A Conversation with Ruby

[Christian]

DanishDynamite wrote:
They are both beliefs in something for which there is no evidence and no reason to even suspect it might be true.

First, you are not comparing oranges to oranges. Christianity is a religion. The other is something you made up on the fly.

Second, you are not answering my question. How is Bigfoot relevant as Christianity is relevant? Are you saying both are as relevant? I can say that my belief in Christianity is superior to anyone's belief in Bigfoot.

You are saying Christianity now, but what you actually said before and what I was responding to was the following:

"So, instead of asking, how is the quality of an atheist’s life better? I will ask the same the question in another way. What are the practical advantages of not being a believer?"

This has no mention of Christianity.

Listen, this whole thread has had that context. But, if you say it was unclear, then now it is clear.

And remember that an athiest not only doesn't believe in any of the versions of god which various Christian cults use, but doesn't believe in any type of god whatsoever.

This is clear.

The truth I'm talking about is the truth of the workings of the Universe. How did it start? How did it develop?

Let's suppose this has tremendous relevance. Are you telling me you know the truth of how the universe began and how it developed? Are you saying you know the workings of the universe?

And if you are saying you know a % of that truth and not the whole truth, what % would that be?

It is my understanding that the holy book of Christianity says their god made it in a week about 5,000 - 10,000 years ago, and that is more or less the end of that.

You say you are interested in the truth. Does that mean you don't agree with the above description of how the world came into being? Afterall, it is in complete contradiction of everything we have learned about the world.


Your understanding is wrong.

And, do you really think it is so hard to understand the scientific evidence regarding the age of the earth. That matter on earth and the universe is known to be billions of years old does not contradict Genesis. Sure, it contradicts an interpretation of Genesis, indeed.

BTW, will you now address my question regarding your hard-core pragmatical view?

I'm not going to address a strawman.

Then please tell me which parts of the Bible don't apply.

When you say apply, what do you mean? Apply in terms of what?

And please tell me how someone interested in learning the truth can have the a priori belief that an invisible being who is outside time and space and who is all-knowing and who can decide the fate of other invisible parts of humans (souls) and who etc, etc, etc, exists.

What's the problem? How does a belief in God impede me from knowing how the world works?

Please note that you must be wrong from pure unadultaretad logic. You are saying that a person who believes in the Christian God cannot acquire knowledge (search for the truth). This is nonsense. Wasn't there a poster who posted that a physics winner was a Christian.

And, aren't there many Christian scientists in all fields of human knowledge?

My life is better because I'm free to explore the world without some encumbering belief in how the world must be, derived from some old book.

Ok, give me a couple of examples, don't just make the statement without backing it up.

And please tell me what straightjacket I'm wearing.

You believe there is no other life but this one. You believe you are free. You believe there are no consequences of negavite action that go unpunished by humans.

You believe morality is relative to you and you alone. You must accept that other societies behavior are as legitimate as yours based on this last premise.

Those beliefs have implications that bind you. And they do.

Loki wrote:
I'm fairly sure I would lose, given the ground rules you work from.

Geez... (I like that word) You really can't concede.

But it may be interesting to see you work through christian history, so by all means lead on. I suspect I know which pitch your going to run with, but perhaps you'll surprise.

How about and objective look at the whole picture. Is a hollistic view of Christianity in those times fair enough for you. Or is picking and choosing selective examples to support a biased view better for you?

What would you like to tackle first? The role of christian citizens in public welfare during 18th century Europe? The Spirit inspired service of slave owners in 19th century America? The service provided by inquisitors in ridding Europe of witches during the Middle Ages?

Oopps, I guess you already took your pick.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Geez... (I like that word)

You should - it's a shorted form of "Jesus". Usually used to express frustration, so I guess it's kind of taking the lord's name in vain?

You really can't concede.

When you :

(a) define "Christian charities" as "any charity organisation that has the world 'christian' in it's name or mission statement";
(b) declare that "it's obvious" that the members of "christian charities" are overwhelming Christian;
(c) declare that charities that either make no religious references, or use the term 'secular' are defacto christian charities because "its obvious" their members are almost certainly christian;

...I concede! Given the rules as you've laid them out, you win!

How about and objective look at the whole picture. Is a hollistic view of Christianity in those times fair enough for you. Or is picking and choosing selective examples to support a biased view better for you?

