careful in the tone that you have in your posts.

 

[edX]

Simone - you don't know the context in which i referred to Matt as young. Frankly i doubt i used the exact words "young man" and especially not in the way you described. I will be glad to eat these words if shown otherwise. but since i am no one here's parent, i certainly can't get the condescending parent award for pointing out developmental differences. and I could get into the development of moral reasoning which is often quite seperate from physical age after a certain point.

and Sim, you should feel honored and repected if i were ever to refer to you as a young man. Most folks my age would refer to you as a boy. and while you might not believe it yet, there is a world of difference between your age and Matt's. In 4-5 years you will be a different person than you are today. You will have learned more than you currently imagine.

(hint - i like you, i wouldn't purposely disrespect you )

back to the yard work.

 

[simX]

Ed: I never said or implied that I knew exactly how you said the words; in fact, I specifically said that I did NOT know the context. I was just trying to say that you can sometimes say something that you didn't mean, and it could be hurtful to others.

Anyway, hopefully the topic can get back into the right direction, as I am interested in hearing Matt's responses to some of those 17 statements that other people are responding to.