Thread: So, I think Christians are stupid.

Originally Posted by Xei

You're either an idiot or a troll. Either way, shut up.

You may be on to something there Xei. I mean I do seem to attract the "forum idjit" everywhere I go.

Then again, maybe I should just stick to the topic at hand, or at the very least go in for a light snack.

Either way, you're mean.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

ClouD, I think the problem is that, when you call someone stupid, you are referring to more than just their stance on any particular issue. Remember that many of the top minds in the world (in certain areas of education/intellect) are also theists. You can disagree with someone's ideas on a particular issue, but to imply that they - themselves - are "stupid" is to assume so much more than that.

Yes, I understand this.

However, I have never encountered non-circular reasoning behind any Christian's belief in their religion, that I do not think is stupid. If only I knew some top Christian minds that could enlighten me. I am skeptical.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

But, what you claim to be reasoning is not. There is no relationship between intelligence and a particular secular doctrine. 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. So, it is not reasoning at all that claims a relationship where none has ever been demonstrated, it is in fact, very irrational. A case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I, myself, have never been religious, however, I have typed out the entire text into digital format-as only one of the ways I study it.

An opinion, and I do not think it is an entirely unfair one, though that's subjective:
+ A Christian who says they are a Christian, but does not know what Christianity means to themselves, is stupid.
+ There is a clear relationship between intelligence and indoctrination, at least as far as I can see, and I am generally a logical person when it suits me to be.
+ If someone cannot explain, without circular reasoning, why they believe what they do, then they are stupid. I think that the lack of ability to do so is a lack of intelligence in that regard. Intelligence is the ability to comprehend and the capability to exercise certain mental processes.

To say there is no relationship between intelligence and the ability to formulate and comprehend a logical reason for belief, may be claiming that logic is not essential of intelligence? That's all I can see that might be argued, and I'm dismissing it as inarguable. If you meant otherwise, please do say.

So far, no Christian has posted explaining why they believe. Please do explain. You might convert me from thinking Christians are stupid, if that helps.

Originally Posted by ClouD

.To say there is no relationship between intelligence and the ability to formulate and comprehend a logical reason for belief, may be claiming that logic is not essential of intelligence? That's all I can see that might be argued, and I'm dismissing it as inarguable. If you meant otherwise, please do say.

"logical reason" is a tautology. Logic is the entire class of symbolic methods of manipulation that can be used. Since, if you search the internet, not even the metaphysics of the simple sentence is known, you cannot say that man is yet capable of reason. Search the net, you will find at least a half dozen or more theories of what a sentence is.

I know what one is, and I have posted an outline of logic. However, in that same document, I disprove a great deal of what is called logic today.

So, my point is, since not even the foundation of reasoning is known, you are just heaping words together. I doubt seriously if you could even comprehend part of the implications of the work I have done in just geometry.

The whole of it is, you flatter yourself and abuse others. I get into people's faces, face to face, but condemning a whole class of people without any real standard only indicates a problematic mind.

However, more interesting than people who flatter themselves, is the fact that in the Judeo-Christian Scripture's, one is told directly that man cannot reason, but that one day someone would be sent to start what may be called an intellectual revolution, to introduce the principles that man does not understand. Actually, some call it the second comming, but then the introduce a lot of fiction and fantasy into it. I don't understand why history is playing out this way, I do know that it is possible, and probable. Strangely enough, lucid dreaming has something to do with it.

Originally Posted by ClouD

So far, no Christian has posted explaining why they believe.

Hey cloud, I have recently discovered a brand spanking new color. Would you like me to explain it?
Why ask a question you have absolutely no intentions of ever accepting any answer other than what fits your own pregidous?

I'm not a christian cloud, but I believe in god simply because the alternative offers an even more ridiculous theory. I think ol' hawkeye best summed it up with his "OMG I know everything" explanation of the universe having no other choice but to create itself.
Also, that's more than 15 times you have double posted in the last 4 months without any backlash. Man, this whole science club shtick has its advantages. BOSS?

