braces_for_impact

As a clarification, my linkage between evolution and god belief was meant for biblical literalists. Of course evolution and a belief in god are technically compatable.

It is also an observation of mine that many religions, especially Christianity, teach that those that are not saved are tools of the devil. They are taught that those not like them are liars and are desperate to lead them away from the "proper path". This of course, makes many automatically suspiscious of evidence that would be offered in contrast to their normal beliefs.

wildernesse

Yes, I know that many people in certain branches of certain religions have strong influences to proselytize. I don't think that all theists have those influences. I don't even think that all Christians have those influences.

I have been told not to be open to new evidence? When? Oh wait, I'm a theist/aka intellectual coward it wouldn't matter what you showed me. I prefer the cool dampness of the soil as it fills my ears and presses up against my eyes as I plunge my senses once more into the deep dark earth. Familiarity over the novel everyday.


--tibac

braces_for_impact

You may notice, I used the word 'many' several times in my posts. At no time did I say this was all inclusive.

And in my opinion , I personally fail to see how one can come to the conclusion to be a theist if they are really honest with themselves and objective about the evidence at hand. Now if you value faith, then I suppose I can understand. I cannot argue faith. I personally may think it's silly and irrational, but there's no dishonesty on the part of the theist about their premise that god exists if that belief is based on faith. Just don't tell me there is evidence, because there isn't. If evidence were at hand then faith would not be required.

If any theist is going to respond in regards to my statement about having a god belief based on evidence, please re-read that last part of my post first.

Regards,

Ron

Rhea

Now hold it just a minute, there, I was not trying to be insulting.

I am NOT calling you that, I am saying you were told that. Whether you believed it was up to you, but I believe it is not in dispute that the Bible specifically tells you to NOT question it and to NOT try to use wisdom and to NOT be intellectual. It calls these things sinful, I believe.

The fact that you clearly do not adhere to that does not erase its presence in the Bible (despite it being admirabole in you that you reject that teaching)

While it is quite true that many christians do not do this it is equally true that a FEW christians have an impact on a LOT of non-christians.

You cannot erase the behavior of oppressive Christians by being a good person yourself. They continue to exist. They continue to oppress AND they continue to call themselves Christians. That is NOT my fault, that is their fault and your burden.

Your good behavior and the good behavior of other christians DOES serve to make it easy to remember that "not all Christians are oppressive". However it does not erase blue-laws from the books or remove "in Got We Trust" from my money or deliver adoptive children into the homes of homosexuals. Those people are STILL oppressed BY CHRISTIANS.

Just as I can separate people who are good and are also Christians and not consider people bad for being Christian, so must you recognize that SOME christians make life difficult for me for being non christian.



I believe my point remains true, despite it not being applicable to you. Which should be no surprise, since "all Christians are not the same".

wildernesse

True, you did not say that your post included all, but broad generalizations rarely (!) have much merit when applied to individuals. I am sorry that I replied harshly to you and Rhea. I am overly defensive when responding here--simply because it is infuriating to be alluded to as an intellectual coward or a person who is stopping humanity's progress based on my belief system. In general, I am too easily hurt by the thinly veiled contempt for those "dupes" who make your lives troublesome.

Rhea, do you realize that those Christians make my life difficult as well? Do you really think that my "good behavior" does nothing to aid church-state separation and other worthy causes?

I'd also like chapter and verse. The verses that I'm thinking of I do not reject--lean not on your own understanding (proverbs 3) and increasing knowledge increases sorrow (Ecclesiastes 1). I believe that there is wisdom in them--but what I think about them and learn from them may be different than what you learn.

--tibac

Rhea

Chapter & verse later... just a quickie for the moment...

Apology instantly accepted.

Yup, I do realize that some christians oppress other christians. More's the pity.

Your good christian-ness only serves to show a good christian.
Your political activism helps eliminate the oppression.

But your good christianness does not _negate_ the oppression. It is not accurate to say that because good christians exist, bad ones don't.

That's why when I said, you can guess why I care about the answer because christians exist who DO "ask me to believe". The existence of good christians does not make that statement untrue.

See what I mean?

An anology! An analogy!!!
Because most men are good does not negate the fact that rapists exist and oppress women. And one could see why I would care about a discussion of rape counseling, even with a man who is not a rapist.

Ojuice5001

It would take a computer capable of predicting any natural event, including the weather, human decisions, the breakdown of complex machinery, and DNA mutations. If someone could do this, that would leave no room for the supernatural.

The only reasons against supernaturalism are reasons to believe that natural causes determine everything. But we've come a long way from LaPlace; that idea isn't so plausible right now.

Infidelettante

Magus, if he is alive where is he? Even the most cursory reading of the NT proves he expected to return immediately. The church in Jerusalem expected his return within their life time. Paul expected it in his life time. Where is he? The problem is not that the tomb contained no body. The problem is that 2000 years after your God rose from the grave he is still missing. The problem is that your God lied to his followers. The problem is that the one person who could have made a difference never came back. The problem is that science and technology have taken hundreds and thousands of years to do what your God could have done with only a word. The problem is that death is here and Jesus isn't. Famine is here and Jesus isn't. War is here and Jesus isn't. Disease is here and Jesus isn't. So all it would take is to find the body for you to become apostate. I give you a greater challenge. Show the body. Let us see Jesus. Bring him back to life if he if has come back from death. Your God is a liar and a fraud untill he stands before humanity once again.

JT

beyelzu

if it makes you feel better, my contempt for theism isnt thinly veiled at all. I dspise it. Particularly theism of the abrahamic variety.

Silent Dave

To put it bluntly, it is you who are speculating on what he knows almost nothing about. Having been a Christian for many years, what I'm talking about is not even remotely at the level of mere speculation. I know exactly what you think and feel with regard to God. And I stand by what I said. If your problem is that my use of the word "emotional" does not correspond with common usage, then replace it with "naturalistic."

Since your question about ruling out supernaturalistic causes a priori has been taken care of elsewhere, I have a question for you: what basis do you have for a priori ruling out naturalistic explanations for your theistic experiences? And if you don't rule them out, then why do you violate Occam's Razor by maintaining your theistic belief?


Dave