wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835
|
| | 08/11/09 at 04:05 PM | Reply with quote | #46 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by harvey1
Ugh. I just blew a long, long post. Oh well, that ought to teach me a lesson for typing long posts. In any case, let me focus on some main topics at this point:
That sucks.
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
I didn't say anything about "logical necessity". Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
You've mysteriously omitted the option of this being a necessary world which resulted from blind processes. Define what you mean by "necessary" without referring to metaphysical necessity, logical necessity, or physical contingent systems (i.e., systems that don't have a preexisting physical state that has no reason for being this versus that way).
Since you've essentially defined metaphysical necessity as necessitating pantheism, deism, or theism I'll just say a sort of necessity which we don't currently comprehend, and possibly are not capable of comprehending.
On the other hand if I go by the wikipedia entry on pantheism...
Quote: Pantheism (Greek: ??? (pan) = all and ???? (theos) = God, literally "God is all" -ism) is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God. In pantheism, the Universe (Nature) and God are considered equivalent and synonymous. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that God is better understood as an abstract principle representing natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that was, is and shall be), rather than as an anthropomorphic entity. This simple view of pantheism, without any anthropomorphism, is not considered a form of theism and is philosophically indistinguishable from atheism.
...then there is no necessary contradiction between being an atheist and being a pantheist. However, I get the impression that you wish to disallow such a point of view without any real argument for doing so.
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
Your argument doesn't justify metaphysical necessity being equivalent to God. You simply declare an equivalence, and then seem to expect me to take the argument seriously. Metaphysical necessity, at minimum, acts as an ordering principle (or unity) which is a pantheistic view -- perhaps the oldest religious view of God (predating monotheism and personal gods if certain Asian and Native American religions can be viewed as steming from ancient religious thought).
Do you agree that metaphysical necessity doesn't contradict atheism?
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
You'll have to explain what relevance you think the anecdotal fallacy has. It looks to me like you are dodging my point. You don't know? You are supporting the view that the universe lacks objective intentionality and gave your Volvo incident as evidence for this grandiose position.
Sorry, but I don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about, and I'm not interested in playing guessing games.
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by wonderer
This is simply nonsense Harvey. It's not nonsense. This paper alone justifies the view that the universe reacts to observation.
As far as I can see, all that paper says is that things in the universe react to things in the universe. The paper doesn't say anything about the necessity of consciousness to be involved. The closest thing I could find was:
Quote: In conclusion, we observe that to inhibit the decay of an unstable state, the latter need be just constantly watched by appropriate detectors. No active measurements, perturbing the atom, are needed, and neither is the early time evolution of the atom crucial for decelerating (or accelerating) the decay rate.
First, I'd quibble a bit with the use of the word "observe" in the first sentence, because as far as I can tell, no actual experiment was conducted and there were no results to "observe". The paper simply presents some calculations. (For the purpose of presenting a hypothesis?)
Second, I'll point out that "watched by appropriate detectors" means "be in the vicinity of the same sort of atoms in the stable state". Unless the detector atoms are considered sentient observers, (and I don't see why they would be) I don't see how this paper supports your claim.
Quote: My main problem with your response, however, is that you have failed to address one philosophical argument. It's difficult to explain. I have to address my arguments to many theists who seem to be a little more aware of these topics than empirical-minded atheists.
Perhaps it's simply an issue of me not sharing your conceptual framework. I'm used to my points going completely unaddressed by theists as well. You hold presuppositions which I simply don't accept as valid, so when we discuss things, we are going to get hung up on discussing those presuppositions. Your arguments are only persuasive to people who already share your presuppositions, but you don't seem willing to open up your presuppositions to questioning as would be required if you were going to persuasively argue with someone not already sharing those presuppositions.