Yep - that's pretty much the way I thought you'd go. It's certainly the angle I'd try to play if I wanted to run with your argument! "Holistic Christianity". Homoeopathic Holy Water?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Christian:

First, you are not comparing oranges to oranges. Christianity is a religion. The other is something you made up on the fly.

What is the difference?

Second, you are not answering my question. How is Bigfoot relevant as Christianity is relevant? Are you saying both are as relevant? I can say that my belief in Christianity is superior to anyone's belief in Bigfoot.

Yes, please show how one unfounded belief is superior to another.

BTW, is being a Christian superior to being a Scientologist? Or a Muslim? Or a Budhist?

Listen, this whole thread has had that context. But, if you say it was unclear, then now it is clear.

So if everything is now clear, please tell me: Is believing in something for which there is no evidence perfectly reasonable as long as said belief isn't a disadvantage to the life of the believer? I.e., is making stuff up (e.g. elves in Elvis outfits live at the center of Jupiter. They are all named Zem) and then believing it OK as long as it isn't detrimental to living a happy life? Is such a belief compatible with a search for truth about how the world works?

Let's suppose this has tremendous relevance. Are you telling me you know the truth of how the universe began and how it developed? Are you saying you know the workings of the universe?

Obviously not.

And if you are saying you know a % of that truth and not the whole truth, what % would that be?

I know enough to know that Christianity's version is wrong.

Your understanding is wrong.

So which parts of the Bible do you find are wrong?

And, do you really think it is so hard to understand the scientific evidence regarding the age of the earth. That matter on earth and the universe is known to be billions of years old does not contradict Genesis. Sure, it contradicts an interpretation of Genesis, indeed.

Eh? An interpretation? Which bits of the Bible are up for interpretation, then? Was Jesus really crucified? Or was this just a metaphor for his tax audit? Was he really the son of god? Or was this just a metaphor for his sharp dressing?

I'm not going to address a strawman.

How is it a strawman?

When you say apply, what do you mean? Apply in terms of what?

Which bits need the "proper interpretation" to make the slightest sense.

What's the problem? How does a belief in God impede me from knowing how the world works?

Because you have already decided how certain parts of work without any reason to suspect that what you have decided is true. You have decided that humans have souls, without evidence. You have decided that the fate of these souls is determined by an invisible being. You have decided that wishing ferverently (praying) to this invisible being can magically influence things in the real world. You have decided that this being started the Universe. You have decided that life on this planet was likewise created by this magic being. All of this without the slightest evidence. How can you search for the actual truth if you have already decided what the truth is?

Please note that you must be wrong from pure unadultaretad logic. You are saying that a person who believes in the Christian God cannot acquire knowledge (search for the truth). This is nonsense. Wasn't there a poster who posted that a physics winner was a Christian.

Where did I say this? I said that such an unfounded belief would encumber the search for the truth. See above.

And, aren't there many Christian scientists in all fields of human knowledge?

Presumably. I wonder how they reconcile their belief in a dictated truth and actually searching for the truth.

Ok, give me a couple of examples, don't just make the statement without backing it up.

A couple of examples of what?

You believe there is no other life but this one.

There is no reason for me to expect otherwise. How is this a straightjacket?

You believe you are free.

There is no reason for me to expect otherwise. How is this a straightjacket?

You believe there are no consequences of negavite action that go unpunished by humans.

No, as a matter of fact, I don't. Most people have a conscience.

You believe morality is relative to you and you alone.

Not sure what you mean. I believe most morals are genetically based.

You must accept that other societies behavior are as legitimate as yours based on this last premise.

Why?

Those beliefs have implications that bind you. And they do.

Obviously my view of what is right or wrong will result in me viewing some things as right and some as wrong. How is that a straightjacket in regard to searching for the truth about the workings of this Universe?

 

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
You should - it's a shorted form of "Jesus". Usually used to express frustration, so I guess it's kind of taking the lord's name in vain?

So I guess I wont be using it anymore

When you :

(a) define "Christian charities" as "any charity organisation that has the world 'christian' in it's name or mission statement";
(b) declare that "it's obvious" that the members of "christian charities" are overwhelming Christian;
(c) declare that charities that either make no religious references, or use the term 'secular' are defacto christian charities because "its obvious" their members are almost certainly christian;

...I concede! Given the rules as you've laid them out, you win!

a) You have the right to challenge any example I present. If I say it is a Christian organization, you can dispute it. You have not. So, it is a fair assumption to accept they are.
b) It is another assumption that can be challenged. I say it is fair and correct assumption.
c) This is not true, I didn't say they were Christian Charities, I said your examples contain the fallacy of division which is absolutely the case.

