Thread: 10 Questions for an Intelligent Christian

A secular person can do anything a religious person can do, good or bad. However the point isn't that its possible, but that people involved in a religion to do it to higher degrees.

A secular person could be nice and talk to their neighbors everyday and get to know everyone, however it doesn't happen in a lot of places. However, people going to church often form better communities and get involved in stuff.

A secular person can do anything a religious person can do, good or bad. However the point isn't that its possible, but that people involved in a religion to do it to higher degrees.

A secular person could be nice and talk to their neighbors everyday and get to know everyone, however it doesn't happen in a lot of places. However, people going to church often form better communities and get involved in stuff.

I would like to know what you base this on, and what you mean by "better" communities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVbLb...eature=related


Can't say I applaud those kind of communities <_< (I know not everyones like that, merely an example of a community strongly favouring one idea over another )

The neighbourhood I live in, after countless of get together parties and such, are mostly atheists and others just very neutral to the whole deal, but we all get along perfectly well and are involved with each other to the degree that neighbours should be. If some communities grow stronger together based on one shared idea, it doesn't always have to mean it's better, or for the best.

Religion doesn't just get people together, it also fiercly tears people apart.

I didn't mean, one community is better than another. I meant, it gets them into the community, which is better than sitting at home and not talking to anyone. The default position in a lot of places seems to be, that most people don't really get involved in their communities and don't really talk to each other very often. Things like church gives a place for people to gather and help form a community. Obviously you don't need religion to do that, but its a very common thing among religion. Not just any one religion, but all of them help people get together.

Ah, I see The way you worded it just made it sound like it would make the communities "better" in some other way or another, than other forms of communities.

Join the neighbourhood watch. Go to the local football games. Volunteer for your council.

There are plenty of things you can do to get involved in your community that aren't chin-wagging at the local parish.

Originally Posted by Alric

Please don't insult me. I was going to say something rude back, but instead I am just going to leave it at this. I was using the common English version of the words, while you were using whats in a philosophical encyclopedia. If you look up valid in the dictionary, the one of the common definition of the word valid is sound. If you look up valid in a thesaurus, you would see they are synonyms. Synonyms are two different words that mean the same, or very similar things. It is so common for multiple words to have the same meaning, they even got a special word for it. So don't even go there.

I specifically said in my post that I was using strict logical definitions. It is not my fault if you are not paying attention to details such as this.

As for what I believe in. Well to keep it short, I believe there is probably an afterlife. I believe there might be a god. I believe any being that can create a universe could be considered a god even if its not consciously aware of it. I don't think it really matters if there is a god or not, and I live my life the same regardless of that fact.

See, I am ignoring other things said because it seems irrelevant to you.

I was arguing against the typical Theistic approach to miracles and praying. If you wish to debate them from a different approach, then it is likely that we will not debate anything much. There is little difference between praying and mediation; that was all my point was and you seem to agree.

I could say sciences kills a ton of people with weapons, such as the atomic bomb. However that is silly. The atomic bomb doesn't equal science. However my point is, a cult doesn't equal mainstream religion either. Religion and science are ideas, cults and bombs are objects and things.

Calling something a cult does not necessitate it being unique or negative. Christianity is technically a cult - but that is not something I am using to denigrate it or use a specific word to deter it. The fact is that there are promises made if you make certain sacrifices; that is the basic premise of a cult and religions are more or less just organized cults. The line is very thin and we could easily get into semantics here but I just want to tell you that it is not really a concern of mine. I just want you to know that I do not think calling it a "cult" is a bad thing.

As it seemed to me to be a semantics thing with you, I just want to make it evidently clear that I see no difference between cult and religion other than size and it is really of no consequence either way.

One could say Christianity is just a large cult, but there is a problem with that. Its so big that everyone believes something different, and there are so many branches. You simply can not lump them all together. It just doesn't work very well. Which is what my problem, with people trying to lump them all together and calling them all delusional. It really isn't fair, or accurate. Especially since good things do come from religion, a lot of good things.

You try to use the diversity of belief as a defense for Christianity. I find that very strange. If it is meant to be a universal belief system with fundamental beliefs based on holy scripture, then how is it so diverse? You know, usually people use that point you used against Christianity.

Personally, I don't care - it is not my point what the structure of the religion is. If someone believes in something that they are told without reason or evidence, then they are delusional. Especially worse if they are explicitly shown evidence too.

Don't forget, good things can come from people like Charles Manson too; he helped some people feel better and enlighten others. He also helped some writers make a writing career. Does that mean he is suddenly good? No, of course not.