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| Loading... | |
Snakeystew
Registered: 04/04/08
Posts: 2,755
|
| | 08/11/09 at 07:00 PM | Reply with quote | #47 |
|
Quote: It says that even if the rules of reality were such as they are to bring about a highly structured universe as we see, there are just some very wonderful things about life that shine through all the dark moments that make it worthwhile to live. There are things that we have which natural selection could play no role. For example, natural selection could still exist and we could have lived in a very unpleasant world where there is only two or three things which we can eat, where nature is completely incomprehensible to us beyond our ability to survive, where our primate instincts rule so that every day is a day in a concentration camp, etc. No, the world is not like that.
Kindly support the bolded statement. It's odd that you don't do so just after making it - especially given that you say "for example" while then meandering on about how this world might have turned out less pleasant, (presumably even for those children from Mali). What has saying the world might have turned out differently got to do with your bolded statement?P.S Still waiting for you to explain what you even mean by 'perfect' and other questions I asked on page 2.
Regards,
|
| Loading... | |
wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835
|
| | 08/11/09 at 08:52 PM | Reply with quote | #48 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by gtbarronQuote: What convinces you that this "ready guide" isn't a 'Dumbo's feather'? Well, that's a whole other bag of worms. And because it is transcendental it will seem to carry little weight to the secular mind and in essence, probably can't have any real meaning to anyone who has not experienced it. It is an element largely ignored in discussions of this sort. What I'm talking about is the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.
I agree that it is an element largely ignored. However, it is my impressiom that it is most ignored by Christians. It's a subject I find interesting but Christians seem reluctant to talk about it.
It appears to me (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that you assume that I haven't had experiences, which for all practical purposes are identical to those you allude to with the label, "internal testimony of the Holy Spirit". Why would you think that is the case?
Quote: And Kierkegaard's argument as to how do I know it is God and not a seizure, a bad mushroom or satan is, to those experiencing it, completely irrelevant.
Perhaps you have more faith, than a lot of the Christians here. Many of them don't claim certainty of the existence of God. Can you explain in more detail what it is about this experience that for you rules out any explanation but the one you hold?
I know what you mean by having an experience that utterly convinces you of God's existence. However I am curious as to whether you ever consider reevaluating the significance of such an experience. In other words, do you simply accept it dogmatically, or is it something you are willing to consider to be merely a provisional explanation for that experience?
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/11/09 at 09:11 PM | Reply with quote | #49 |
|
I'd forgotten all about this baby. Seems I touched a nerve with my question, did I? Reading the Christian "answers" is rather--what shall I say--condescending. By that I mean that the Christian answers are seriously condescending. Only Harvey attempts at providing serious answers. All the others do nothing but ridicule atheists for not understanding their convoluted thinking. But they refuse any and all attempts at clarifying. GTBarron is an excellent case in point.
No point in me attempting to explain what I mean because he does nothing but ridicule atheists for not getting him. Seems he has never read Jesus' warning about not calling people fools (Matt. 5:22), or Peter's command to always have an answer for those who ask (1 Pet. 3:15). Yet for some reason he thinks he's in a position to ridicule atheists for not being as smart as he is. Very interesting.
As for my evidence for no supernatural realm--it doesn't even look at the natural sciences. The social sciences hold the key for anyone who cares to probe their depths. Not the problem of evil or any other single problem. And philosophy does not count as a social science because it isn't a science to begin with. The natural sciences support the evidence but certainly don't provide the key information.
No, maybe none of the sciences--social or natural--contain the key information. It is the total and absolute lack of information precisely where it should most necessarily be found that provides the key. That not a single theologian dares address the most important question of Christian theology, namely How can the dead body of Jesus benefit the spiritual souls of Christians on their trek to heaven (We are saved through the shed blood of Christ), proves to me that there are no answers. That the question on which all theist religions depend, i.e. What is the evidence for God's existence?, has never yet been answered by any theist of any religion is the other basis for not staking one's life and eternity on an afterlife.