You are implying that I'm setting up unfair rules (disadvantageous to you and favorable to me). This is not the case.

Yep - that's pretty much the way I thought you'd go. It's certainly the angle I'd try to play if I wanted to run with your argument! "Holistic Christianity". Homoeopathic Holy Water?

There is no other way to go. Either we look at the whole thing or we pick and choose to our convinience.


DanishDynamite wrote:
What is the difference?

For starters, a codefied system of principles that have lasted for 2000 years.

Yes, please show how one unfounded belief is superior to another.

You say unfounded, I say it is not. Christianity is superior to a belief in Bigfoot in many areas.

BTW, is being a Christian superior to being a Scientologist? Or a Muslim? Or a Budhist?

Now, you are comparing oranges to oranges. By your question you are talking about individuals. We would have to compare a specific Christian to a specific Muslim or Budhist. And we would have to qualify un which way they are superior. One can't be absolutely superior to the other as a person.

Now, if you change the question to: is Christianity superior to Scientology or Islam or Budhism, then that is a different answer.

So if everything is now clear, please tell me: Is believing in something for which there is no evidence perfectly reasonable as long as said belief isn't a disadvantage to the life of the believer?

It is reasonable to believe in things for which one has evidence. That others may not accept this evidence is another matter. The advantages come from the belief working in one's life.

I.e., is making stuff up (e.g. elves in Elvis outfits live at the center of Jupiter. They are all named Zem) and then believing it OK as long as it isn't detrimental to living a happy life?

You keep constructing this strawman. The answer is obvious and it is not the position I hold. You are attacking an interpretation of what you think I mean, not my position.

Is such a belief compatible with a search for truth about how the world works?

The problem is that you are constructing ideas that suit you for purpose destroying them later.

The model that I work with tells me that we both have limited access to what is real. We both go to the distance of what is possible to know. From that point on, you live in a world uncertainty. I live in a world of faith. That I’m deluding myself in that final mile, is inconsequential because, at the end, from your perspective, the outcome is a matter of probability, chance. So if I’ve done as much homework as you have, and at the end, kissing the dice before throwing them is, in your view, a waste of time, it can’t hurt me.

And I’m willing to argue that kissing the dice before throwing them has helped me immensely.

I know enough to know that Christianity's version is wrong.

What you believe to be Christianity’s version is wrong. Not the same.

So which parts of the Bible do you find are wrong?

None.

Eh? An interpretation? Which bits of the Bible are up for interpretation, then?

A lot of parts. Why would you suspend the common rules of literature with the Bible. Some parts of the Bible are literal, some are allegorical, some need context to be interpreted, etc, just like any text that is voluminous.

Was Jesus really crucified? Or was this just a metaphor for his tax audit? Was he really the son of god? Or was this just a metaphor for his sharp dressing?

He was crucified and He is the Son of God.

How is it a strawman?

Because I would have to defend a position you have constructed. You characterize my position as hard-core pragmatist. I don’t agree with that characterization. First show me that your characterization of me is correct, then I will defend my position.

Which bits need the "proper interpretation" to make the slightest sense.

With the proper interpretation, all of it makes sense.

Because you have already decided how certain parts of work without any reason to suspect that what you have decided is true.

This is not true. I have reason to suspect that why I have decided is true.

You have decided that humans have souls, without evidence. You have decided that the fate of these souls is determined by an invisible being.

But I do have evidence. It is not the type that can convince you, but it is sufficient for me.

You have decided that wishing ferverently (praying) to this invisible being can magically influence things in the real world.

Yes, I have.

You have decided that this being started the Universe. You have decided that life on this planet was likewise created by this magic being. All of this without the slightest evidence. How can you search for the actual truth if you have already decided what the truth is?

You speak of the truth as if it were a small object that one chases to catch. This is not the case.

Knowledge is so vast that, in your life time, you wont be able to even grasp an infinitesimal part of it. Not even an infinitesimal part, will you or I be able to grasp.

Your point is moot, from this perspective. And I suspect you don’t use any examples of the knowledge that is commonly useful to most humans because you will find that we are in equal footing.

That I believe those things to be true, does not impede from learning and acquiring knowledge. The areas of knowledge are so vast and we can’t be right about everything we think is true.

