Atheists & Christians: Argue the OTHER POINT OF VIEW

[ForrestDean]

This sort of theological/metaphysical relativism, or pluralism, or whatever, is total nonsense.

Yes. It is.

You're effectively saying that it doesn't matter whether one recognizes the significance of the sacrifice that God made when He became a man and suffered for our sins in the most horrific manner imaginable.

Yes, that is what I am saying.

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep."

"Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing."

Irrational animals, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant! For the love of God, you people must repent. I beg you!

Interesting. Yeah I remember reading those scriptures way back in the day. The Bible has many interesting scriptures, and stories, and many of them have some excellent lessons, but as far the Bible as a whole, I just don't view it as very reliable or relevant to my own spiritual progress.

I realize this may not mean much at the moment, but I just wanted to note that we choose our teacher at every single moment, and we choose whether to learn from that moment or not.
The only false teacher that I am aware of is the one that denies myself the opportunity to learn from that moment, A.K.A. the false ego.

 

[Rav]

The Bible has many interesting scriptures, and stories, and many of them have some excellent lessons, but as far the Bible as a whole, I just don't view it as very reliable or relevant to my own spiritual progress.

Insects are tricked by the Pitcher plant with false visual cues and nectar bribes, and the consequence is final. Satan tries to lure us into his own numerous traps in a similar fashion: by creating the illusion of a viable spiritual destination. This is what has happened to you. You may indeed be progressing, but if that progression leads to destruction, what is the point? This is why it is so critically important to heed God's instructions. They give you a true north so you can ensure that you are always headed in the right direction.

 

[ForrestDean]

Insects are tricked by the Pitcher plant with false visual cues and nectar bribes, and the consequence is final. Satan tries to lure us into his own numerous traps in a similar fashion: by creating the illusion of a viable spiritual destination. This is what has happened to you. You may indeed be progressing, but if that progression leads to destruction, what is the point? This is why it is so critically important to heed God's instructions. They give you a true north so you can ensure that you are always headed in the right direction.

Thanks, I appreciate that, truly. "God" has become such a relative term that has very deeply embedded beliefs attached to it that I rarely, if ever, use that term. However, I do heed as many instructions as I am aware of, as there are many that flow continuously. Thanks for your concern and your advice though. I do bid you well on your journey.

 

[Rita]

Do me a favor: Back that statement up with an example of the scientific community operating on belief rather than legitimate science.



No they don't. Faith is a central aspect of religious belief.

Religious faith is also based on study and logic. Especially during the scholastic period, they prided themselves in logic. Later they thought Newton proved them right. Some religious folks think other scientific ideas prove them right, and others reject science.

One can read the bible abstractly instead of concretely and not have a problem with religion and science.

Scientific American magazine had an article done by several scientist, arguing in favor of believing in a god. The argument seems to be more one of heart than intellect.

And sure faith is a central aspect of science, but their faith is not the subject of this thread so we can't go there. However, I would not want to get into trouble for saying something I don't back up. Dilemma what to do? If someone explains to me why the Mayan matrix has nothing to do with science, by making scientific arguments, I will believe this person is going on science and not blind belief.

 

[Balerion]

Religious faith is also based on study and logic.

Certainly not. You can't logically arrive at the conclusion that Jesus was the son of God. That isn't a conclusion based on reason. There may have been a time when assuming the existence of a prime mover was a given, but to suggest that you have access to the correct one is not something that can be rationally determined, and as such required faith--ie the assumption that you have the right of it.

Especially during the scholastic period, they prided themselves in logic. Later they thought Newton proved them right. Some religious folks think other scientific ideas prove them right, and others reject science.

I don't doubt that some very critical thinkers attempted to ply their new means of acquiring knowledge to their Christianity, and I'm sure many successfully fooled themselves into believing that their faith was vindicated by reason. This was not a prevalent practice prior to the middle ages, and it's merely a fringe (and disingenuous) faction of modern theology, and it would be unfair to say even during the scholastic period that their faith was based on reason and logic. Instead, they could maintain their faith through cognitive dissonance while they also educated themselves legitimately on other aspects of the world. It's no different than the religious scientist today. Francis Collins is an Evangelical Christian, and he helped decode the human genome. But even he would say that his basis for faith was not science and reason, but a feeling, or a realization. I just read his wiki, and he made the decision that he was a Christian on a nature hike, after deciding to explore his faith while dealing with dying patients. In other words, faith is not scientific or rational, it's emotional. Some people try to convince themselves that they're believing in more than a delusion, but rational thought isn't the basis for their belief.

One can read the bible abstractly instead of concretely and not have a problem with religion and science.

Two things. First, very few people in history have ever read the bible abstractly. Most have accepted it--or at least parts of it--as literal truth. Second, what does that have to do with logic being a basis for faith?

Scientific American magazine had an article done by several scientist, arguing in favor of believing in a god. The argument seems to be more one of heart than intellect.

You've contradicted yourself. Earlier you said logic and reason were the basis for religious faith; now you say it's an emotional decision rather than an intellectual one. You can't have it both ways.

And sure faith is a central aspect of science, but their faith is not the subject of this thread so we can't go there.

