Do You Believe in Science?

[(Q)]

Let's focus this then....
How are the beliefs of a non-fundamentalist Christian contradicted by science, for example?

Ok, but first, let's discuss what exactly a 'non-fundamentalist Christian' is defined, as that could be part and parcel to the premise; hypocrisy.

What is a 'non-fundamentalist Christian'?

 

[Balerion]

I would assume that is a Christian not a part of the Evangelical cults.

 

[Simon Anders]

Ok, but first, let's discuss what exactly a 'non-fundamentalist Christian' is defined, as that could be part and parcel to the premise; hypocrisy.

What is a 'non-fundamentalist Christian'?

An example: He feels a deep connection with God when he prays and feels God's presence. He was in a lot of emotional pain in his twenties and began to pray. He found inspiration in the Bible, especially those portions of the New Testament directly referring to Jesus. He does not take everything in the bible literally, but he does believe that Jesus lived and had great insight into God and reading the parts about him help him feel closer to God. He suffers much less emotionally and, according to people who know him, both well and professionally, he seems much more together since he became Christian. He believes he will be united with God after death.

What beliefs does he have that are contradicted by science?

 

[Simon Anders]

Where did you pick up this weird idea? Atheists are usually realists about life.

I picked the 'weird' idea up from the behavior of many atheists here who seem to think religion is the root of much of the evil in history and that we would be less violent without it. This case is made here frequently despite references to the behavior of communists and the dearth of evidence that humans will somehow stop being violent, oppressive, etc., without a belief in God. When it is pointed out that most people have been religious throughout history so any violence was likely to be perpetuated by religious people and that religion offered a good way to manipulate people, but further that other ways of manipulating people seem just as effective, so their is no evidence that we will become less violent without religion, I cannot remember a single atheist here saying, Hm, that might be right.

By and far the atheists I've known are concerned with removing a key source of irrational and superstitious thought. They cleave to the truth and theism is frankly not he least bit true.

So you believe there is no God.

Some of them would like to not have a repeat of the xtian dark ages and the islamic dark ages (1400s-to current). But usually simply being rational is sufficient. Well that and the enjoyment of watching irrational people make fools of themselves. Its nice to be able to point out how absurd and ludicrous the theist position is without having to worry about being burned to death.

Yes, that is nice. I've never been a fan of the fundamentalist monotheisms myself.

 

[(Q)]

An example: He feels a deep connection with God when he prays and feels God's presence. He was in a lot of emotional pain in his twenties and began to pray. He found inspiration in the Bible, especially those portions of the New Testament directly referring to Jesus. He does not take everything in the bible literally, but he does believe that Jesus lived and had great insight into God and reading the parts about him help him feel closer to God. He suffers much less emotionally and, according to people who know him, both well and professionally, he seems much more together since he became Christian. He believes he will be united with God after death.

What beliefs does he have that are contradicted by science?

Thank you. You just described the hypocrisy of many theists who purport they are of a religion, but instead, pick and choose from religions that which they feel they want to believe. He isn't a Christian, he's made up his own fantasies based on what he wants to believe and has created his own false hopes to make himself feel better.

So, when you can actually describe and offer a Christian, I'll be happy to demonstrate yet more hypocrisies. All you've offered is someone who has created their own fantasy.

 

[Simon Anders]

Thank you. You just described the hypocrisy of many theists who purport they are of a religion, but instead, pick and choose from religions that which they feel they want to believe. He isn't a Christian, he's made up his own fantasies based on what he wants to believe and has created his own false hopes to make himself feel better.

So, when you can actually describe and offer a Christian, I'll be happy to demonstrate yet more hypocrisies.

I just described a theist. And a real one. If you cannot show how his beliefs are contradicted by science, just admit it.
(you do realize how silly it is for you, Q, to take the authority position in relation to who is and who is not a 'real' Christian, don't you? But that is a side issue. The fact remains that one can be a theist and in no way have one's belief's contradicted by science.)