There are natural explanations for the natural world and they have been proven in the laboratory by science, so it is stupid to use nature as evidence of the supernatural. Thus, to say the existence of the universe is evidence of a Creator requires a very high degree of dishonesty. We humans do not at this point in history know for sure how the universe was formed, but we have such logical hypotheses postulated by various scientists that the God hypothesis cannot be taken seriously by any honest seeker of truth.
As for Harvey's answers. In Post 24 you say:
Quote: Logical necessity is metaphysical, and therefore refers to a collection of metaphysical algorithms (or God such as a pantheistic god). If there are blind processes that exist, then if they are not metaphyscial algorithms, then they are not necessary but contingent processes.
I am dumbfounded at the idea that you imagine that logic is metaphysical. If by metaphysical you mean the supernatural, then you're simply wrong-headed. It seems you are arguing for a position that allows you to be atheist and a god-believing Christian at the same time without admitting it.
There may be a legitimate position for your convictions but it seems to me like you have not yet fully developed your conceptual system. You may want to read up on the works of liberal Christian thinkers such as Marcus Borg or John Shelby Spong. Here I post links to videos where they speak.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/11/09 at 09:35 PM | Reply with quote | #50 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by billclute She has more knowledge on the history of Christianity than most people, Christians included.
I didn't know that. Why is it that people only say good things about others when they think they are dead--or in some way totally absent? You didn't think I am devoid of feelings, did you? There are many and many a time when I open my account here and see "Welcome rsmartin," and I think "What a joke. I am not welcome here. Everyone hates me."
All I want is honest dialogue but people here act like I'm out to have them for lunch, or something equally sinister. So the dialogue I'm starving for never happens.
Quote: She is capable of posting very good questions and thoughts...but then she often comes up with accusations and allegation out of left field and it leaves you wondering where it all came from.
Maybe if you would take a look in left field and actually believe the things atheists say, instead of trumping up false charges, you would not have to wonder so much. But believing what atheists say--if it does not fit your model for what atheists should be saying--is not a Christian strength.
Atheists do not all think or believe the same things about topics and issues of human existence and the universe. In fact, some of us disagree very strongly on very important issues. The only thing some of us have in common is a lack of belief in the supernatural. Thus, for Christians to dictate what atheists believe/don't believe is pure lunacy.
I am sure some atheists will disagree very strongly with that statement. That does not make either me or them "not an atheist."
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/11/09 at 10:18 PM | Reply with quote | #51 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by gtbarron
Quote: My question is: Exactly why should Christians not provide proof for this elusive God if they insist the rest of us believe on him???
The OP wants to know why don't Christians have to prove God exists if they insist that everyone else believe in God. The OP will have to prove that Christians as a group INSIST that everyone believe in God before the question is valid.
As a group, Christians have throughout the past two thousand years used every conceivable means to convert all peoples and nations with whom they come into contact. Commonly, starting with the apostle Paul in the New Testament, they go out looking for people to convert. Jesus commanded it in the Great Commission passage so don't pretend not to know about this.
The sword and mass baptism was used across Europe and Russia. Similar means of military force were used in North and South America, Africa, and other lands colonized by Europeans in the last five centuries. Another means is to offer humanitarian help in poverty or disaster-stricken lands only if people accept Christian teachings. This is called "coming with bread in one hand and the Bible in the other."
Then there are the street preachers, and the door-knockers who do all within their power to convert strangers. There is also the innate hatred shown to any and everyone who does not submit to Christian beliefs. For example, people ask--nay beg--me to disclose my beliefs. But when I tell them, they turn cold on me. There is no clearer message that being Christian--or at least religious--is better than not believing in the supernatural.
If you do not accept that this is Christians insisting as a group that everyone believe in their God, then you are simply being thick-skulled and I do not take responsibility for your mental state.
Quote: Quote: OR if they insist laws be made in favour of their beliefs in this God and that the rest of us "respect" their beliefs in this "God"???