How convenient. Make a claim and then pretend the rules prevent you from supporting it.

However, I would not want to get into trouble for saying something I don't back up. Dilemma what to do? If someone explains to me why the Mayan matrix has nothing to do with science, by making scientific arguments, I will believe this person is going on science and not blind belief.

I'm sorry, Rita, you're going to have to try that again. Here, I'll make it easy for you and make the request one more time: Back up the claim that the scientific community operates on the basis of faith rather than reason or logic.

 

[Rita]

Certainly not. You can't logically arrive at the conclusion that Jesus was the son of God. That isn't a conclusion based on reason. There may have been a time when assuming the existence of a prime mover was a given, but to suggest that you have access to the correct one is not something that can be rationally determined, and as such required faith--ie the assumption that you have the right of it.



I don't doubt that some very critical thinkers attempted to ply their new means of acquiring knowledge to their Christianity, and I'm sure many successfully fooled themselves into believing that their faith was vindicated by reason. This was not a prevalent practice prior to the middle ages, and it's merely a fringe (and disingenuous) faction of modern theology, and it would be unfair to say even during the scholastic period that their faith was based on reason and logic. Instead, they could maintain their faith through cognitive dissonance while they also educated themselves legitimately on other aspects of the world. It's no different than the religious scientist today. Francis Collins is an Evangelical Christian, and he helped decode the human genome. But even he would say that his basis for faith was not science and reason, but a feeling, or a realization. I just read his wiki, and he made the decision that he was a Christian on a nature hike, after deciding to explore his faith while dealing with dying patients. In other words, faith is not scientific or rational, it's emotional. Some people try to convince themselves that they're believing in more than a delusion, but rational thought isn't the basis for their belief.



Two things. First, very few people in history have ever read the bible abstractly. Most have accepted it--or at least parts of it--as literal truth. Second, what does that have to do with logic being a basis for faith?



You've contradicted yourself. Earlier you said logic and reason were the basis for religious faith; now you say it's an emotional decision rather than an intellectual one. You can't have it both ways.



How convenient. Make a claim and then pretend the rules prevent you from supporting it.



I'm sorry, Rita, you're going to have to try that again. Here, I'll make it easy for you and make the request one more time: Back up the claim that the scientific community operates on the basis of faith rather than reason or logic.

Are you arguing the opposite of what you believe? I wonder how many people here agree with you. Would everyone who believe what Balerion, said about logic please say so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism As a program, scholasticism began as an attempt at harmonization on the part of medieval Christian thinkers: to harmonize the various authorities of their own tradition, and to reconcile Christian theology with classical and late antiquity philosophy, especially that of Aristotle but also of Neoplatonism.[

Our sciences come out of Aristotle's logic, although it is flawed. Aristotle and the scholastics attempted to know all things threw logic, rather than experimenting to test what is believed true. This lead to a firm belief in the bible, and then there was a backlash, against this reliance on Aristotle's logic.

Balerion, we all gauge truth with our feelings, even you.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rita,

Are you arguing the opposite of what you believe?

He isn't.
But more importantly, I don't think he actually can. What you'll get is a caricature.
An idea of what he thinks is belief in God.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

Are you arguing the opposite of what you believe? I wonder how many people here agree with you. Would everyone who believe what Balerion, said about logic please say so.

No, but then many people in this therad aren't. Are you?

And why the call for consensus? Are you that insecure in your position?

Our sciences come out of Aristotle's logic, although it is flawed. Aristotle and the scholastics attempted to know all things threw logic, rather than experimenting to test what is believed true. This lead to a firm belief in the bible, and then there was a backlash, against this reliance on Aristotle's logic.

Balerion, we all gauge truth with our feelings, even you.

You're equivocating. You said that religious belief was based on logic, then you said it was based on emotion. You said science was based on faith, now you're ducking the subject. Can you really not support your argument?

 

[Balerion]

Rita,

He isn't.
But more importantly, I don't think he actually can. What you'll get is a caricature.
An idea of what he thinks is belief in God.

jan.

I think my original post in this thread was a fairly accurate portrayal of one such argument both in favor of faith and against science.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Scientists are not bound by belief. The scientific method is clearly open to new facts and knowledge. There is no faith involved.

Yes, but it's rational faith, based on evidence and logic. The faith of the religionist is irrational faith, based on hope and ignorance.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

We are in totally agreement about human nature, but disagree about the importance of religion. "And forcing their own religion on them". Why do you think they did that?

Why ask me? Surely you live no more than half a block away from the nearest evangelical Christian household. Ask them why it's so important to turn the entire world's population into Christians. Not just Christians, but their kind of Christians! These people don't even accept Mormonism as a branch of Christianity!

India is also very tolerant of other beliefs, and tends to consume all religions into Hinduism.

Not exactly. They believe that all religions are different ways of honoring the same god. They themselves have dozens of different faces of that one God, so to them it's not remarkable that other people have different faces. It's still the same god.

I saw an interview with a Hindu lady. She said that she had prayed in a church, a synagogue, a mosque, and a couple of other houses of worship that this Western atheist can't remember. She knew that they all represented slightly different aspects of the same God. She just wished that everybody else would understand that.