His beliefs and how he utilized them are far worse and there are much better things that can do much more good for people.

What is the good that Theism does that non-Theists cannot do?

Originally Posted by aorozco

Hmm.. that's a good point. psychological damge can be represented in physical damage as well, i.e brainwash=harm oneself, so No i don't think he should be set free. I know that would seem to contradict what I said earlier, but it doesn't. I clearly said, that it is within that person's right to share their beliefs with people and not be in the wrong for doing so, but forcing one's beliefs on someone would clash with our rights as americans, thus seperation of church and state-blahblahblah, and so it gives us the right to share such beliefs, just not neccessarily force it. "Brainwashing" someone does/ can cause physical/psychological harm, which i consider psychological damage, physical, because it lead to it.

You are really missing my point and it's really hard to explain it to you now because I think it is something you are not considering;

What of those that manipulate others by telling them their delusional beliefs and the naive people accept it? What about those that truly believe wrong things and convince others that it is right (eg. Charles Manson)?

You seem to be missing the point entirely; Charles Manson did not force his beliefs onto people, he simply told them it. Then, they killed people. A lot of people.

According to you; he was allowed to do that.

You should note now to people that you are part of the Manson Family.

That's not what I said, I said, that I cannot take the law upon my own hands and do "justice" by bashing someone mentally or physically as "justice." That is not my job.

The point is that the justice system uses a sense of justification for what they do and I am asking you what you think it ought to be. You are simply excusing yourself and saying that it is not your job? Come on now; don't be lazy; you are able to think for your self.

I did see your video. Assuming that everyone who is a christian believes that prayer is for miracles, or that God has to answer their prayer is not a good thing. Too often people assume that God will answer all prayers and that he needs to. Such a silly thing. Seriously, the majority of christians may think so, but then again, the minority such as I will tell you no.

Then what's the point of praying that is not the main point of meditation?

I see your point about the weak people being susceptible to manipulation. In that case then should we not assume resaponsibilty to help people out in the streets and to help them get clean, have a place to stay and teach them so that they maybe educated? We are so quick to judge them, and say how weak they are and poor weak minded people, yet we can't assume responsibility. funny how that works. That I know of, science hasn't been a main reason to go to war. No. And that's cool, I like science, I believe in evoluton to a degree.

Don't be so sanctimonious. Of course we would love to help all these people out and we try our best as resources allow. The fact of the matter is that there will always be those in need; you cannot develop a utopia.

Furthermore, that is not the type of people I am even speaking of.

You realize how many people vote for someone just based on, "He's Christian"? Do you not consider that this is a tool to manipulate people? Ever since Constantine has religion been a political tool; and that is all that it is.

Well first of all, I am not killing people or manipilating them to kill themselves, so on so forth... I have told you plenty of times, I don't care what religion, cult, whatever you beieve in. That's simply your beliefs. I will not sit here and bash someone for it. no matter how f-d up their beliefs may seem. But when their beliefs do interfere with people's safety, then it is time to interfere. Please remember that. I am tired of re-stating it.

Are you ignoring how many problems that religions can have on others? Do you really need me to re-state it? Because you are clearly not paying attention.

Religion is a major cause of violence and a very popular reason for homicides, wars, and violence. Tell me what the war over Jerusalem has been ever since human recorded history has existed?

Okay. as for the oppression/suppression, How so? We simply have out own opinions.

All I will do is mention Galileo as evidence. To think that parallel's are not apparent today is simply ignorant.

We aren't stiffling growth in this area.
suffering in Africa, That's what I mean by using the legal system. Just sucks that they don't really have one. Just adds on to my point that, it's people's beliefs, and if legal action could be taken, then it should be.
Dettering abortions.. Well I don't see how that's bad... but I refuse to get on that topic, seeng as I will never succeed with it. sexual orientation, hmm.. well I guess I am a "bad" christian, but I personally say, if you're happy with your sexual orientation, then be it so. I understand that churches havve the opposite thinking, but as long as they aren't harming anyone I don't see the badness. I mean yeah it sucks becasue alot of people can't get married, but leagalities are the issue here. manipulation of the public. well I understand how that can be a problem, but to be honest, once again, if you let such things persuade you so easily, then whatever, to each his own.. Once again, no physical.psychological damage, and i see no stiffling of anything with this, simply as, it's still that person's vote, just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong... the prayer stuff is BS. sorry, but my church actually has programs to help not only fellow members deal with financial struggles, but also classes to teach on to deal with such problems. So I see no stifling there.. Indoctrination of children. That is a good point, and I agree that children should make up their own mind, but sometimes are not really allowed but then again, How did you or anyone else come up with their morals? by the teachings you've encountered. thus, you in a way are brainwashed right?