This question doesn't really make sense because it is framed in relation to how laws are made, presumably in the US. As far as I can tell, no one has to prove anything when it comes to passing laws. All that is required is a vote and sometimes a decision by the Supreme Court. So why should Christians be held to a standard that no one else is held to? Of course they shouldn't be and aren't, so this question is also meaningless.
Um, you are showing a distinct lack of social insight that I think is willful ignorance to some degree. So Christian leaders have major systematic telephone trees to tell their fellow believers HOW to vote in order to get their favourite guy into office. They will use under-handed means to get their man if they think they can get away with it. They are by no means above lying. This is well-documented.
And when they have voted their man or woman into office, they will do what needs to be done to get laws made to teach creationism/ID in the science classroom. You claim a high level of education, yet you pretend not to know about these things. Something does not ring true. That is probably because it isn't true.
Quote: So if the OP would like a decent answer to whatever is puzzling him, he will need to frame his questions a little better. We can speculate on what he means but that would lead to assumptions that might be false. So until he clarifies things there isn't much left to say.
You have proven yourself to be the kind of person who refuses to speak to topics you don't like. Your style is to attempt to intimidate. I have learned that Christians use this technique when I am spot on about something. So you're giving yourself away with all your protests of not understanding the question.
Quote: I am curious about his statement:
Quote: I realize the poster is from Canada where Christians have not yet taken quite so ridiculous a stand as in the American South
I live in the American South and always have. I am unaware of any "ridiculous stand".
It is a most ridiculous stand to strong-arm governments into allowing the teaching of ID as science in the public school classroom, as have done various school boards in states such as Kansas. ID is not science; it is a lie and cannot pass off for science.
Quote: I am painfully aware of the lack of any appreciable stand at all by Southern Christians and I'd be quite proud to hear of any stands that the secular public might consider "ridiculous". Maybe the OP can be more specific?
See above. You can now be proud. But only the very stupid would be proud of such backwardness.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835
|
| | 08/11/09 at 10:23 PM | Reply with quote | #52 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
I am sure some atheists will disagree very strongly with that statement. That does not make either me or them "not an atheist."
The only thing I disagree with in that post, is the statement, "Everyone hates me.". Undoubtedly no one sees all that is lovable about you through this forum. But I think anyone who reads the things you say with attention, can see that you are lovable.
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| Loading... | |
hawke123
Registered: 01/29/09
Posts: 669
|
| | 08/12/09 at 05:02 AM | Reply with quote | #53 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
Atheists do not all think or believe the same things about topics and issues of human existence and the universe. In fact, some of us disagree very strongly on very important issues.
You'll have to enlighten me as to what these are because I've never seen atheists debate against one another or disagree on much of anything in regards to God and universal origins.
__________________
"Ultimately, the problem with man is not the absence of evidence, it is the suppression of it." - Ravi Zacharias
“Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies [are] so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it.” - Blaise Pascal |
| Loading... | |
billclute
Registered: 12/12/07
Posts: 1,941
|
| | 08/12/09 at 08:06 AM | Reply with quote | #54 |
|
RS-
Quote:
I didn't know that. Why is it that people only say good things about others when they think they are dead--or in some way totally absent? You didn't think I am devoid of feelings, did you? There are many and many a time when I open my account here and see "Welcome rsmartin," and I think "What a joke. I am not welcome here. Everyone hates me."
I sincerely meant what I said and did not say it thinking you were absent. You have consistently returned to this forum and read through most of the threads so I expected you to read it.
Sometimes I am blown away by your knowledge of Christian history. It's very extensive and it's clear you have done a lot of studying because alot of the stuff you write could not be gained by a quick read of Wikipedia.
What blows me away even more is when you seem to take a 180 degree personality change and go into an accusatory mode. You've accused me of using secret code with other posters to communicate about you (remember "March Madness"?). You've accused me and others of flat out lying to mislead people. It's this type of behavior that I refer to as coming out of left field. It's not your beliefs or non-beliefs that I'm referring to.
