Thread: So, I think Christians are stupid.

Originally Posted by ClouD

I've acknowledged the hypocrisy. I think there's plenty of others in this thread to blame as well as myself though.

True, but it's kind of like walking into a bar and screaming "You're all lushes, and the world would be better off without you! I hope you all die in fiery car crashes on your way home!" and expecting an 'intelligent,' tempered response.

If you openly attack something so personal to people as their faith (and, in this case, their intelligence), you are calling for a knee-jerk reaction, not a logical one. I do believe that people could have handled themselves differently, but I'm in no way surprised that they didn't.

But enough from me. Carry on!

BELIEF: A doubtless opinion/trust/thought.
So then, belief can be, according to this so called definition of yours based in ignorance or knowledge--in which case there is no real why.

So, there you go. You are simply ranting.

Oh, and PS, a synonym is not a definition genius.

The reason, if you do not agree upon your terms, you are not conversing about the same things.

If belief is a thing, it has a material difference circumscribed by a form. The form (definition) determines the material which is in that form. i.e. who actually believes and who just say they believe.

I've merged all double/triple posts in the thread. Future violations will face infraction. /mod

Demanding logical defense of a religion's cosmology is tilting at windmills. Any Christians who would take the bait, i.e. who have rationalized Genesis and Dante as literal, physical depictions of their environment and its origins, are by definition unsophisticated Christians, and likely lacking the self-knowledge to examine their motivations. Having proven the existence of stupid Christians, however, does not prove Christianity is stupid. When someone arrives with an even slightly deeper understanding of their faith, such as cedward1, you lack "eyes to see," demanding again and again that they rationalize the cosmology.

As NonDualistic already said, the cosmology of any religion is superficial. It's the advertising, not the product. While teachings like Heaven, Hell, the crucifixion and resurrection do have depths to be explored by the devotee, their main usefulness to the outsider or initiate is that they echo something in your own experience and signal the existence of those depths. They are signs only: in Zen terms, "a finger pointing at the moon."

So to return to the reason for faith, it is because some aspect of the teaching mirrors and deepens your experience of life. Advancement in understanding of religious teachings comes primarily through practice and epiphany, which often do not lend themselves to rationalization.

And now just for clarity:

Originally Posted by Spartiate

What I'm curious about is how christians can tolerate the existence of other religions (I assume they ignore them). For instance Hinduism is about as far away as you can get from the god found in the bible, and there are a billion hindus (that's a lot of Hindus). Hindus believe in hundreds of gods (from women to people with eight legs to elephants). They also don't believe in heaven or hell (but reincarnation). Hinduism is older than both the old and new testaments, so who's right here? Why should you believe in bible god over elephant god?

I am by no means an expert on Hinduism, but you're repeating a Victorian caricature there. Hindus do indeed believe in heavens and hells, as well as intermediary realms, into any one of which we might be reborn. Indeed, Dante's Divine Comedy parallels Hindu cosmology more closely than it does anything found in the Bible. While there are virtually infinite deities, their role is not so far removed from the saints, angels and demons of Catholicism. Hinduism also has a "Highest God," Brahman, which can be variously understood as a Creator Deity or a ground state of reality, roughly equivalent to the notion of the Godhead in Chrisitianity. I'm offering an oversimplified summary here; it's said there are as many varieties of Hinduism as there are Hindus, and according to some, all religions are varieties of Hinduism, and we are all Hindus.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

BELIEF: A doubtless opinion/trust/thought.
So then, belief can be, according to this so called definition of yours based in ignorance or knowledge--in which case there is no real why.

So, there you go. You are simply ranting.

Oh, and PS, a synonym is not a definition genius.

Yes, belief can be based in ignorance or knowledge, in which case there MAY BE NO REAL WHY. That doesn't invalidate the thread or the question. I said in one of my earlier posts, worded a little differently, that belief in ignorance is just as irrational (imo). There doesn't need to be an answer BEFORE the question is asked in this case, even though it is assumed.

Stop trying to provoke me, calling me a genius as if I was trying to be a "genius" in responding to your post. If I sound arrogant it's because I'm being terse, oh and that I might actually be a tad arrogant.