And remember, you still have to function in a world that is impatient an wont stop for you figure out through the scientific method, what choices to make.

Where did I say this? I said that such an unfounded belief would encumber the search for the truth. See above.

If I follow your line of argumentation, you are still wrong because an unfounded belief would encumber the search for a tiny miniscule infinitesimal part of knowledge, not the whole truth.

Presumably. I wonder how they reconcile their belief in a dictated truth and actually searching for the truth.

Wonder no more.

A couple of examples of what?

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

My life is better because I'm free to explore the world without some encumbering belief in how the world must be, derived from some old book.

Show me specific examples how your life is better in this exploration.

There is no reason for me to expect otherwise. How is this a straightjacket?

(in relation to no other life but this one) You have a time limit to attain all the knowledge you can. This is infinitesimal. For you, this is a fact. Isn’t searching for the truth important to you? You will only find a miniscule part of it. And part of that infinitesimal part will be wrong.

There is no reason for me to expect otherwise. How is this a straightjacket?

(in relation to being free) Because you are not free, you have very limited freedom. You have very little say on what goes on in the your world. But you hold the illusion of freedom, which according to your standards is unfounded.

No, as a matter of fact, I don't. Most people have a conscience.

(in relation to there are no consequences of negavite action that go unpunished by humans.) Why would you believe in something not physical, material. If someone kills another person and gets away with it. There are absolutely no consequences for this person for his actions. What is the physical rule that states that people will feel anything? What is a conscience? What are the related physical properties to negative actions that go undetected by humans?

Not sure what you mean. I believe most morals are genetically based.

(in relation to morality being relative to you and you alone.) I’m confused, you don’t choose your morals, they are determined by your genes?

Why?

(in relation to accepting that other societies behavior are as legitimate as yours based on this last premise.) Well, who are we (from the atheist’s perspective) to dictate moral principles to other societies. For atheists, ethnocentricity is a no no.

Obviously my view of what is right or wrong will result in me viewing some things as right and some as wrong.

Obviously. And that’s the point. You cannot impose your views of what is right or wrong to others. The Guarani, historically (not the only tribe either) have killed their children to survive. The mother performs this task. May tribes kill their children who are deformed. From the atheist’s perspective, I see no way you can judge this behavior as bad.

How is that a straightjacket in regard to searching for the truth about the workings of this Universe?

What is right or wrong? What is good? From where would you get the compass of what is right or wrong? Is monogamy right or wrong? If you speak to most women (atheist or not) they will say, that polygamy is not right for them. If you speak to most men (atheist or not, and if they are truly honest) they might have a different view.

Don’t go so far in the universe. The choices you make everyday, here on earth gives you your straightjacket.

If you believe you have no right to impose your morality on others, then you must let the Guaranis be.

The Catholic Church believed on imposing morality on others as do I. This gives a very different approach to life.

Now, before responding to my assertion (be outraged) that I believe on imposing morality on others, think about it.

From my relations to atheists, I have found that many like cursing a lot. (maybe is this false sense of freedom). Yet, morality was imposed on them right here on this website. I agree with this imposition. See, you are not free to curse in here. You have to follow others morality.

This is good.

 

[Ruby]

Ruby,
Again, thank you for sharing part of life with me. You are talking about very personal and deep things and I appreciate that.

Your welcome. Sorry I have not been back to this thread in days.

Ruby wrote:
I'm not sure how to respond to the above paragraph. I'm unclear if you are saying that in general.....in my life, I hung out with people who were abusive etc., and was therefore led easily into a church org that abused me......or if you saying that once in church, I hung out with the abusive sort etc.

One possibility is that you focused (paid attention to) on this behavior. Can you buy this idea: you can be surrounded by negative abusive people that act generous and positive with you.

Oh yes, I can buy that idea. That describes many of the people I was around in Charismatic circles. I focused on that behavior mostly while I was a Christian. I was conditioned to think that way. However, before I was a Christian, my friends were not abusive or negative.

I have some Christian friends now who are exceptional...and far from being abusive......but they are not Charismatics.

What I have divulged above is also "anecdotal evidence". So if I said that some men were sexually abusive, you could also make a case against me.

Can you buy the idea that some women attract the gentle, chivalrous kind men in their lives?
And this says nothing pejorative or bad about women who seem to attract predators. On the contrary, as you describe it, you attracted them because of good inherent traits.