 

[darksidZz]

Anyone voting for god shoot yourselves now =P

 

[swarm]

Simon Anders
despite references to the behavior of communists

Communism doesn't do away with religion. It seeks to replace it with a religion of the state in order to grab the absolute obedience religion demands.

their is no evidence that we will become less violent without religion, I cannot remember a single atheist here saying

Well let me help you out. Some people like to kill and it ain't changing any time soon. I just would like to see more honesty about why they are killing so that the stupid at least know why they are dying for no good reason.

So you believe there is no God.

Belief has nothing to do with existencial questions. I don't believe in rocks. I don't believe in unicorns. I have evidence for rocks and not for unicorns or gods.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

A Christian is someone who believes in, supports, follows & lives by the Christian Bible.

 

[(Q)]

I just described a theist. And a real one. If you cannot show how his beliefs are contradicted by science, just admit it.

Patience, we'll get to that. Where's the fire?

(you do realize how silly it is for you, Q, to take the authority position in relation to who is and who is not a 'real' Christian, don't you? But that is a side issue.

Wouldn't a "real" Christian follow his religion as outlined in scriptures? Are there any people who actually do? If they did, they'd be labeled as fundamentalists, right? They follow their religion, they obey their god's command.

And, isn't that what every Christian is supposed to do in order to quantify themselves as a Christian? Are they not supposed to follow their religion and obey their gods commands, word for word, just like the fundamentalists?

Or, is Christianity the picking and choosing of selective bits and pieces that conform to ones worldview? In other words, the god is tailored to fit the person instead of the other way round.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Oh goodness. Let's try this, shall we. I consider myself a christian. Q considers himself an atheist, as does stranger. So, since I am not an atheist, I will define it for them. An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existance of a deity, and who enjoys anal masturbation. Now that we have that sorted out. Do I believ in Science? sure. Until somthing proves it wrong, I'll probably accept every half-baked scientific theory that comes my way, as long as I subjectively like it and want to agree with it. Someone suggested that wind was caused by undetectable flying woolly mammoths. Sounds good to me! Anyone care to disprove it?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

It's not a matter of me defining it. That's the definition.

 

[Balerion]

Notice that stranger did not rebuke Ham's "anal masturbation" claim...

 

[Simon Anders]

Patience, we'll get to that. Where's the fire?

Oh, I am sure you can understand a little distrust.

Wouldn't a "real" Christian follow his religion as outlined in scriptures? Are there any people who actually do? If they did, they'd be labeled as fundamentalists, right? They follow their religion, they obey their god's command.

And, isn't that what every Christian is supposed to do in order to quantify themselves as a Christian? Are they not supposed to follow their religion and obey their gods commands, word for word, just like the fundamentalists?

Or, is Christianity the picking and choosing of selective bits and pieces that conform to ones worldview? In other words, the god is tailored to fit the person instead of the other way round.

I am quite sure there a good many Christians who share your anal views of religion and how to adhere to it, but I am quite sure you know that Christians are a varied group, as other other religious groups, let alone the wider variety of theists out there. 'Supposed to' according to whom, is always an issue. Many reverends and pastors and cogregations and Christians would disagree with your disincluding such a person, and they live this out. Sorry if I do not take your interpretation as the definitive one. There are quite a good many theists who consider their texts metaphorical (in places or in general) and/or affected/distorted by the psychologies and cultures of those who wrote them. Nevertheless they find them helpful or consider them divinely inspired rather than perfect and literal in all accounts. It makes your assertion much easier to work with if these people did not exist or if you were somehow 'the' authority on what a theist or a Christian, etc., really must be. But this is not the case.

And though there is, of course, no fire, I will assume you, at the very least, cannot show how such a theist has his beliefs contradicted by science until you can show otherwise.

 

[Simon Anders]

It's not a matter of me defining it. That's the definition.

What's the definition? No one has defined Christian here. It would be odd, as Hamstatic has delightfully - and me rather more prosaically - pointed out if Q or you somehow were the authorities on what a Christian is, let alone a theist. People like the man I described are members of congregations and are 'out' with their beliefs. Next you'll be telling Hindus which versions of their myths their must adhere to, how Buddhists should meditate to be proper Buddhists and Jews whether they must believe in an afterlife or not to be true believers.