Perhaps you could explain to me how it is a bad thing to "brain-wash" your kids into thinking for themselves and being skeptical of being brain-washed? Perhaps you could tell me the best thing to teach your child and how it is better than teaching skepticism or the scientific approach to knowledge.

I personally grew up in a christian home, left the church for 4 years to "find" myself, and made up my mind to be where i am now... Well don't know what to tell you about ID. I haven't taken the class so couldn't tell you much about it. Evolution and such aren't taught min most schools for the same reason as God isn't. because it would be forcing opinions into youngsters mind. besides, neither evolution nor creationism are scientifical facts, thus they shouldn't be taught in a classroom.

Wrong; evolution is scientific fact.

Apparently you are also not educated but this does not surprise me from people who argue it.

I have a profound amount resources I can call upon; what evidence do you need to see to see that evolution is fact? I ask because it seems that if I do so on my own, people ignore it and completely disregard me.

So I will leave it at;

What evidence can I provide you to prove to you that evolution is fact? (Because it is).

In addition, I ignored several points within the paragraph because you again failed to see the point. I was listing those problems that I see religion can cause and you did nothing but try to justify and defend the claims. I do not want to really argue those things but simply illustrate to you that I hold a confident argument for each of them. We can start individual threads for almost every individual one. I just want it clear to you that I am confident in the truth of each one.

What do you think...?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

\

Wrong; evolution is scientific fact.

Apparently you are also not educated but this does not surprise me from people who argue it.

I have a profound amount resources I can call upon; what evidence do you need to see to see that evolution is fact? I ask because it seems that if I do so on my own, people ignore it and completely disregard me.

So I will leave it at;

What evidence can I provide you to prove to you that evolution is fact? (Because it is).

In addition, I ignored several points within the paragraph because you again failed to see the point. I was listing those problems that I see religion can cause and you did nothing but try to justify and defend the claims. I do not want to really argue those things but simply illustrate to you that I hold a confident argument for each of them. We can start individual threads for almost every individual one. I just want it clear to you that I am confident in the truth of each one.

What do you think...?

~

Okay. When I started "discussing" this with you, I knew I wouldn't win. No matter how much logic I may use, I have no concrete evidence but the bible, but well that's just not good enough. Which is fine. ive become repetative in my points and it shows me that I am done. To insult me by saying I am part of the Manson family does not make me laugh. It's an unneccesary insult and a childish one at that.
Either way I tip my hat and say, to each his own.
One thing I will say is no. Evolution is not a scietific fact.

Definition of science by the oxford dictionary:

A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trust-worthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain.

So for a theory to qualify as a scientific theory, it must be supported by eventd, processes, or properties which can be observed, and the theory must be useful in predicting the outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments. The theory must also be capable of falsification.It must be possible to conceive some sort of expriment, the failure of which would disprove the theory.

Creationism as well has not been witnessed, and an experiment cannot be conceived, thus creationism is not a scientific, theory, let alon a scientific thought. But wait, what else fails to be able to conceive such an experiment? Evolution. Have people witnessed evolution? No one has has ever observed the origin of species by natural occuring processes. Evolution has been postulated, but it has never been observed.

There are my two cents. Take it, leave it, research it. It's all good with me.

Originally Posted by aorozco

One thing I will say is no. Evolution is not a scietific fact.

Yes it is: Organisms evolve. The specifics and mechanics of that statement s what the Theory of Evolution is, and is open to expansion and correction.

So for a theory to qualify as a scientific theory, it must be supported by eventd, processes, or properties which can be observed, and the theory must be useful in predicting the outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments. The theory must also be capable of falsification.It must be possible to conceive some sort of expriment, the failure of which would disprove the theory.

The theory of evolution is a broad term and encompasses many ideas and predictions. One is common ancestry, which is clearly depicted in the fossil record. Evolution can also be falsified:

Creationism as well has not been witnessed, and an experiment cannot be conceived, thus creationism is not a scientific, theory, let alon a scientific thought.

The problem is that creationism is unfalsifiable and relies on blind faith in the idea rather than evidence and logical deduction.

But wait, what else fails to be able to conceive such an experiment? Evolution.

Not even going to bother with this; O'nus has tons of sources throughout the forum. I'd just like to point out that you are saying that simple faith in a bronze-aged idea even comes close to explaining what hundreds of years of biology would otherwise. This amazing ignorance leads me to wonder why you accept other scientific achievements without question and take them for granted...?