I am missing your point

Why is it so terrifying for you to consider that some denominations within Christinaity are legalistic and abusive?

I don’t think it is terrifying. This is my theory. All social groups contain legalistic and abusive people. Maybe, some have them in a greater percentage within that group. And they may be legalistic and abusive about some things in certain circumstances, but not others. Team work is extremely difficult. Get a bunch of people together for any period of time and bad things start to happen. This is going to be true with any people you get together with on a consistent basis.

When the leadership or originators of a group are not legalistic or abusive, then people coming into a group who are abusive and/or legalistic are likely to not last long in the group....or at least not make much of an impact or have much of a voice. For instance, the Unitarian Universalists are not likely to make it easy for someone who is legalistic to flourish in any of their churches. While they might not censor what that person has to say, they would surely counter their remarks..open things up for debate......and re-emphasize the UU beliefs. Why would someone legalistic want to be in a UU church anyway? It would be way too liberal for them. They'd leave in disgust after only one visit.

It is when the leaders and/or originators of a group/church/religion are legalistic or abusive that you have trouble. The UPCI originators and leaders were/are very legalistic. This makes the entire org. legalistic. Most of the nondenominational Charismatic churches are legalistic, and that is why most Charismatic churches are legalistic.

I liked the sense of belonging that going to church gave me. I had never really experienced that before. It felt great to be a part of something. To be considered part of a family. Not only that, I was part of the only church org. that had the "truth". I was taught that I was "special" as a 1st United Pentecostal. Special because I had true savation.

I want you to forgive in advance for what I am about to say. Isn’t this the same feeling you have now? Don’t you feel a sense of belonging and that you are a part of something. Didn’t you say you love everyone here and consider them your family? And don’t you consider yourself special because now you are in the path to the truth, that a veil has been lifted?

I think that having a sense of belonging in important is life, period. I am thankful I still feel that. I shared my experience because feeling that "sense of belonging" was new to me when I entered church for the first time. It was powerful....but it was sad and unforunate that I had to experience it in a legalistic abusive church. Their version of the "truth" was that all Trinitarian Christians, let alone unbelievers, were going to Hell.

Yes, I do feel that now I am truly seeing the "truth" and that I have been freed from a prison. But guess what? I came to this truth all by myself. It was not a church or church dogma that crammed this down my throat. It was my own pursuit. It was my own questioning and searching. No one preached to me. When I asked questions on here, they were answered. I was free to make up my own mind...to look into things myself.....which I did. I was not told that a whole lot of people...billions upon billions ..were going to hell...if they did not convert to Atheism or Humanism etc.

I consider myself blessed to be set free from Christian dogma. It has changed my life so much for the better. Christianity never did half of what has occured in my life since de-converting.

, living by so many church rules........no make-up, no jewelry, no pants, no shorts, no TV....and so on, I was becoming very depressed. I did not feel like a woman anymore. We were taught to wear dresses with lengths below knees....most all the woman wore dresses nearly to the floor. We were also taught to wear dresses that covered our elbows. As if our elbows could incite lust![/b]

Can you think of all the rules that you must follow now. For example, even if you think (very deep down) that a bible story can be a great lesson for children to listen to, you don’t because it is just as any other mythology. (I can’t guess about your answer, it is just an example to illustrate that humans constantly have to follow rules, we are never free from them , and the funny thing is that the more advanced the society we live in , the more regulated we are)

Yes, life....society...comes with rules. Many of those rules I am thankful for...like speed limits....no drinking and driving........rules against crime. There are also rules to protect against discrimination. These, and many others, are good rules. Many people have fought for these rules to be out into effect.

What I am talking about is a church org that has strict rules set up dictating to it's members on how they should dress or wear their hair. This church org. does not just look down on women who have short hair, but it looks down on a woman for just trimming her hair. It is considered sin to cut your hair, period. They claim that the bible teaches this.

Society has moved forward concerning women, not backward. Women were given the right to vote, and then equal rights in the work place. Women are running for more political offices than ever. I don't see things for women becoming more restrictive. But, we have the UPCI with it's strict rules for women, and Charismatic Christianty with it's teachings on women being subservient to their husbands and not allowed to be Pastors or teach to men.