My definition of belief is a doubtless opinion, but opinion doesn't sound all-inclusive of what the word means, so I included "thought" and "trust". Thanks for playing.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I've merged all double/triple posts in the thread. Future violations will face infraction. /mod

Demanding logical defense of a religion's cosmology is tilting at windmills. Any Christians who would take the bait, i.e. who have rationalized Genesis and Dante as literal, physical depictions of their environment and its origins, are by definition unsophisticated Christians, and likely lacking the self-knowledge to examine their motivations. Having proven the existence of stupid Christians, however, does not prove Christianity is stupid. When someone arrives with an even slightly deeper understanding of their faith, such as cedward1, you lack "eyes to see," demanding again and again that they rationalize the cosmology.

As NonDualistic already said, the cosmology of any religion is superficial. It's the advertising, not the product. While teachings like Heaven, Hell, the crucifixion and resurrection do have depths to be explored by the devotee, their main usefulness to the outsider or initiate is that they echo something in your own experience and signal the existence of those depths. They are signs only: in Zen terms, "a finger pointing at the moon."

So to return to the reason for faith, it is because some aspect of the teaching mirrors and deepens your experience of life. Advancement in understanding of religious teachings comes primarily through practice and epiphany, which often do not lend themselves to rationalization.

And now just for clarity:


I am by no means an expert on Hinduism, but you're repeating a Victorian caricature there. Hindus do indeed believe in heavens and hells, as well as intermediary realms, into any one of which we might be reborn. Indeed, Dante's Divine Comedy parallels Hindu cosmology more closely than it does anything found in the Bible. While there are virtually infinite deities, their role is not so far removed from the saints, angels and demons of Catholicism. Hinduism also has a "Highest God," Brahman, which can be variously understood as a Creator Deity or a ground state of reality, roughly equivalent to the notion of the Godhead in Chrisitianity. I'm offering an oversimplified summary here; it's said there are as many varieties of Hinduism as there are Hindus, and according to some, all religions are varieties of Hinduism, and we are all Hindus.

I have not been asking for deeper understanding of Christianity. I am asking the reason why any individual Christian believes in what they do.

I think that Christianity has almost completely lost it's depth on modern society. I think the bible is mostly considered a rule book to be preached and prodded on the surface instead of delved into, although I'm sure there are those that do so. This I consider to be real religiousness. Again though, not the question I have been asking, though it is a factor of why a person might believe, I'm not putting my foot in to further define my questions and alter potential answers.

I would like to know the reasons why Christians believe, of course what they personally believe about Christianity is very important, but I have received no answers whatsoever, and I have definitely prompted for them in several forms.

What is the purpose of the human mind? How does it try to accomplish its purpopse?

i.e. generialize your question by going back the the first principle of human action itself. Then try to convince anyone that a particular method determines the universal, i.e. that the material determines the form---or in fact, does the thing itself determine both.

Originally Posted by ClouD

I have not been asking for deeper understanding of Christianity. I am asking the reason why any individual Christian believes in what they do.

You've also made several claims about Christianity on the basis of Christians being unable to express their reasons in the terms you desire. My point was, you will get no good answers if you specifically ask for crap ones.

I can be considered a Christian insofar as I'm a Universalist and consider Christ a world savior and Christianity a true (i.e. functional) faith, even if it's not my personal favorite. I believe in Christ and Christianity because, despite the inevitable lapses and complications of history, Christ remains a fixed beacon of love for many who find themselves out in the cold. He transformed humanity with love, even if it fell far short of perfecting us. The Christian symbol set remains perhaps the most effective at reaching the desperate and the weak, the ignorant and the poor, and getting them out of their heads, comfortable in their skin, and engaged with their fellows where more systematic, more 'logical' systems of belief would only frustrate and confuse. I'm not saying Christians belong exclusively to those categories, but approachability is Christianity's greatest strength as I see it.

Originally Posted by ClouD

I think that Christianity has almost completely lost it's depth on modern society. I think the bible is mostly considered a rule book to be preached and prodded on the surface instead of delved into, although I'm sure there are those that do so. This I consider to be real religiousness. Again though, not the question I have been asking.