__________________
"You can't be my boss! Nobody's my boss! I'm my own boss! I created myself!" - White Goodman |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/12/09 at 11:17 AM | Reply with quote | #55 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by hawke123Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
Atheists do not all think or believe the same things about topics and issues of human existence and the universe. In fact, some of us disagree very strongly on very important issues. You'll have to enlighten me as to what these are because I've never seen atheists debate against one another or disagree on much of anything in regards to God and universal origins.
Please note that you are not referring to the same items I am. I refer to "topics and issues of human existence and the universe." That does not necessarily translate into "God and universal origins."
However, atheists do disagree very strongly on issues with regards to God. Most atheists today disagree very strongly that it is possible to state that God/gods does not exist. However, I know two living atheists besides myself who have published that statement--albeit, as a stray sentence deep inside an otherwise less hardcore autobiography.
I hardly dare post my position for fear of being attacked by the more mainstream atheists. I think this represents very strong disagreement among atheists on issues regarding God. Naturally, forums like this are not the place where we thrash out our disagreements because these forums focus on Christian problems or problems with Christianity, and more specifically the work of WLC.
If you want to know atheist culture, obviously you have to get on an atheist forum. If you want an honest experience of atheist culture, you need to be prepared to accept "blasphemy" as acceptable language for polite society just as Christians expect atheists on Christian forums to accept ridicule and scorn as acceptable language for polite society.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/12/09 at 11:29 AM | Reply with quote | #56 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by billcluteRS- Quote:
I didn't know that. Why is it that people only say good things about others when they think they are dead--or in some way totally absent? You didn't think I am devoid of feelings, did you? There are many and many a time when I open my account here and see "Welcome rsmartin," and I think "What a joke. I am not welcome here. Everyone hates me."
I sincerely meant what I said and did not say it thinking you were absent. You have consistently returned to this forum and read through most of the threads so I expected you to read it.
Okay.
Quote: Sometimes I am blown away by your knowledge of Christian history. It's very extensive and it's clear you have done a lot of studying because alot of the stuff you write could not be gained by a quick read of Wikipedia.
I did an Masters degree in theology and I had very good professors. I give them the credit. I've also done some reading since then, especially on exChristian and links from that forum and from this one. I've listened to lectures on online videos by highly educated people. But I have nothing that is unavailable to the general population. Thanks anyway.
Quote: What blows me away even more is when you seem to take a 180 degree personality change and go into an accusatory mode. You've accused me of using secret code with other posters to communicate about you (remember "March Madness"?). You've accused me and others of flat out lying to mislead people. It's this type of behavior that I refer to as coming out of left field. It's not your beliefs or non-beliefs that I'm referring to.
No I don't remember March Madness. If I accuse you or anyone else of something, obviously I am opening the topic for honest discussion. Seldom do I get it no matter how nice or nasty an approach I use. It's simply a hopeless endeavor. Christians refuse to confront their weaknesses if it challenges their world view. I cannot for the life of me understand such an attitude.
I do appreciate your honesty in this particular discussion. Thank you.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,475
|
| | 08/12/09 at 11:36 AM | Reply with quote | #57 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by wondererQuote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
I am sure some atheists will disagree very strongly with that statement. That does not make either me or them "not an atheist."
The only thing I disagree with in that post, is the statement, "Everyone hates me.". Undoubtedly no one sees all that is lovable about you through this forum. But I think anyone who reads the things you say with attention, can see that you are lovable.
Thanks for the assurance, wonderer. If you put that statement in the larger context of Post 50 as follows:
There are many and many a time when I open my account here and see "Welcome rsmartin," and I think "What a joke. I am not welcome here. Everyone hates me."
perhaps you will see that I am presenting it as a feeling I often get and not as a statement of fact. Also, it is no longer as acute as it once was because I feel much more respect than I once did. The environment on these forums has changed significantly in the year since I arrived. Many more atheists post much more consistently than they used to and we are taken much more seriously than had been the case. At least, that is my observation.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835
|
| | 08/12/09 at 01:15 PM | Reply with quote | #58 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartinQuote: Originally Posted by wondererQuote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
I am sure some atheists will disagree very strongly with that statement. That does not make either me or them "not an atheist."