^yes...cloud...please stop double and triple posting, you know better.

Cloud, how do you define stupid? Do you believe that Christians are less intelligent? Weaker minded? More easily manipulated? Incapable of seeing reason and sense? What specifically is "stupid" (by your definition) about all Christians?

I guess I just don't understand why you keep choosing to use the word "stupid"...which makes your whole argument/theory seem rather juvenile. Surely you could find a better word than stupid? When I see stupid used in such a way I am reminded of a whiny little child. "Mommy I don't like those stupid boys. They're all stupid!!" But as I said, it's possible I'm just not catching your deliberate reasoning for using stupid, so please do explain.

And don't forget...'My mama always says, "stupid is as stupid does"'.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

I'm not a christian cloud, but I believe in god simply because the alternative offers an even more ridiculous theory.

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

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.

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.

"Medical miracles" aside, are you saying that it's more reasonable to believe that someone who "sees an Angel" is actually seeing an Angel, rather than believe that the person thinks they are seeing an angel, but is experiencing a (very common, quantifiable, and proven to occur naturally) mental visualization of one? And that it is without merit to try to get them to understand which is the most likely of the two?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

"Medical miracles" aside, are you saying that it's more reasonable to believe that someone who "sees an Angel" is actually seeing an Angel, rather than believe that the person thinks they are seeing an angel, but is experiencing a (very common, quantifiable, and proven to occur naturally) mental visualization of one? And that it is without merit to try to get them to understand which is the most likely of the two?

What I am saying is, there is no reason to be OFFENDED by their personal experience that has added depth and meaning to their life.

And this goes both ways. Christians are guilty of denying the personal and spiritual experiences of other cultures, such has Hindus having visions of Krishna. Culturally we deny entheogen users to call what they do spiritual, instead we just say they're the same as any drug user.

This need to tell people "YOU HALLUCINATED! YOU'RE WRONG!" is fear in my opinion. I think we should embrace the human experience, and stop labeling non-objective experiences as meaningless. And hopefully, a dreaming community can understand that.

Take what you said for example, "mental visualization of one". I don't know if you realize it, but you're suggesting that either an experience is OBJECTIVELY physical, or it's a hallucination. But faith says angels have no physical body. Christian gnosticism would even tell you that angels appear as what you expect them to appear as, so technically, its always a mental visualization.

Think of it this way - we interact with our subconscious every night. We "see" our subconscious manifested as characters. But none of those characters have a physical reality, they are all mental visualizations of the subconscious. That doesn't make the consciousness behind the characters, the interaction, or the experience any less real.

The need for spirituality to fit comfortably in objective physical reality denies that we have a subjective reality. And I think instead telling people "YOU HALLUCINATED" we should allow them the choice to decide what to do with their own subjective experiences. And that goes for ALL subjective experiences, not just the ones Christians have.

First of all I would like to congratulate you cloud, on not letting the this turn into a flame war quite yet.
I'll try not to argue against your style of argument but the topic itself.
I will try to keep this as hate free and un-bias as possible, so please tell me if something is unclear etc.

Anyways I am a Christian a while ago I doubted how God could exist so I did some research, and here are some bits of information I've found.
The world shows intelligent design, so there has to be intelligence behind it, there's stuff in nature like the fibanocci ( <-not sure how to spell it) sequence, the golden ratio, how an eco system can fit together and function the way it does. Also you have morals and a conscience I think there would have to be a God for that. I've talked to a few people who have had "experiences" but I'm sure that I will probably asked as to the credibility of that. Contrary to (what I'm assuming) is a popular belief the Bible is historically accurate, cross check it if you want. Of course you could still easily doubt the "miracles" in the book. I should tell you I've been raised Christian and the principals of the Bible seem good to me. A lot of controversy is around how God could be just but also merciful so I'll tell you that Jesus died to take the punishment so God could be merciful and just.