I'd say sociey is way ahead of the UPCI and Charismania. I'm glad that society allows women to be free,and to be equal to men.

type of abuse and legalism I am talking about can only be learned in a church. And in my experience, it happens constantly in the UPCI and Charismatic churches.[/b]

I’m sorry but I disagree. I will give a perfect example that abuse and legalism is everywhere you have groups.

Right here in this website, the main administrator left. If you read the posts related to him prior to his departure and after, you will see abuse and legalism all over. And you know when all that started? Right after rules of conduct where enacted. Before that time, anarchy was supreme. Once posters had to follow rules, the group dynamic changed dramatically.

I'm clueless about this situation. The only abuse I had was from Dark Cobra...but he was a teen going through some rough stuff.

how, I can say for a fact that a lot of UPC doctrine is based on twisted scripture, and some is scripture taken out of context, but some is scripture that has been interpreted in a different manner due to the many contradictions that exist in the bible.[/b]

Ok, we seem to agree here on most of what you say. I still disagree that the bible is full of contradictions. I will show you what I mean using the passages you cite.

Ok, so lets look at the UPC dogma that I was taught. First of all I learned that salvation only occurred through 1. Repentance; 2. Baptism in Jesus name; 3. Receiving the Holy Spirit baptism as evidenced by speaking in tongues.

They back this is up with the following passages.

Acts 2:1-16

Now, please not that the passage you cite does not explicitly say that is the way salvation occurs. It is a POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION. How do we know if it is a the right interpretation? How do we solve that?

Whoa, wait a min. Something I have not got into yet is how I realized the UPC doctrine was wrong. There are many flaws in the UPC salvation doctrine. I am well aware that the passage does not explicitly citethat is it the way salvation occurs.

This is where they believe the bible gives the one, and only, salvation message. They believe repentance is crucial...and most of their churches stress repentance as being a major event where you better cry, wail, and beg "God" to forgive you for all your sins. (They seem to miss that repentance really means to change one's mind and/or turn away from sin.) They believe that baptizing someone in total immersion of water saying "in Jesus name", is the only valid baptism. Anyone who has been baptized with "in the name of the father, son, and Holy spirit" being said over them needs to be rebaptized in Jesus name according to them. Otherwise, that mode of baptism will send them to hell. I'll explain why in a bit. Receiving the Holy Spirit baptism is vital to be saved......and according to them , unless you speak in tongues as evidence, then you did not get it. Once again, not speaking in tongues will send you to hell too.

How is the litmus test applied? It is very easy. If the passage can stand on it’s own in terms of meaning (that it does not require interpretation) and it contradicts a particular interpretation, then the INTERPRETATION is wrong. Yes, the interpretation can contradict the literal passage. The sound conclusion is not that the passages are contradicting one another, it is that the interpretation must be wrong.

And in the case of the passage in Acts 2, the UPC have definitely interpreted it very wrong.

t literal passage contradicts on its own this particular interpretation? Here it is (and please see that the passage does not need a single interpretation or explanation of any kind. It’s stands on its own)

1 Corinthians 12 NIV

That is one of the very passages I used to use after I had left the UPC to debate Oneness Pentecostals online. It is a good counter argument against their tongues doctrine.....that is, their belief that everyone who is baptized with the Holy spirit wil speak in tongues as evidence.

I had to listen to many sermons about how if you don't give yourself fully to God (speak in tongues) then God might cause something bad to happen to someone you love to get you to do it. I am serious!![/b]

Do you see why the interpretation is fails at the most fundamental level?

Well, of course, I do. Why do you think I left the org? Why do you think I studied the bible after that for myself and saw right through their doctrine. I found out that the "Holy spirit baptism" was not ever referred to as salvation in the bible. All the bible referrs to it as being is "empowerment".

Then there was Matthew 3:16-17 "After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."

I read that passage and realized that the UPC doctrine "Oneness"...which claims that Jesus was literally the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, could not be true due to the above passage. How could Jesus be in the water, and the holy spirit above, with a voice coming out of the heavens, with the claim that Jesus was the holy spirit and the Father. Could Jesus project his own voice to tell himself "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased". There were other passages too that led me away from the oneness doctrine, but the Matthew one was the clincher. No one taught these passages to me. I studied and found them myself.

It confounded me that I had never seen or realized them while I was UPC.

want to get into a biblical debate here. I know you don’t either but this was important for me to say about that subject.