You're asking for confirmation of that view, and lo, you receive. Criticism and reform are vital to all human enterprise, but denunciation and derision just shut people down, cause them to withdraw, and strengthen the more combative elements in their midst. Approaches such as you've taken in this thread put you in concert with the Fundamentalists to promote conflict and create the world you fear.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

What is the purpose of the human mind? How does it try to accomplish its purpopse?

i.e. generialize your question by going back the the first principle of human action itself. Then try to convince anyone that a particular method determines the universal, i.e. that the material determines the form---or in fact, does the thing itself determine both.

I do not know the purpose of the human mind. I assume it is a function to maintain this body.

For the sake of the posterity of conditional understanding, which is not a bad thing, such generalisation negates the question and removes the point in asking it (maybe?), hence I think it would not be greatly useful in this discussion. Though, it is relevant and answers could be interesting in conjunction.

Originally Posted by ClouD

I do not know the purpose of the human mind. I assume it is a function to maintain this body.

For the sake of the posterity of conditional understanding, which is not a bad thing, such generalisation negates the question and removes the point in asking it (maybe?), hence I think it would not be greatly useful in this discussion. Though, it is relevant and answers could be interesting in conjunction.

Yes, it is. And it does it in various ways, and the best ways it knows how and is capable of. That is your answer.

If you want to improve it, you need to learn a great deal more.

Since man is not different from man, his reasons for doing everything resolves to one answer. How he does it depends upon his environment, his experience with his environment, and his abilities.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You've also made several claims about Christianity on the basis of Christians being unable to express their reasons in the terms you desire. My point was, you will get no good answers if you specifically ask for crap ones.

I can be considered a Christian insofar as I'm a Universalist and consider Christ a world savior and Christianity a true (i.e. functional) faith, even if it's not my personal favorite. I believe in Christ and Christianity because, despite the inevitable lapses and complications of history, Christ remains a fixed beacon of love for many who find themselves out in the cold. He transformed humanity with love, even if it fell far short of perfecting us. The Christian symbol set remains perhaps the most effective at reaching the desperate and the weak, the ignorant and the poor, and getting them out of their heads, comfortable in their skin, and engaged with their fellows where more systematic, more 'logical' systems of belief would only frustrate and confuse. I'm not saying Christians belong exclusively to those categories, but approachability is Christianity's greatest strength as I see it.



You're asking for confirmation of that view, and lo, you receive. Criticism and reform are vital to all human enterprise, but denunciation and derision just shut people down, cause them to withdraw, and strengthen the more combative elements in their midst. Approaches such as you've taken in this thread put you in concert with the Fundamentalists to promote conflict and create the world you fear.

I did not specifically ask for crap ones. Looking back on the questions I have asked for more information (as I said, I have definitely prompted for them in several forms), that is clear. For example I asked someone what they thought Christianity meant to them, because they didn't state it and it is relevant, but I did not want it to be a defining factor of the thread, potentially causing the central question to be ignored.

To be honest, there are two reasons I have asked these questions. Firstly, targeting the less intelligent reasoning Christians, simply because they are the ones that I would like to discuss "illogical/unintelligent" reasoning with. Not to change their thinking necessarily, but for each of us to understand more about what we may be ignoring about others and ourselves. I would like to know why people think these things, what are the processes that lead to it, and as I have said earlier in this thread, I hope I have the potential to reason own personal thoughts/opinions similarly as I'm asking others to. I do not think that there is an intelligent personal reasoning for belief though, as of yet, which is the other reason, but I'm sceptical (not cynical) that there is one.

I think that most Christians (at least the vast majority I've encountered) are the less intelligent kind (only in the regard of their reasoning), the shallow kind of Christians that use Christianity as a coping mechanism or otherwise shallow religiousness.

I do not understand the first sentence of the second part of your post.

I understand the potential effects of inciting that someone may be stupid, but I do not consider it up to me to take that leap over the small bar I put there, simply to bring people to the jumping event. Arrogant? Yes, a little; also hypocritical, but I made that choice to express my opinion.

Being one of Jehovah's Witnesses is almost like being gay (for lack of a more appropriate comparison).
Of all the Christian religions, it is NOT the easiest or most comforting lol. It's hard and one faces ridicule on a regular basis and sometimes even threat of physical violence.
They practice shunning when believers deviate from Scriptural teachings to an extreme, so it's emotionally difficult as well.