I always forget exactly what points are being argued currently so ask questions and I'lll answer to the best of my ability.

Originally Posted by juroara

What I am saying is, there is no reason to be OFFENDED by their personal experience that has added depth and meaning to their life.

And this goes both ways. Christians are guilty of denying the personal and spiritual experiences of other cultures, such has Hindus having visions of Krishna. Culturally we deny entheogen users to call what they do spiritual, instead we just say they're the same as any drug user.

This need to tell people "YOU HALLUCINATED! YOU'RE WRONG!" is fear in my opinion. I think we should embrace the human experience, and stop labeling non-objective experiences as meaningless. And hopefully, a dreaming community can understand that.

Take what you said for example, "mental visualization of one". I don't know if you realize it, but you're suggesting that either an experience is OBJECTIVELY physical, or it's a hallucination. But faith says angels have no physical body. Christian gnosticism would even tell you that angels appear as what you expect them to appear as, so technically, its always a mental visualization.

Think of it this way - we interact with our subconscious every night. We "see" our subconscious manifested as characters. But none of those characters have a physical reality, they are all mental visualizations of the subconscious. That doesn't make the consciousness behind the characters, the interaction, or the experience any less real.

The need for spirituality to fit comfortably in objective physical reality denies that we have a subjective reality. And I think instead telling people "YOU HALLUCINATED" we should allow them the choice to decide what to do with their own subjective experiences. And that goes for ALL subjective experiences, not just the ones Christians have.

But why is it that it's ok for a theist to make their own claims about objective reality, based on their own subjective experience (which is what they are doing by saying that angels - as they are depicted in the bible - exist), but not for an atheist to say that angels don't exist, based upon their own subjective experience (which is often exposure to empirical data)? Does it not work both ways?

Every time a theist says they saw an angel, they are telling the atheists that "they're wrong."
Every time an atheist say something that concludes angels are not likely to exist, they are telling the theists "they're wrong."

It's a two-way street.

I'm with you, though, about not being so arrogant in one's assessment of another's subjective experience, but when that experience is implying something about the other person's beliefs/etc. - which most of them are - then there is always going to be a conflict.

Originally Posted by ooflendoodle

The world shows intelligent design, so there has to be intelligence behind it, there's stuff in nature like the fibanocci ( <-not sure how to spell it) sequence, the golden ratio, how an eco system can fit together and function the way it does.

This is similar to the human eye argument. Creationists and Intelligent Design theorists look at the human eye, see how "complex" and "wondrous" it is, and conclude that it and many other complex, wondrous things in nature must have had a designer. But it is a rather weak argument if one knows how the human eye (and eyes in general) came out. That, and the human eye is certainly worse than the eyes of a multitude of animals in the world. If God created us, why are our eyes worse?

The Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio seem to be non-sequiturs. Okay, two mathematical concepts might apply to certain situations occurring in nature. Does it follow that these concepts are the "language of God" or something? Not really.

The point is that, even if one says "well the world shows intelligent design," there is no reason to actually believe so.

Also you have morals and a conscience I think there would have to be a God for that.

It seems far more plausible to me that the concept of morals came about through evolution. Animals who cooperate peacefully were and are far more likely to succeed, thrive, and flourish compared to those who did not cooperate peacefully. Thus, they were able to successfully reproduce and pass on their genes. While nonhuman animals may not have a concept of morals (since their level of thinking is not the same as humans), we may observe (and have) moralistic/cooperative behavior in them.

I've talked to a few people who have had "experiences" but I'm sure that I will probably asked as to the credibility of that.

Indeed, I would. We cannot necessarily trust claims of such experiences for a multitude of reasons.

Contrary to (what I'm assuming) is a popular belief the Bible is historically accurate, cross check it if you want. Of course you could still easily doubt the "miracles" in the book. I should tell you I've been raised Christian and the principals of the Bible seem good to me. A lot of controversy is around how God could be just but also merciful so I'll tell you that Jesus died to take the punishment so God could be merciful and just.