I don't think a biblical debate is needed...since I think you misunderstood me. All the talking I did about the UPC was to share what I went through..what they believd...how legalistic it was.....how they twisted scripture....how they ignored many passages of scripture. Boy, do they ignore scripture......especially all the passages about being saved by grace.

Anyhow, Charismatics don't beleive in the same doctrine as the UPC. Stil, they have their problems too. I'll get into that sometime.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

You are implying that I'm setting up unfair rules (disadvantageous to you and favorable to me).

Not quite, although that may be the impression I created. Sorry. No, I meant to say that there's no point arguing with you (once again, I concede!) because you've set up axioms that cannot be challenged, and which lead to your conclusion.

Afterall, I need to remind myself that you are the person who claims that there are, in fact, no atheists - we're all just scared christians deep down inside, rebeling against the god that we KNOW in our hearts exists, but which we seek to deny for our own petty private reasons. I can't prove you wrong on that, and you won't allow the possibility that your wrong. Discussion is doomed. I concede. Your silly fallacy of division argument is just another manifestation of the same process.

 

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
Afterall, I need to remind myself that you are the person who claims that there are, in fact, no atheists - we're all just scared christians deep down inside, rebeling against the god that we KNOW in our hearts exists, but which we seek to deny for our own petty private reasons.

Loki, don't do this. I don't believe this. I don't claim this.

I DON'T BELIEVE THIS

I can't prove you wrong on that, and you won't allow the possibility that your wrong. Discussion is doomed. I concede. Your silly fallacy of division argument is just another manifestation of the same process.

As you say, so many way to respond, but I will say this: When you invoke the tools of the skeptic, they are rational thoughts, when I do it, they are sillyness. Oh boy.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Loki, don't do this. I don't believe this. I don't claim this.

I DON'T BELIEVE THIS

Okay - so you've changed you opinon? Like the way you've decided that the biblical flood is not a literal story, whereas two years ago you thought it might have been true? You have certainly told me in the past that you believe that "in our heart of hearts" atheists know that truth of god's existence, but we are rebelling against this knowledge. I'll accept that you've changed your opinon on this if you say so (and you do).

Actually - I may be wrong. Your comment MIGHT have been in relation to those who have heard the gospels, and rejected them. So perhaps you are right and I have exaggerated. At the very least you have told me that I actually believe in god, but am living in denial of this core truth. So which is it :

1. All atheists know god, but deny him.
2. All those who call themselves atheists but have read the gospels know the true of god, but deny him. There are some atheists who are 'true atheists'.
3. There may be some athesits who actually believe and deny god, but there is no pattern to this.

When you invoke the tools of the skeptic, they are rational thoughts, when I do it, they are sillyness

No christian - I never said that "a secular organisation means that all it's members are secular" (which MAY be a fallaccy of division). But the discussion was in the context of "finding organisations that identify themselves as secular". When I did this, you reply "fallacy of division - that doesn't mean the members are secular!!" hHe sillyness of this comes from the context :

Of course, why were we looking for secular organisations in the first place? Because we were using the following logic :

1. Christians want to serve
2. The proof of this is organisations decicated to service, that identify themselves as 'christian'.

This is your opening "proof" of the existence of 'christian service'. Fair enough, seems a reasonable grounds to me to work from. So I reply with the same proof :

1. Atheists want to serve.
2. The proof of this is organisations dedicated to service, that identify themselves as 'secular'.

You reply "prove it - give me a list of such organisations!"

I give you a list.

You reply "Fallacy of division - I believe that most members of the listed organisations are christians!"

The 'ground rules' of this exchange are contained in your opening 'proof'. You argued that "existence of organisation identifying themselves as christian" is proof of "christian service". When I use *exactly* the same proof as a counter, you invoke a 'logical fallacy'.

I concede, Christian. You apply rules to suit, based upon your conviction that the conclusion is obvious.

 

[evildave]

If someone uses a hammer to drive nails, and another uses a hammer to drive screws, the outcome is not the same, even though one is using "the same tools".

In this case, the tools are "communication", and the nails and screws are "definitions".

The metaphor attempts to drive home the point that our underlying definitions for terms for ideas conflict.

