Turduckin said:Jen: Amen! c20, you've managed to imrpess someone I've always been impressed by. Thats impressive
Enigma'07 said:So God didn't make people?
Pretty close although I have never called Christians liars. That seems to be a term attributed to me that I have never used.Kat's stance is justified because she believes that mankind may be in danger if people keep preaching something that Kat 'believes' is a lie.
No not really. The primary issue is the irrational methodology, or rather lack of a methodology, used to reach a conclusion in pretty much any aspect of Christianity and religion. The testimony aspect is troublesome because it encourages and reinforces the baseless idea that intense emotional experiences can have a supernatural cause.Kat has only ever witnessed 'Christianity' as being a bad thing and wants to attack the stereotypical 'bad drug head finds jesus and all is cool' stories because they are deluded and dont 'realise' the harm they are doing.
Not quite, I do not believe religion is the cause of trouble – the cause is ignorance and irrational thought. Religion is simply the inevitable result of ignorance and irrationality.The testimonies cannot be supported by any evidence and you only have to look around the world today to see all the trouble that 'Religion' causes.
Damming? Merely pointing out that they are indistinguishable from nonsense.For the sake of interesting debate ( cos this is where the fun is I guess - play along with me people ) I will adopt the stance that by damning these stories she is in effect wishing ill on mankind and has been deceived herself.
Dream on.I will try and convince her that Man needs to fellowship with God in order for that man to be saved.
I don’t think you mean that – no one makes any money out of this, right?If we debate this professionally I am happy.
Sure why not. But you won’t get my attention until you can show at least a shred of credible evidence for your claims.Are you ok with this Kat?
Katazia said:C20,
Pretty close although I have never called Christians liars. That seems to be a term attributed to me that I have never used.
No not really. The primary issue is the irrational methodology, or rather lack of a methodology, used to reach a conclusion in pretty much any aspect of Christianity and religion. The testimony aspect is troublesome because it encourages and reinforces the baseless idea that intense emotional experiences can have a supernatural cause.
Not quite, I do not believe religion is the cause of trouble – the cause is ignorance and irrational thought. Religion is simply the inevitable result of ignorance and irrationality.
Damming? Merely pointing out that they are indistinguishable from nonsense.
Dream on.
I don’t think you mean that – no one makes any money out of this, right?
Sure why not. But you won’t get my attention until you can show at least a shred of credible evidence for your claims.
Kat
It’s called the placebo effect. Something that has no active ingredients but where a measurable benefit comes purely from a strong belief that it is true, when really there is no truth. But just like religion, the placebo has only a temporary effect because when there is a real problem then real cures are needed. Religion and something like Christianity is the inevitable result of an evolving civilization where ignorance is widespread at the start and which is slowly being replaced by knowledge through science. But religion has outstayed its welcome and has been and still is offering serious hindrance to scientific progress. Christianity in the past has actively dissuaded and persecuted actual and potential scientists and has almost certainly delayed scientific progress by many centuries. This evil far outweighs the temporary warm and fuzzy feelings people acquire by believing an imaginary super being exists and is looking after them.show me your objectivity by outlining the positive impact christianity played in the development of human societies. can you envisage a situation in which these fantasies are not harmful but rather beneficial to the individual?
LOL – I neither seek nor expect any apologies. Your offer seems very pompous and condescending – are you a Christian by any chance?if you do so in satisfactory manner, i will withdraw the allegation and apologize.
Don’t be silly, you are stretching your claim past breaking point now. Enthusiasm? Disdain and disgust seem more fitting.as of now, the "excessive enthusiasm" fits you to a tee.
They are strong negative comments and opinions made about the post and not the poster specifically – do you see the difference? I have no qualms about my disgust for religion and Christianity and their tactics, and I will voice my strong opinions whenever possible. If the protagonists cannot defend their claims then why should I show them sympathy?these can be construed as abusive attacks.
Except for those who believe they have strong valid arguments. Why is that a bad thing? If I have dissuaded posters from posting more gibberish then I have succeeded.they automatically belittle and devalue any poster that responds to the topic post.
But doesn’t that reflect society in general since this is an open forum with no artificial restrictions?it is the personalities that interest me in this subforum, not the issues. on the one hand, you have the best intellects that sciforums has to offer posting here. on the other, you have the religious retards. a very curious mix.
At a simplistic level that appears to be true but I have found that over the longer term reality is different. Very few have the courage to objectively accept a strong opposing argument and admit they are wrong or might be wrong. Debates are very competitive and to admit an error for an apparent strong belief is often perceived as an unacceptable weakness. However, people do leave these discussions having had their views seriously questioned and it makes them think more carefully and people do change their ideas because of such interactions – but it usually takes time and a strong mind.it seem to me however, that all are on a mission from....(insert here)!