I'm not sure any of this makes sense. You seem to base your positive view of the Bible on your Christian upbringing, which is not a credible reason for actually holding a positive view of the Bible. You also state a nonsensical argument that God sent his son just to die to take the punishment so that God himself could be merciful and just. Are you saying God needed to create a son just to be merciful and just? Not very omnipotent of him.

How did the human eye come out? What do you mean by this? (I'm seriously just curious)
I cannot argue with you on the first point because you don't think there is an intelligent creator even if the world shows intelligent design. I believe it does because it took intelligence to see how the world works (which is how the fib sequence and the golden ration relate (because they're patterns found in nature)). It makes logical sense to me (correct me if you see an error in my logic) that if something is a creation that has been intelligently designed it should have an intelligent creator.

I do not believe in evolution because I have not seen enough evidence in it so, I'll have to pull out the "where did it all come from?" card. I have also heard that evolution is not really thought to be true anymore by most scientist for it's paltry evidence (once again correct me if I'm wrong when saying most scientists) Besides how could something evolve from animals if morals were not present in them. Also how would animals who cooperate be more likely to succeed?

You'd have to talk to a person with an experience to argue that there is a God on that point, so I'm not the right person to talk to about that.

If God didn't send his son then he wouldn't have been just in forgiving us. If a God is omnipotent, then he is omnipotent that does not mean he doesn't have multiple ways of doing something. Maybe sending his son was the way him having justice and mercy makes sense to us. Also when Jesus is born he is born in a cattle stall (which is disgusting) yet he proves his might and powers in other ways.

My belief of the goodness of the bible is based more off of what I have witnessed and what I understand of it to be than my upbringing.

Also couldn't you make the same argument (if someone is raised a certain way their beliefs are not credible because they have not done research to prove their beliefs are true.) on someone born atheist?

Originally Posted by ooflendoodle

I do not believe in evolution because I have not seen enough evidence in it so, I'll have to pull out the "where did it all come from?" card.

Have you honestly read enough material on evolution to come to that conclusion?

I have also heard that evolution is not really thought to be true anymore by most scientist for it's paltry evidence (once again correct me if I'm wrong when saying most scientists)

Evolution is basically a proven fact for the majority of scientists. Fossils are pretty convincing and widespread evidence.

Besides how could something evolve from animals if morals were not present in them. Also how would animals who cooperate be more likely to succeed?

If you were to build a house, or hunt a mammoth, or protect yourself from something with sharp teeth, would you rather be alone or in a group?


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?

Originally Posted by ooflendoodle

How did the human eye come out? What do you mean by this? (I'm seriously just curious)

Evolution? The evolution of light-receptive cells into those which could transmit what we call "images" to the brain?

Photoreception is phylogenetically very old, with various theories of phylogenesis.[10] The common origin (monophyly) of all animal eyes is now widely accepted as fact. This is based upon the shared anatomical and genetic features of all eyes; that is, all modern eyes, varied as they are, have their origins in a proto-eye believed to have evolved some 540 million years ago.[11][12][13] The majority of the advancements in early eyes are believed to have taken only a few million years to develop, since the first predator to gain true imaging would have touched off an "arms race".[14] Prey animals and competing predators alike would be at a distinct disadvantage without such capabilities and would be less likely to survive and reproduce. Hence multiple eye types and subtypes developed in parallel.

Eyes in various animals show adaption to their requirements. For example, birds of prey have much greater visual acuity than humans, and some can see ultraviolet light. The different forms of eye in, for example, vertebrates and mollusks are often cited as examples of parallel evolution, despite their distant common ancestry.