But I've been spiritually inclined all of my life. At the age of 4, I made it my quest to find out why God couldn't make Satan nicer. Religious leaders and teachers couldn't answer that question until I found the Witnesses at around the age of 24.
Before them, I studied with countless other Christian denominations as well as Spiritism, Wicca and others.

For me, the Bible is the inspired Word of God. All religions (including main-stream Christian denominations) failed in measuring up to Scriptural standards, in my eyes. It takes a lot of study to know which parts of the Bible are literal and which is hyperbole and examples etc. and I'm finally at peace in my understanding (though I still learn more every time I study).

Perhaps you can write all this off as being, simply, the way I was "wired", but this is WHY I believe what I do. I'm not an expert, by any means, but it took a lot of hard work to get where I was before my excommunication. And even though I'm being shunned and I've lost the community, friendship and guidance of my Congregation l still believe what I do and I hope to return one day because I'm incomplete.

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

Being one of Jehovah's Witnesses is almost like being gay (for lack of a more appropriate comparison).
Of all the Christian religions, it is NOT the easiest or most comforting lol. It's hard and one faces ridicule on a regular basis and sometimes even threat of physical violence.
They practice shunning when believers deviate from Scriptural teachings to an extreme, so it's emotionally difficult as well.

But I've been spiritually inclined all of my life. At the age of 4, I made it my quest to find out why God couldn't make Satan nicer. Religious leaders and teachers couldn't answer that question until I found the Witnesses at around the age of 24.
Before them, I studied with countless other Christian denominations as well as Spiritism, Wicca and others.

For me, the Bible is the inspired Word of God. All religions (including main-stream Christian denominations) failed in measuring up to Scriptural standards, in my eyes. It takes a lot of study to know which parts of the Bible are literal and which is hyperbole and examples etc. and I'm finally at peace in my understanding (though I still learn more every time I study).

Perhaps you can write all this off as being, simply, the way I was "wired", but this is WHY I believe what I do. I'm not an expert, by any means, but it took a lot of hard work to get where I was before my excommunication. And even though I'm being shunned and I've lost the community, friendship and guidance of my Congregation l still believe what I do and I hope to return one day because I'm incomplete.

The way you type is as if, in my opinion, you may believe it like you might believe 1 + 1 = 2. Perhaps the way you were "wired" is exactly the way it could be put, but that does not mean that you can't question the beliefs and actions you have taken, since you have acknowledged them.

You say it is hard, and I think it probably is quite hard to practice religion as you do, but it is certainly not as hard as considering that 1 + 1 does not equate to 2, which I think can be compared to how you were indoctrinated as you grew up. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but you say you feel incomplete without the Congregation you have learned you belong to in regard to this religiousness (I assume and think).

You can question these indoctrinations but it is entirely up to you. I think it is not as scary to be sceptical about everything, as one might imagine, compared to always have that itching doubt of maybe living a fairytale.

Since you have analysed the reason for your belief, as possibly being 'written off as being wired', then you have acknowledged that space between you and the belief to do so. It shows intelligence enough to question the belief outside of the circular reasoning or likewise -- for example, wondering why God couldn't make Satan nicer, takes for granted that both exist, and the inquisition lasts only within the context of their established existence. Another, as I mentioned in my first post, people saying they believe in God simply because they don't want to go to hell.

I think your reasoning for belief would be included into the "ignorance" suggestion, simply in that other alternatives are disregarded. They may have been considered previously, but do not seem to be considered now.

This (my) post is more suggestive and theoretical than I'd like it to be. Much less terse too.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Cloud

Dear, dear, friend

Words, descriptions, labels

Like buckets of water

Waves crashing and breaking against the shores of reality

Making their noise as the retreat once again into the ocean

Sinking into the depths, out of sight, out of mind


I believe not in the words that are Christianity..

But in the depths of meaning beneath them


I believe not in the figurehead of Christ

But in the reality of "God" within


I belive not in the visible Church

But in the map that lies underneath


I believe not in the external label others would apply

But in the Self intertwined with me that guides from within


Everthing under the sun has multiple layers

Everything has meaning buried within

Like Cake under the frosting

What one sees outside is not the cake

Do you talk like that in real life?