I have tried every variation – I’d like to think that the carefully and logically reasoned friendly arguments are the best approach, but radical shock tactics stir the emotions much more and make people think even harder – that is good.i think attacks merely serve to radicalize. caution is advised.
c20H25N3o said:Good questions again and I will try and be as objective as possible.
:bugeye:
What do I 'think' happened to me ...
I think that God chose me to receive His spirit...
Thats what I think happened to me.
What facts can I say point to my being a new creation after being baptised in the Spirit ...
Well...
This may be a little glib but my old self prior to this event would have 'well taken the piss' out of Christians on a SciForums type website. I would have loved to try and kick their feeble religous walking sticks away from them. I just couldnt do that now because of this deep conviction I have of the truth... I suffered my divorce. Really suffered. I suffered because I was being forcebly seperated from my daughter who had become everything to me. The new love that was in my heart found so much time for my daughter.
Rather than being angry as I would have once been, I wrestled that anger with God. Why build me up to knock me down? I came to understand that my ex wife could do as she pleased and God was there to support me in my pain, not force my ex wife to be faithful to me. When i came to understand that I was able to see my daughter again and be stable for her.
I appreciate these facts are unsubstatiated. Hopefully you will take me at my word
And now for the interesting one ...
Have you ever thought another explanation could rationally explain what happened to you at that time other than what you think (or feel or believe)?
Of course!!! Boy I had taken enough psychedelics to make a Shaman sit down and wonder wtf it was all about. My rational mind ( please dont let me be a Christian!) wanted to present a 'flashback' as the most probable cause of the event but this caused major internal conflict. If it was a flashback how had I had a revelation about the blood? How come I felt 'better' after the experience? Why was my mind clearer than it had been in years? Why did I see people in a different light?... This could be drugs, had to be drugs!! But it wasnt.
I am a changed person. Changed from the inside out. Drugs dont make you a better person and whilst not perfect (no where near lol ) I think I am a better person than I was before my experience. Again close friends would testify to this. Some even offered their lives to Christ as a result of seeing the change in me and as a result are themselves changed.
I hope I answered your questions correctly. If I have missed anything please let me know.
peace
c20 :m:
SVRP said:To answer objectively is to give an answer without you in it, therefore you have answered subjectively since the experience happened to you and you have used yourself as a reference point. As long as your answer is honest then don't worry if you answered the questions correctly. It was your experience, and if it makes you a better person, then we are better as a group to have you with us, no matter who we are.
What led you to believe that a "rational methodology" is the only path to a rational conclusion? C20 didn't change his life because of an "intense emotional experience", but because of a life-changing event. He didn't attribute it to a supernatural cause for the lack of a better explanation either, but because there was no doubt where it came from. When a car runs you over you can be pretty sure you've been run over by a car - you don't need much rational methodology unless you want to figure out later they why's, where's and what's involved. I'm certain c20 didn't change his life in favour of a baseless emotional experience, but that it changed the way he rationalises things.Katazia said:No not really. The primary issue is the irrational methodology, or rather lack of a methodology, used to reach a conclusion in pretty much any aspect of Christianity and religion. The testimony aspect is troublesome because it encourages and reinforces the baseless idea that intense emotional experiences can have a supernatural cause.
What about psychosomatic illnesses? A life changed is hardly a placebo effect.It’s called the placebo effect. Something that has no active ingredients but where a measurable benefit comes purely from a strong belief that it is true, when really there is no truth. But just like religion, the placebo has only a temporary effect because when there is a real problem then real cures are needed.
Do you really still believe that? Progress is progress, with or without religion. You can't ignore the progress Jews, Christians, or Muslims have made in favour of those that pure naturalists have made. Neither can you ignore the detriental effects war and hatred has on progress no matter what beliefs were involved. Besides, scientific progress for the sake of progress and in total disregard to human needs is imperialism all over again, this time in the name of science instead of "civilization". Science as an idealism can be just as prohibitive as socialism, marxism or capitalism to human well-being, if it elevates itself beyond common responsibility.Religion and something like Christianity is the inevitable result of an evolving civilization where ignorance is widespread at the start and which is slowly being replaced by knowledge through science. But religion has outstayed its welcome and has been and still is offering serious hindrance to scientific progress. Christianity in the past has actively dissuaded and persecuted actual and potential scientists and has almost certainly delayed scientific progress by many centuries. This evil far outweighs the temporary warm and fuzzy feelings people acquire by believing an imaginary super being exists and is looking after them.