Also, experimentation would show how organisms evolved, not that they did. Most experiments do this, though several have been conducted to test divergent evolution on the large scale, such at the 20 year island lizard experiment, which is just more proof on the pile.

Have people witnessed evolution? No one has has ever observed the origin of species by natural occuring processes. Evolution has been postulated, but it has never been observed.

Evolution is a general idea and one part is that selective pressures working on a population of reproducing entities that share common structures will cause certain advantageous traits to become defined. This has been observed.

Also, evolution answers the question of extinction. If species die off (Which is an observed phenomenon...), then how do new ones arrive? Divergent evolution. How does a large group of organisms (Such as humans) retain basic characteristics even when found all over the world? Genetic Drift. Why did Hominids evolve so quickly in Africa? Punctuated Equilibrium; essentially the opposite of genetic drift.

Or, you know, you could just cover your face and ignore all of this in a stubborn huff. It's all good here.

Originally Posted by aorozco

Okay. When I started "discussing" this with you, I knew I wouldn't win.

What do you mean "win"? What is this? I do not want to win - and I do not want anyone to lose.

I don't care. But when people say outrageous things, I want to learn if I am missing something or perhaps offer enlightenment.

Mutual enlightenment is all that I am after - not winning or losing. Come on now.

No matter how much logic I may use, I have no concrete evidence but the bible, but well that's just not good enough. Which is fine. ive become repetative in my points and it shows me that I am done. To insult me by saying I am part of the Manson family does not make me laugh. It's an unneccesary insult and a childish one at that.

Don't get mad at me for what you said. You said it was okay for him to express his views and have others follow it. You then illogically said he should stay in jail though and did not think for yourself and just said, "Oh let the justice system handle it"

Don't get mad at me for your obvious incapability to think for yourself.

Either way I tip my hat and say, to each his own.
One thing I will say is no. Evolution is not a scietific fact.

It is fact.

What evidence do you need to be shown that it is fact?

Definition of science by the oxford dictionary:

A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trust-worthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain.

Evolution is systematically demonstrated and observed empirically.

What evidence do you need to be shown that evolution is fact? (I have made a thread for this as it seems many people are too cowardly to face this question - please prove me wrong)

So for a theory to qualify as a scientific theory, it must be supported by eventd, processes, or properties which can be observed, and the theory must be useful in predicting the outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments. The theory must also be capable of falsification.It must be possible to conceive some sort of expriment, the failure of which would disprove the theory.

Evolution is all of this.

So I will ask again; what evidence do you need to see?

Don't fret; I have a profound amount of resources to call upon on your request. Furthermore, you can research my old posts to likely find them as many people have ignored them in the past.

Instead of sharing it, I am just going to ask what you need to see.

Because I am strongly confident I can provide it - as it is true.

Creationism as well has not been witnessed, and an experiment cannot be conceived, thus creationism is not a scientific, theory, let alon a scientific thought. But wait, what else fails to be able to conceive such an experiment? Evolution. Have people witnessed evolution? No one has has ever observed the origin of species by natural occuring processes. Evolution has been postulated, but it has never been observed.

You are clearly ignorant to evolution. I realize that you may take that as an insult but the fact is that ignorance is when you do not have the knowledge of it and you are speaking as though you do not.

Here's a starting point (that I would bet $100 on that you would not watch, even if the bet was with you);



Evolution is observed.

Evolution is fact.

Evolution is real.

Live with it.

There are my two cents. Take it, leave it, research it. It's all good with me.

Take your own advice.

~

Originally Posted by aorozco

that's ridiculous unel. people should be able to share.
i believe in god, yet i am trying APing. i share it with my fellow friends and such.. is that wrong? no
i think that if you want to be religous and such learn to test your beliefs/faith, if not then why follow them?

There is a huge difference between sharing experience and debating. I don't mind the first one. I am fascinated by all the beliefs humans have generated through the ages, it is an absolute show of our genuine imagination and longing to explain things we don't understand through mystique.

But if someone tries to claim diehard that something that is based on faith is real and tries to convert you... well I could decapitate them with no further thought. That is a greatest insult for individual thinking.

As you said, you can believe in anything you want. That is also freedom. Freedom is only "value" I appreciate, because it is the basic blockstone of life. We all have our freedom. You have freedom of believing and I have the freedom of not listening ramblings about your faith.

Sharing is not wrong. Sharing is good. But after the other guy says he has got enough, it is polite to stop, before you are locked into fight.