If Cloud is waiting for a response from me, he'll have to keep a civil tone. I don't as a rule hold discussions with ill-mannered people. Others here, however, have brought up some good points, and they deserve responses. I can't help but feel that we should start a seperate thread for a more civilized discussion, though. And it's suppertime, so my long response to some of the questions directed towards me will have to wait.

One quick thought:

Oneironaut brings up a very interesting point, and one worthy of it's own discussion. Is creation flawed? I don't see how it could be, because we don't have anything else to compare it to. How could it be anything less than perfection? What would be better?

You say it doesn't work how it is supposed to, but how are you defining that? What does it fail at? In my opinion that's kind of subjective.

My thoughts on evoluton and creation are a little unconventional, so I'll avoid that topic at the moment.

But like you, I tried to avoid getting too wrapped up in this particular thread. It may be too late.

Except I wasn't indoctrinated. I had almost ZERO religious guidance growing up. *I* looked up Churches on my own without parental or peer influence or pressure.
Spirituality is simply part of the essence of who I am.
And neither do I think it's ignorance. Did you miss the part about me studying with multiple denominations AND non-Christian beliefs?

Originally Posted by cedward1

Oneironaut brings up a very interesting point, and one worthy of it's own discussion. Is creation flawed? I don't see how it could be, because we don't have anything else to compare it to. How could it be anything less than perfection? What would be better?

You say it doesn't work how it is supposed to, but how are you defining that? What does it fail at? In my opinion that's kind of subjective.

My thoughts on evoluton and creation are a little unconventional, so I'll avoid that topic at the moment.

But like you, I tried to avoid getting too wrapped up in this particular thread. It may be too late.

I mean that from the standpoint of a theist. All of the views on nature being perfectly designed by a perfect being are a little overzealous (no pun intended). Why do genetic mutations happen? Why do species die out, when they can no longer deal with their environment? I don't mean the system is literally "flawed." I mean that it is not this 'perfect,' system, in which all living creatures have a chance to persevere, and the capacity for life is abundant. Whereas many see the system was "perfectly" designed for us, I simply see that same system as something that has failed to create/sustain life so much that thinking it's having been built for 'us' is kind of arrogant. Don't know if that makes any sense or not, but that's the best way I can describe it. Lol.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Fact is, You will find that for any religion, the number of people who have actually read, and much less studied, the text they claim to follow are very, very few.

What a stupid thing to do.

Originally Posted by noiseissound

I would also advise those of you who are making some very serious claims that their is no logical proofs for the existence of god, that there is in fact many good arguments.

Just do your research before you post some ridiculous thread about how you think Christians are stupid.

Look up some stuff on:
Substance dualism,
Gödel's ontological proof
The Cosmological argument
Teleological argument
Ontological argument
Argument from degree
The Arguement from Reason

I just want to briefly go through a few of these so-called "logical arguments."

I'm not sure what substance dualism is, so maybe you could clarify.

Ontological proof: If I understand this argument correctly, it roughly states that if we can imagine the greatest, most perfect being, it must exist.

Great God in boots! -- the ontological argument is sound!

Cosmological argument: William Lane Craig likes to use this argument, along with the teleological argument. Why is this "first cause," which proponents of this argument claim is God, exempt from having a cause itself? I'm not sure this argument is actually an argument for the existence of God either. It seems to assume that God already exists, and he was the first cause. Of course there is no evidence to assume such a thing.

Teleological argument: This is the "fine-tuning" argument. One looks at the sky, sees the Sun existing in such a way that supports life on Earth, and concludes that it must have been fine-tuned, or designed in a such a way to support life. But this is patently ridiculous. For one, we have no evidence to suggest it's true. Furthermore, one could easily apply such an argue to the human eye, as ID proponents usually do. They see the complexity of the world around them, and since most of them have not the slightest understanding of science, and especially evolution, conclude that an unproven supernatural being did it.

Argument from degree: (Channels Richard Dawkins) - If something is smelly to some degree, it does not follow that there must be a being that is smelly to the fullest extent, or that one exists.

Argument from reason: When reading over the syllogism for this argument, I wasn't sure it made sense. It sort of assumes that rationality can only come from a rational being that "did not begin to exist." It then concludes that God is our source of reasoning. I don't think that is the case. We have no reason to believe that God actually exists, and I find it far more likely that evolution was the cause of our ability to reason.