The only thing I disagree with in that post, is the statement, "Everyone hates me.". Undoubtedly no one sees all that is lovable about you through this forum. But I think anyone who reads the things you say with attention, can see that you are lovable. Thanks for the assurance, wonderer.
You are most welcome.
Quote: If you put that statement in the larger context of Post 50 as follows: There are many and many a time when I open my account here and see "Welcome rsmartin," and I think "What a joke. I am not welcome here. Everyone hates me."
perhaps you will see that I am presenting it as a feeling I often get and not as a statement of fact. Also, it is no longer as acute as it once was because I feel much more respect than I once did.
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| Loading... | |
gtbarron
Registered: 06/16/09
Posts: 43
|
| | 08/12/09 at 06:46 PM | Reply with quote | #59 |
|
Quote: I agree that it is an element largely ignored. However, it is my impressiom that it is most ignored by Christians. It's a subject I find interesting but Christians seem reluctant to talk about it.
It may not be that they ignore it, but as you say they may just be reluctant to talk about. There has been plenty written about it, of course. If I had to guess why many Christians don't talk about it, I'd say there were a number of reasons. First, it can be hard to articulate. I'm sure I could not do it justice and I've had the advantage of lots of education. Second, many many Christians would likely feel that it would be dismissed as irrational and open them to ridicule. This could be true for two reasons, one is that they would be and second, most Christians are not theologians or philosophers and would not be able to defend such a belief as rational. Some of them likely feel that it is totally irrational.
I may have said something about being Christian, I don't remember, but Jews could also believe in the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.
Quote: It appears to me (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that you assume that I haven't had experiences, which for all practical purposes are identical to those you allude to with the label, "internal testimony of the Holy Spirit". Why would you think that is the case?
I may have implied that, I don't know. But it was not intended.
Quote: Perhaps you have more faith, than a lot of the Christians here. Many of them don't claim certainty of the existence of God. Can you explain in more detail what it is about this experience that for you rules out any explanation but the one you hold?
No. Meaning 1) I do not wish to do that right now and 2) That without a fair amount of work I might not be able to do it to anyone else's satisfaction, if at all. But please don't make the mistake of assuming that because I choose not to do it here and now, or doubt my ability to articulate it that I have not been through the process in such a fashion as to believe that I have arrived at that conclusion in a reasonable way.
Quote: I know what you mean by having an experience that utterly convinces you of God's existence. However I am curious as to whether you ever consider reevaluating the significance of such an experience. In other words, do you simply accept it dogmatically, or is it something you are willing to consider to be merely a provisional explanation for that experience?
First, I would not refer to it as a single experience. I have had no visions or special dreams. I have not seen or heard anything that anyone would consider fantastic. In that regard the experience has been lifelong and yes, I reevaluate it constantly as it is a process not an event. As I get older I reevaluate with more maturity, experience and learning. I reevaluate it with the best of my faculties and the resources available to me.
I do believe that the unexamined life is not worth living. |
| Loading... | |
gtbarron
Registered: 06/16/09
Posts: 43
|
| | 08/12/09 at 07:27 PM | Reply with quote | #60 |
|
Quote: As a group, Christians have throughout the past two thousand years used every conceivable means to convert all peoples and nations with whom they come into contact. Commonly, starting with the apostle Paul in the New Testament, they go out looking for people to convert. Jesus commanded it in the Great Commission passage so don't pretend not to know about this.