Originally Posted by O'nus

~

Hmm... Interesting. You're right, I didn't know that. Thanks for the enlightenment.

potholer really does make great videos. It is amusing though that as you watch his videos from oldest to newest he gets increasingly more irate about ridiculous claims.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

potholer really does make great videos. It is amusing though that as you watch his videos from oldest to newest he gets increasingly more irate about ridiculous claims.

That's a common trend apparently.

Originally Posted by aorozco

Hmm... Interesting. You're right, I didn't know that. Thanks for the enlightenment.

I'd just like to point out that this here, this quote, is a rare and precious thing. To evaluate evidence critically, and then have the courage to admit when you're mistaken is a sign of great integrity and intellectual honesty. I commend you aorozco.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

I'd just like to point out that this here, this quote, is a rare and precious thing. To evaluate evidence critically, and then have the courage to admit when you're mistaken is a sign of great integrity and intellectual honesty. I commend you aorozco.

It would be rarer if Noogah did it.

I won't be holding my breath for that.

Me neither. I have never seen anyone who runs on blind faith revoking their beliefs for sake of evidence.

That would still redeem human race a bit in my eyes if someone did that.

Originally Posted by Alric

I didn't say that. I said the question doesn't apply to all Christians, because not all Christians believe is spontaneous healing from prayer. Then I gave examples of how a Christian can not believe in prayer and still be a Christian, and how you can believe in prayer, while not believing in spontaneous healing from prayer. There is many other choices as well. My entire point, was you can't lump all Christians into one big pile then call them all delusional. Especially when the 'proof' doesn't even apply to all Christians.

Would you agree that a person who believes in a loving god that occasionally answers prayers and heals people is deluded when considering that amputees do not get their limbs back when prayed for? If you don't agree, can you explain without making excuses how that god could possibly exist and behave like that when considering what we observe?

Originally Posted by Mark75

Would you agree that a person who believes in a loving god that occasionally answers prayers and heals people is deluded when considering that amputees do not get their limbs back when prayed for? If you don't agree, can you explain without making excuses how that god could possibly exist and behave like that when considering what we observe?

Logical reason would be that god is like humans. Didn't he make humans as his image? So rationally he is as chaotical and impulsive as we are. Too bad, his faithful cannot stand the idea he isn't some kind of supreme and higher being we cannot understand.

He is probably stoned most of the time and uses roulette to decide what prayers he will bring to truth.

Logical, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Unelias

Logical, isn't it?

Sure, if you want to talk about a different god than the one I mentioned. Please read a little closer next time.

Defining traits of the god I'm talking about:

- Is 'loving' i.e. actually cares about the well-being of humans.

- Listens to and answers to prayers and:

- Occasionally heals human's diseases and helps them in all sorts of other ways.

It follows that a god who cares about the well being of humans wouldn't leave their fate up to chance.

Besides, he's gonna know the outcome anyway, isn't he?

Sorry, I'll fix it.

SARCASM FILTER /ON

I figured you were joking, but sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between a joke and poor reading comprehension/idiocy.

~ I forgive you. ~

Yes, after all sacrasm is a form of humour which requires intelligence to understand.


~Thanks and bows~

Originally Posted by O'nus

The point is that praying is pointless.

[...]

Prayer functions through self-fulfilling prophecy and confirmation bias.

That was a pretty basic yet misleading video. The argument is narrowly based on a single quote. God is like a milk jug in such a sense, however God is not like a milk jug by nature - hence why most people don't pray to milk jugs. That doesn't mean "I can't see God" is the same as "I can't see you". The funny thing is, it is not even an optical illusion! "Yes", "no" and "wait" are merely arbitrary self-conclusions. They don't have any external existence. Got any other silly arguments?

You seem to argue from a naivete of what prayer and meditation are. For one thing, prayer and meditation can be similar yet they are not always the same. It depends on what kind of prayer or meditation, and it depends on the purpose and practice in which they exist.

However, it is true that many people misunderstand that prayer is a way to "get" things from God. In most cases this is selfish. True prayer is only for the good, not for personal gain.

Prayer generally is not a self-fulfilling prophecy and confirmation bias - that is merely what your argument above is, alone. Prayer is a way of influencing the results of so called "events" or "states" (etc.) by intention, devotion and faith. When people pray to God for serious issues, He responds. What does this mean? When we really pray, we change ourselves. It is paradigm higher than provability, so there's no way to truthfully understand it intellectually and perceptually, it comes from experience. When we truly pray to get through something, we find the inner strength. When we pray for something transitory and fruitless, it is a much weaker prayer.