The very earliest "eyes", called eyespots, were simple patches of photoreceptor protein in unicellular animals. In multicellular beings, multicellular eyespots evolved, physically similar to the receptor patches for taste and smell. These eyespots could only sense ambient brightness: they could distinguish light and dark, but not the direction of the lightsource.[15]

Through gradual change, as the eyespot depressed into a shallow "cup" shape, the ability to slightly discriminate directional brightness was achieved by using the angle at which the light hit certain cells to identify the source. The pit deepened over time, the opening diminished in size, and the number of photoreceptor cells increased, forming an effective pinhole camera that was capable of dimly distinguishing shapes.[16]

The thin overgrowth of transparent cells over the eye's aperture, originally formed to prevent damage to the eyespot, allowed the segregated contents of the eye chamber to specialize into a transparent humour that optimized color filtering, blocked harmful radiation, improved the eye's refractive index, and allowed functionality outside of water. The transparent protective cells eventually split into two layers, with circulatory fluid in between that allowed wider viewing angles and greater imaging resolution, and the thickness of the transparent layer gradually increased, in most species with the transparent crystallin protein.[17]

The gap between tissue layers naturally formed a bioconvex shape, an optimally ideal structure for a normal refractive index. Independently, a transparent layer and a nontransparent layer split forward from the lens: the cornea and iris. Separation of the forward layer again formed a humour, the aqueous humour. This increased refractive power and again eased circulatory problems. Formation of a nontransparent ring allowed more blood vessels, more circulation, and larger eye sizes.[17]

I cannot argue with you on the first point because you don't think there is an intelligent creator even if the world shows intelligent design. I believe it does because it took intelligence to see how the world works (which is how the fib sequence and the golden ration relate (because they're patterns found in nature)). It makes logical sense to me (correct me if you see an error in my logic) that if something is a creation that has been intelligently designed it should have an intelligent creator.

I don't think there is an intelligent creator because there is no evidence for one. At best all you can come up with is a non-understanding of evolution (and thus rejection, as you admit below) and two concepts of naturally-occurring patterns. The basis of patterns is numbers. Patterns do not require a creator.

I do not believe in evolution because I have not seen enough evidence in it so, I'll have to pull out the "where did it all come from?" card.

Where did what all come from? I don't know what you mean.

But it is staggering to see yet another person who doesn't accept evolution as a scientific fact on the basis of a lack of evidence, and it's 2010!. Truly remarkable.

I have also heard that evolution is not really thought to be true anymore by most scientist for it's paltry evidence (once again correct me if I'm wrong when saying most scientists)

I'm not sure where you heard that. It is certainly not the case.

Besides how could something evolve from animals if morals were not present in them. Also how would animals who cooperate be more likely to succeed?

I said the concept of morals are not present in animals as they tend not to have the mental capacity to conceptualize things, whereas humans do. Not that humans aren't animals, of course. We just aren't as instinctual as other animals. I also never said something couldn't evolve without morals. I said that our human concept of morals came about from 1) our own experiences in the history of humans, and how treating each other nicely and cooperating lead to benefits for all, and 2) observing cooperative behavior in other animals.

Animals who cooperate are more likely to succeed for two reasons: 1) strength in numbers, and 2) positive benefits from cooperation. If you have a population of humans who rarely interact and are essentially "lone wolf" in their activities, I doubt you would find that they would rise very high on the food chain. And the fact that we are social animals, and cooperate with each other (most of the time) reaps positive benefits (such as greater food income, shelter, tools). Basically, two heads are better than one.

If God didn't send his son then he wouldn't have been just in forgiving us.

Why not? Couldn't he/she/it just decide to be a nice guy for once?

But your argument rests on the belief that God actually exists.

If a God is omnipotent, then he is omnipotent that does not mean he doesn't have multiple ways of doing something.

Then why, in our myth-riddled conversation, did your God decide to manifest a future zombie and tell him to get fucked up by some Romans all in the name of "forgiving sin?"

Maybe sending his son was the way him having justice and mercy makes sense to us.

Not to me.

Also when Jesus is born he is born in a cattle stall (which is disgusting) yet he proves his might and powers in other ways.

...and?

My belief of the goodness of the bible is based more off of what I have witnessed and what I understand of it to be than my upbringing.