And do you represent the strong and sharp-minded? The only reasonable cure for a society where people testify how their lives have changed beyond to expectations of reason?And then there is the truth – I do find puerile baseless Christian personal testimonies quite sickening, and that Christianity appeals more to the weak and dull minded, and I have little doubt that Christianity is a deadly cancer that threatens the future of mankind.
If you use an irrational methodology how do you know the conclusion is valid? Can you demonstrate an alternative proven better method for establishing truth and knowledge?What led you to believe that a "rational methodology" is the only path to a rational conclusion?
And people in insane asylums have vivid images and hear voices and they also have no doubt of what they are seeing or hearing. If we are seeking truth then a personal testimony is inadequate without independent verification. Otherwise how do you distinguish the claim from the more credible and believable answer that it is a delusion?C20 didn't change his life because of an "intense emotional experience", but because of a life-changing event. He didn't attribute it to a supernatural cause for the lack of a better explanation either, but because there was no doubt where it came from.
And here you have the rather clear evidence of a car that can be independently verified, the result and a conclusion can be formed by a rational argument based on real evidence. The claim that “voices spoke to me from above” has alternative and more credible natural explanations. Without any form of independent verification there is no logical reason to believe the claim, and every reason not to.When a car runs you over you can be pretty sure you've been run over by a car - you don't need much rational methodology unless you want to figure out later they why's, where's and what's involved.
But that doesn’t make it true that a god did it? It is simply a non-credible and unverifiable claim.I'm certain c20 didn't change his life in favour of a baseless emotional experience, but that it changed the way he rationalises things.
Can you prove there is a better method?How did you reach the conclusion that reason is the only reasonable path to knowledge? Through reason?
A real effect created by belief that in this case has a negative effect. What’s your point? Doesn’t this prove my point that effects can be the result of mental aberrations or the conviction that something false is true?What about psychosomatic illnesses?
Why not? If you firmly believe that something false is actually true then you will change your life accordingly.A life changed is hardly a placebo effect.
Absolutely.Do you really still believe that?
There can be no progress if religion ruled everything since the only answer religion offers is that God did it and there is little point looking any further. Progress has only occurred when individuals have questioned the status quo and looked deeper. There are cases however where monks had been allowed to conduct research in order to better reveal the wonders of the lord. Their findings, of course had to fit in with Church doctrine. Unfortunately Galileo and those of similar ilk paid the ultimate price for defying the church and insisting on truth rather than fantasy.Progress is progress, with or without religion.
? Sentence structure? What does that mean?You can't ignore the progress Jews, Christians, or Muslims have made in favour of those that pure naturalists have made.
Strangely enough the greatest technological developments were achieved because of wars and not the reverse. Although I wish it were the opposite.Neither can you ignore the detriental effects war and hatred has on progress no matter what beliefs were involved.
Well now I have not said anything like this. This is your particular perception and biased opinions of what is meant by “progress”. Let me make my view plainer – I want the same as every theist – immortality. You think you will get it by believing in your particular fantasy hero, and Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc, all have their own fantasy figures for achieving it. Since these are all fantasies then it seems pretty certain that not too long in the future you will simply cease to exist. By scientific progress I expect developments either in the biological sciences or in other technology based sciences that will massively improve the quality of human life, longevity, and solve the problem of involuntary death. That is real progress and there are plenty of signs to show we are headed in that direction. Now if we could convince the billions of idiots who have placed all their hope on fantasy religious ideas, and have them switch over to the biological sciences then I would expect a real solution in a matter of weeks.Besides, scientific progress for the sake of progress and in total disregard to human needs is imperialism all over again,
Yeah well that’s just gibberish.this time in the name of science instead of "civilization". Science as an idealism can be just as prohibitive as socialism, marxism or capitalism to human well-being, if it elevates itself beyond common responsibility.
? Sentence structure again – this didn’t make sense.The only reasonable cure for a society where people testify how their lives have changed beyond to expectations of reason?
What I believe and what c20 experienced comes from the same source. I mean, even while Jesus was performing his miracles and healing people, people were still looking for signs and wanted him to almost forcefully open their eyes - as if against their will. And from c20's and many others' testimonies it's clear that God wants you to come to Him free will and all. Why do people imagine they would like it to receive faith against their will, against their reason, and against everything God wants them to be? If you had no choice but to believe, what would "belief" mean? Just a new form of slavery all over again.
Enigma'07 said:Why does God allow, and even want us to com to Him?