You are confusing very different things. What people have done in the name of Christianity is not the same as Christianity. The Great Commission is not the same as the Great Crusades. So that does not work. Informing people of what Christians think is good news is a far cry from killing those who won't accept it. So, my original contention stands. There is nothing inherently Christian about insisting on belief in God if by insist you mean force and that is what you have explicitly told us.. And there is very clear Biblical language regarding what to do about those who reject the Gospel and that is to leave them alone.
Quote: The sword and mass baptism was used across Europe and Russia. Similar means of military force were used in North and South America, Africa, and other lands colonized by Europeans in the last five centuries.
This is a misunderstanding of those events. Colonization by people described as Christian was not solely or even mostly for attaining converts. It was done for the same things that motivate all of mankind. Money and power. Again, you are confusing what some Christians have done in the past with Christian doctrine. And for all of the atrocities you can think of there have been similar atrocities 1) from other religions 2) against Christians and 3) not based on any religion at all.
Quote: Another means is to offer humanitarian help in poverty or disaster-stricken lands only if people accept Christian teachings. This is called "coming with bread in one hand and the Bible in the other."
Again, you are grossly misunderstanding this process. First of all, such efforts are mostly based on Christian sympathy and responding to Biblical commands to exercise it. They are also done as a form of witness. But giving food to the hungry in the name of God hardly includes insistence. You may also have failed to notice that all but the most evangelical protestant denominations have largely abandoned witnessing in their missionary work. By and large the catholic (small C) Church (large C) has mostly gotten out of the witnessing business.
Quote: There is also the innate hatred shown to any and everyone who does not submit to Christian beliefs.
That is an unsupportable stereotype.
Quote: If you do not accept that this is Christians insisting as a group that everyone believe in their God, then you are simply being thick-skulled and I do not take responsibility for your mental state.
Gosh. What will I do now that you have relinquished responsibility for my mental state?
But the whole problem may be with the word insist. What do you mean by it? I know many Christians who think their belief is warranted and rational and wish to share it with others because they feel it will benefit them. But they do not insist that anyone believe it. They will not abandon their beliefs but that is not the same as insisting that you accept them. So I still contend that the question is moot.
If the question where rephrased to ask should Christians be prepared to defend their faith, well that's easy. Yes, of course. But if there is some imperative "should" placed on the billions of different people who call themselves Christians because someone has unfairly stereotyped them then the answer is no, of course not.
Quote: Um, you are showing a distinct lack of social insight that I think is willful ignorance to some degree. So Christian leaders have major systematic telephone trees to tell their fellow believers HOW to vote in order to get their favourite guy into office.
Um, wouldn't some people call that a grass-roots movement? And even if a Christian leader did tell someone how to vote they don't have to do it. Christians vote the same way you do. And doesn't everyone vote to get their favorite person into office? Talk about lack of social insight. Don't unions, political parties, special interest groups, MoveOn.org, Now, Acorn, the NRA and EVERYONE else do the same thing? How can it be wrong just for Christians to become engaged in democracy?
Quote: They will use under-handed means to get their means if they think they can get away with it. They are by no means above lying. This is well-documented.
First, document it then. Second, prove that its a regional thing limited to the south. Third, even if these things happen, and they surely do, it still does not mean that a) they represent all Christians or b) that the same practices go on with non-Christians as well.
Quote: And when they have voted their man or woman into office, they will do what needs to be done to get laws made to teach creationism/ID in the science classroom.
First, this is how democracy works. If their guy wins the election and passes laws according to his promises, how is this wrong or undemocratic or somehow a Christian conspiracy. Isn't that how this country is supposed to work? What you are upset about is democracy not going your way. Your beef is with democracy, not its constituents.
Second, boy those shifty Christians are a formidable bunch when it comes to creationism laws. They've really made big changes down here in Dixie haven't they? All the state schools and colleges teach creationism down here don't they?
Quote: You claim a high level of education, yet you pretend not to know about these things. Something does not ring true. That is probably because it isn't true.
Well, you address my responses and we'll see won't we?
|
| Loading... | |