Does the goodness of the Bible include killing homosexuals, non-believers, fornicators, sodomizers, etc?

Also couldn't you make the same argument (if someone is raised a certain way their beliefs are not credible because they have not done research to prove their beliefs are true.) on someone born atheist?

Absolutely. Except everyone is born atheist, and religion is taught (to quote, I believe, Ninja). The fact of the matter is that you are almost a complete atheist, as you do not believe in most of the mythological gods of human history. Some of us just go one god further.

But it seems to me that even if someone is born atheist and stays that way simply because they were brought up in such a manner, they are already on the right track. Eventually they will have to come to the conclusion, like the rest of us, that there is very-little-to-no evidence for a supernatural creator. Whether they were told this by their parents or figured it out for themselves seems relevant only in that if they figured it out for themselves, they would be a little more intellectually honest. And I like intellectual honesty, frankly, so I'm not satisfied with people believing in something simply because they were brought up a certain way. My bias shows when I say I think they're on the right track, of course.

To get back to the point, my statement was based off of your statement of "I was raised as a Christian so I can see the goodness in the Bible." It didn't include any inkling of your own research.

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 I need to believe that my life is more than what it really is.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Because I need to believe that my life is more than what it really is.

That's too bad.

I dno't need to believe that my life is more than what it really is, because I believe that, god or no god, my life is naturally amazing - life is wonderful and amazing, and so I never think "man, my life is crap, thank goodness I have something else to look forward to."

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Hey cloud, I have recently discovered a brand spanking new color. Would you like me to explain it?
Why ask a question you have absolutely no intentions of ever accepting any answer other than what fits your own pregidous?

I'm not a christian cloud, but I believe in god simply because the alternative offers an even more ridiculous theory. I think ol' hawkeye best summed it up with his "OMG I know everything" explanation of the universe having no other choice but to create itself.
Also, that's more than 15 times you have double posted in the last 4 months without any backlash. Man, this whole science club shtick has its advantages. BOSS?

The same can be said true for everyone: no intention of ever accepting any answer other than what fits your own prejudice
Thing is, if someone had legitimately discovered a new colour, wouldn't you want to see it? It's not like I'm being close-minded.

As for double / triple / quad posting, that is simply to break up the replies in easy to read and address parts. I don't care about post count. I'll stop because Nina agrees.

Please expand on my reply. I'm not being overly unreasonable or prejudiced, if I am, then say why, because I don't see it.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

^yes...cloud...please stop double and triple posting, you know better.

Cloud, how do you define stupid? Do you believe that Christians are less intelligent? Weaker minded? More easily manipulated? Incapable of seeing reason and sense? What specifically is "stupid" (by your definition) about all Christians?

I guess I just don't understand why you keep choosing to use the word "stupid"...which makes your whole argument/theory seem rather juvenile. Surely you could find a better word than stupid? When I see stupid used in such a way I am reminded of a whiny little child. "Mommy I don't like those stupid boys. They're all stupid!!" But as I said, it's possible I'm just not catching your deliberate reasoning for using stupid, so please do explain.

And don't forget...'My mama always says, "stupid is as stupid does"'.

Stupidity isn't the point, reasons for the belief are. Stupid was a word to attract attention and to express how I felt (angry) at the juvenile Christian responses on DV, and apparently pride is more important than the question itself. Maybe the word is too super-effective.

Defining the word stupid would lead to loopholes and potential arguments with semantics. I'm using it as a juvenile word, yes, pointing out the juvenile reasoning that I have encountered for Christian belief. I'm sure it can be defined easily enough within each reader's mind. Lack of intelligence in a certain regard.

Originally Posted by ooflendoodle

First of all I would like to congratulate you cloud, on not letting the this turn into a flame war quite yet.
I'll try not to argue against your style of argument but the topic itself.
I will try to keep this as hate free and un-bias as possible, so please tell me if something is unclear etc.