Care to weigh on whether the Sufis are truly practitioners of Islam or should be viewed as a sect?

 

[Balerion]

What's the definition? No one has defined Christian here. It would be odd, as Hamstatic has delightfully - and me rather more prosaically - pointed out if Q or you somehow were the authorities on what a Christian is, let alone a theist. People like the man I described are members of congregations and are 'out' with their beliefs. Next you'll be telling Hindus which versions of their myths their must adhere to, how Buddhists should meditate to be proper Buddhists and Jews whether they must believe in an afterlife or not to be true believers.

Care to weigh on whether the Sufis are truly practitioners of Islam or should be viewed as a sect?

Why do you have no problem telling an atheist how he or she must feel, yet not a Christian?

 

[(Q)]

I am quite sure there a good many Christians who share your anal views of religion and how to adhere to it, but I am quite sure you know that Christians are a varied group, as other other religious groups, let alone the wider variety of theists out there.

Of course I am, it demonstrates clearly the nonexistence of a single god, which each religion purports. It also demonstrates the hypocrisy of those theists.

'Supposed to' according to whom

According to scriptures, which is supposed to be the word of god, hence it is commanded by the god. I can't believe you don't know that.

Many reverends and pastors and cogregations and Christians would disagree with your disincluding such a person, and they live this out.

Yes, they are hypocrites, all of them, that's the point.

Sorry if I do not take your interpretation as the definitive one. There are quite a good many theists who consider their texts metaphorical (in places or in general) and/or affected/distorted by the psychologies and cultures of those who wrote them.

In other words, they don't take the existence of their god seriously? They are hypocrites?

Nevertheless they find them helpful or consider them divinely inspired rather than perfect and literal in all accounts. It makes your assertion much easier to work with if these people did not exist or if you were somehow 'the' authority on what a theist or a Christian, etc., really must be. But this is not the case.

Clearly, subterfuge is key in Christianity.

And though there is, of course, no fire, I will assume you, at the very least, cannot show how such a theist has his beliefs contradicted by science until you can show otherwise.

You haven't made a case for the Christian, yet. You've instead demonstrated my point of the hypocrisy of those who claim to be Christians, when they are simply theists who tailor a religion to suit their own personal agendas.

 

[(Q)]

What's the definition? No one has defined Christian here. It would be odd, as Hamstatic has delightfully - and me rather more prosaically - pointed out if Q or you somehow were the authorities on what a Christian is, let alone a theist.

The god of Christianity is the authority, is he not? The god of Christianity defines a Christian.

 

[Simon Anders]

The god of Christianity is the authority, is he not? The god of Christianity defines a Christian.

I can see why it serves you purpose to keep focusing on this issue. If you plan to deal with the issue of whether a theist must have his beliefs contradicted by science, you can PM me.

As far as this distraction....

are you really unaware that large numbers of Christians to not consider the Bible the perfect rendition of God's thoughts and rules and truths?

It seems in your universe the word 'fundamentalist' is simply redundant, since anyone who is not a fundamentalist or literalist is not an adherent of the religion.

This is not the universe I live in.

In any case. Feel free to back up your assertion that any theist must have beliefs that are contradicted by science or drop it or admit you can't.

I have lost interest in your avoidance games.

 

[Simon Anders]

Of course I am, it demonstrates clearly the nonexistence of a single god, which each religion purports.

Now you are being even more silly. Differences of opinion amongst people do not demonstrate the nonexistence of single God. Differences of opinion amongst people do not demonstrate the non-existence of anything except consensus around that issue. I am sure you are smart enough, with a second look, to see the implications such 'logic' would have even on your own existence as a single person.

According to scriptures, which is supposed to be the word of god, hence it is commanded by the god. I can't believe you don't know that.

You are clearly not an expert in Christianity. I can't believe you do not know that. But this is mere distraction.

Take out my reference to the Bible, Christ and Christianity.

A man feels the presence of God when he prays. It has made him feel better. He believes he will be united with God after death.

And grow up. On some level you know you are just playing lawyer and have no case.