One thing I don't like about religious arguments is that they tend to have the habit of coming to a conclusion (God exists) then attempting to find arguments or data that support a claim. For science it's the reverse.

Because.

You know, I'm glad I found this thread because I'm going to take a look into my beliefs and try to figure out what's what.

Here is an excellent place to start:
Amazon.com: Why Evolution Is True (9780670020539): Jerry A. Coyne: Books
A great introduction to the current state of the evidence for human evolution. Dawkins recently wrote a similar book, but I haven't read that one so I can't comment on it. Some of the user reviews of Coyne's book are incredibly helpful. Check it out.

Edit: I found this, which I guess is an attempt to briefly summarize the above.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

If both theories are problematic, you don't have to choose one you know. Why not abstain, and just say you don't know?

Because Jesus is a man of action. He wants you to decide RIGHT NOW. Your soul may be everlasting but Jesus's patience is shorter than his temper. He's dangling a sword above your head, threatening that not only will you die at any moment he decides, but also that when you do die, you had better have the right answer because if you don't an eternity of torture awaits you. It's not like you could just change your mind and/or repent after you die. It's too dangerous to be an atheist.

Originally Posted by juroara

What about Christians that have seen angels? What about Christians that have been gone through spontaneous regeneration, also known as a medical miracle? What about Christians that have had near death experiences, seen heaven, experienced God?

There are scores of Christians who believe because of a direct personal experience (and not just Christians). You can try all you want to argue with them why they shouldn't believe in their own self, but I think to deny any individual a life altering experience is stupid.

What about people who have been abducted by aliens? What about the people who are really, actually vampires? What about all the other people of different religious affiliations that have also seen their deity/deities in a near death experience?

As a matter of logic you pretty much have to deny other people's experiences. Not because they didn't happen, but rather because all you have is their word that it happened. First of all, they may simply be flat out lying to you. Secondly, it was their experience, not yours. All you have is your interpretation of their account of their recollection of their experience, which is not even so much second hand as it is more like fifth hand after passing through those filters. Thirdly, what someone saw when their brain was shutting down should probably be taken with a grain of salt. I could go on, but honestly this was a very silly thing to say.

Originally Posted by cedward1

Should one answer a bigot? Don't know if someone this insulting and narrow minded deserves an answer.

Absolutely. They're the ones who most need to be answered.

Originally Posted by cedward1

Anyway, a brief testimony:

You cannot prove the wellness enhancing powers of the Q-Ray Bracelet by logical reasoning. It is based on traditional Chinese medicine. It requires one to aknlowedge that there is an imbalance in their bio-energy. It is beyond any of our control, or else evolution or laws would have stopped it by now. How to be saved from this? You must buy the Q-Ray Bracelet. When someone gains "improved wellness" they are just shown an option for balanced chi, and something pushes them towards it. That's why infomercial advertisements are so successful. It isn't based on "brainwashing", but on spreading Good News. You can't force someone to feel better and improve wellness.

I am a relatively inexperienced Q-Ray Bracelet wearer. I was raised as one, but did not take it that seriously until recently. Actually, not until I went into the world as an adult. Also, I became aware of some issues in my own life that were beyond my control. Knowing the bio-energy of my body is balanced makes me realize I am not alone no matter what happens. And everyone faces trials in life.

I know of some people who were real unhealthy characters before being saved. Stereotypical hard-core binge eater types. Then they found the Q-Ray Bracelet, and had their lives completely transformed in a way nothing earthly could do. And not through indoctrination, either. I mean, it was really brief episodes that radically changed them.

To dismiss something merely because it's only source of evidence is in an infomercial (which by the way it's not) would be to dismiss most of Chinese medicine. And remember, Q-Ray Bracelet wearers at one point were a tiny handful of people marked for extermination by the most powerful empire in the world. You have to admit there is something in the infomercials worth looking at, or it would never have survived all these years. But as I say, you kind of have to see for yourself.

A little disjointed, I know...

fixed

Originally Posted by cedward1

One last thought: many people think lucid dreaming is impossible, and we're all just imagining it.

Protip: We are just imagining it.

Originally Posted by Puffin

I share your opinion, ClouD. I find it off-putting that so many people believe in a book...