Anyways I am a Christian a while ago I doubted how God could exist so I did some research, and here are some bits of information I've found.
The world shows intelligent design, so there has to be intelligence behind it, there's stuff in nature like the fibanocci ( <-not sure how to spell it) sequence, the golden ratio, how an eco system can fit together and function the way it does. Also you have morals and a conscience I think there would have to be a God for that. I've talked to a few people who have had "experiences" but I'm sure that I will probably asked as to the credibility of that. Contrary to (what I'm assuming) is a popular belief the Bible is historically accurate, cross check it if you want. Of course you could still easily doubt the "miracles" in the book. I should tell you I've been raised Christian and the principals of the Bible seem good to me. A lot of controversy is around how God could be just but also merciful so I'll tell you that Jesus died to take the punishment so God could be merciful and just.

I always forget exactly what points are being argued currently so ask questions and I'lll answer to the best of my ability.

You know what? I agree, the world does seem to show intelligent design. I don't see why there would have to be intelligence behind it though, that part is not a "have" but a "might". Please explain why you believe that it really is a definitive "have", if you disagree with me on that point.

Thing is, our interpretation of the world showing intelligence is all due to our perspective. You only find it if you're looking for it, since it's a human concept, it might only seem intelligent because it may go along with our interpretations of intelligence, or maybe we're even just seeing what we want to, or a bit of both? We are the source of intelligence, it is a concept related to analysis of the mind and its complex funtionality. It is of course, reasonable to expect that as we are part of our environment, the universe, to find "aspects" of ourselves that corroborate with our surroundings and vice-versa.

+ There is no clear reason in that understanding, for the necessity of a Godly figure. Why do you believe there is, if you really do (as opposed to just thinking they might)?
+ As for morals and conscience, why do you think there would have to be a God for those? There seems to be no relation, aside from what you might make yourself.

You say you have talked to a few people who have had experiences, but what should other people's experiences have to do with you? Sure, some people have their thresholds for when they believe something (ie. enough people say something is true, you believe it; enough soft "evidence" and suddenly it becomes solid), but they don't have to. Skepticism, even of yourself and your beliefs, is a trait of someone seeking truth about something -- complete and utter belief is not.

You have looked from the perspective of a Christian, trying to find things to support your beliefs, not actually looking from an objective standpoint. Please consider that and answer the few questions I have asked in this reply.

As for the rest of your post, I find it ambiguous and would like to avoid it, in case this thread turns into discussion on specific parts of the Bible; see: Circular Reasoning.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Because I need to believe that my life is more than what it really is.

Then you agree, as I stated earlier, that it falls under "fairytale fantasy". It's a coping mechanism for your comfort?

Doublethink is simulated protective stupidity. One does not actually need to be stupid to perform it.

Originally Posted by Xei

Doublethink is simulated protective stupidity. One does not actually need to be stupid to perform it.

I agree, you have summed it up. Yet I stand by the ambiguity of the word.

Originally Posted by Robo

I was a catholic/christian for the majority of my life, mainly because I was just raised that way. When I got older I (as good children should) began to question the ideas and thought processes of my life, and my faith was one of them. when I asked, no one could ever give me a straight answer, so I renounced my faith, because It didn't make any logical sense.

but that's just me.

Same exact thing with me.

http://www.dreamviews.com/f37/i-chal...efence-107174/

The original post is gone now, but this thread was originally created because the poster felt 'offended' by this one, and was upset that no fellow Catholics seemed able to respond to it. He therefore invited people to 'challenge his faith'.

It was incredible.

Hmmm, "you're stupid because of your beliefs. I demand an explanation!" Don't know if someone this insulting and narrow minded deserves an answer. I'll think it over, then perhaps post my testimony later. Might be more tempted were I not sworn at in the original post.

Originally Posted by cedward1

"you're stupid because of your beliefs. I demand an explanation!"

Noap, wrong. Stupidity here is being attributed to the kind of reasoning that backs some folks' beliefs.

"I believe this because a book said it" is what's earning some the title of 'stupid.'