I think it's a mistake to say most <religious affiliation>s believe in the <scripture> since I doubt many of them have actually read it.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Teleological argument: This is the "fine-tuning" argument. One looks at the sky, sees the Sun existing in such a way that supports life on Earth, and concludes that it must have been fine-tuned, or designed in a such a way to support life. But this is patently ridiculous. For one, we have no evidence to suggest it's true. Furthermore, one could easily apply such an argue to the human eye, as ID proponents usually do. They see the complexity of the world around them, and since most of them have not the slightest understanding of science, and especially evolution, conclude that an unproven supernatural being did it.

I think the better counter to that is just to point out the vast emptiness of space which is overwhelmingly inhospitable to life of any kind. It's more like life is fine tuned to exist on the one subatomic particle called Earth, and even then Earth and the life on it are hardly perfect for each other.

Cedward1, not sure if you missed my response earlier but it's on page 3. If you or anyone else can address that we should be able to progress with discussion of the topic and address some of the OP's concerns.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Do you talk like that in real life?

If there is the time to think, but most of the time , no.

The writing is like this the majority of the time anymore, even the thinking is falling into line with the same

However the talking has a ways to catch up as its too preoccupied with all the hurried bullshit of modern society

Originally Posted by ClouD

I do not understand the first sentence of the second part of your post.

If I understand what you're saying you don't understand, I was replying to this statement:

Originally Posted by ClouD

I think that Christianity has almost completely lost it's depth on modern society. I think the bible is mostly considered a rule book to be preached and prodded on the surface instead of delved into, although I'm sure there are those that do so.

And said:

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You're asking for confirmation of that view, and lo, you receive.

I'm not saying your view is totally groundless. All the nations of the former British Empire are rife with full blown nutballs who are essentially living their life as a game of D&D with no pizza breaks: not a majority, but plenty. Still, your OP and responses to those Christians who have entered the thread suggest that the reason you do not see more reasonable Christians is because you cannot; you have blinders on against them.

Originally Posted by ClouD

I think that most Christians (at least the vast majority I've encountered) are the less intelligent kind (only in the regard of their reasoning), the shallow kind of Christians that use Christianity as a coping mechanism or otherwise shallow religiousness.

Most atheists I've encountered are also the less intelligent kind, rejecting all religion on the shallow basis that:
1. life's not fair (i.e. the universe, with or without Hell, is unjust).
2. only Fundamentalists are REAL Christians/Muslims/Baha'i/Rastafarians, and they're obviously wrong.
3. If you consider the stories of all the world's religions as inflexible truth claims (see #2), they can't all be right.

So, atheists are stupid, right? No. Because even though atheists are more inclined to defend their position in terms of physical evidence and reason (very tempting to put that in quote marks), whereas Christians more often defend theirs in terms of experience and emotion, both have the same foundation: something in the individual's limited understanding of the ideas surrounding atheism, or Christianity, called to them, and further investigation proved rewarding. Debates like these, or the "culture wars" depicted in the media, distort our views of 'the other side' (if one is taking sides) toward caricature. If one takes the view that one is morally superior as a Christian/conservative or intellectually superior as an atheist/liberal, it only multiplies the distortion.

Most Christians I've known reserved judgement on whether everybody else was wrong, accepted the basic findings of astronomy, biology and physics (to the extent they gave a damn), and used their religion primarily as a way of engendering equanimity and compassion. Ask them why they're Christian, and yes, they're more likely to go to a coping experience, their upbringing, and what being saved has done for them and others, rather than offer a dissertation on Aquinas or a physical model of Christ's ascension. Those are your answers. They're Christian because at some point they suspected it would enrich their life, and it turned out to be the case. Others may have suspected the same and turned out wrong, while others never saw anything useful in Christianity.

People are different. Many paths offer true and rewarding means for exploring the experience of being human. I only disagree with Christians and atheists who disagree with that premise.

I understand that you're not an atheist and probably agree, with whatever reservations, to the Universalist premise, but in this thread you're also giving the impression that you've internalized a lot of the memes of the culture war, regarding Christians. Sorry if you feel I'm derailing your thread in any way to deconstruct the atheist side of the debate, but you did make the assertions.