Perhaps we need to add some notation to keep the words clear? Paint the nails and screws different colors so they're easier to tell apart?

christian.Christian: Christian's definition of 'Christian'
???

loki.Christian: Loki's definition of 'Christian'
???

evildave.Christian: EvilDave's definition of 'Christian'
"Anybody who self-identifies as a Christian." (Far be it from me to play 'judge' over who is Christian, and who is not.)

christian.Charity: Christian's definition of 'Charity'
???

loki.Charity: Loki's definition of 'Charity'
???

evildave.Charity My definition of 'Charity' is whatever the legal definition is.
http://dictionary.law.com/ - Lookup Charity

charity
n. 1) in general the sentiment of benevolence, doing good works, assisting the less fortunate, philanthropy and contributing to the general public. 2) an organization which exists to help those in need or provide educational, scientific, religious and artistic assistance to members of the public. Charities are usually corporations established under state guidelines and require IRS approval in order for contributions to them to be deductible from gross income by donors.
See also: charitable contribution

The handy thing about the legal defintiion is, you can't run far afoul of the actual law with it. While charity can be religious, it does not have to be, and you would probably run afoul of the law if you demanded charity must be religious in nature.

Especially since to define "religious" would be to establish government standards for what "religion" is, and that would suck the state directly into every 'religion' - just the opposite of what any chuch-in-state people want.


evildave.Religion: "UNDEFINED".

The minute you start placing legal definitions on what religion "IS", you have all the world of what religion "IS NOT" to contend with. Suddenly, you have the government telling people their religion isn't a "religion" because it doesn't meet state or federal standards for being one. As anybody with a working brain knows, the definition of what "religion" is will vary from person to person, religion to religion. Would you like the Mormons to define it? The Baptists? The Jehova's Witlesses? Muslims? Those religious "standards" become extremely sticky, very fast. And people historically become very agitated when the "standards" do not match their own personal religion.

 

[Christian]

Loki wrote:

Why are you doing this? Are you frustrated or something. You are resorting to false statements and misinterpretations.

Okay - so you've changed you opinon? Like the way you've decided that the biblical flood is not a literal story, whereas two years ago you thought it might have been true?

I believe the flood is a literal story. I think the translation of the word earth should be land. With only that word change, the flood literally becomes a local flood, not a global flood. The text remains in tact.

You have certainly told me in the past that you believe that "in our heart of hearts" atheists know that truth of god's existence, but we are rebelling against this knowledge. I'll accept that you've changed your opinon on this if you say so (and you do).

Actually - I may be wrong. Your comment MIGHT have been in relation to those who have heard the gospels, and rejected them. So perhaps you are right and I have exaggerated. At the very least you have told me that I actually believe in god, but am living in denial of this core truth.

You are either confusing me with someone else, or you are intentionally or unintentionally saying something which is false. I don't hold this view.

So which is it :

1. All atheists know god, but deny him.
2. All those who call themselves atheists but have read the gospels know the true of god, but deny him. There are some atheists who are 'true atheists'.
3. There may be some athesits who actually believe and deny god, but there is no pattern to this.

None of the above. Let's set the record straight. I believe an athiest does not believe in any gods. I believe there is a conviction to this.

I believe the main driver of this conviction is rebellion. This is why the common theme to atheists (including you) is freedom.

No christian - I never said that "a secular organisation means that all it's members are secular" (which MAY be a fallaccy of division). But the discussion was in the context of "finding organisations that identify themselves as secular". When I did this, you reply "fallacy of division - that doesn't mean the members are secular!!" hHe sillyness of this comes from the context :

Of course, why were we looking for secular organisations in the first place? Because we were using the following logic :

1. Christians want to serve
2. The proof of this is organisations decicated to service, that identify themselves as 'christian'.

Let's look at the logic please. Organizations that identify themselves as Christian have as a requirement that you be a Christian in order to join the organization. Does that register?

It is fair assumption that a Christian organization is composed of Christians like it is a fair asssumtion that a Jewish organization is composed of Jews.

Jewish Organizations

This is your opening "proof" of the existence of 'christian service'. Fair enough, seems a reasonable grounds to me to work from. So I reply with the same proof :

1. Atheists want to serve.
2. The proof of this is organisations dedicated to service, that identify themselves as 'secular'.


Exactly. Do you see how it does not follow? Come on. No one can make the fair assumption that secular organizations have atheist members on the grounds of being labelled a secular organization.

Making that assumption, is a fallacy of division.

You reply "prove it - give me a list of such organisations!"

I give you a list.

No, no, no. This is not what happened. You did not state that that would be your proof (but so what if I dis say ok, and later brought out the objection, it is still valid.) You switched from atheist to "secular". The reasons are obvious.

You reply "Fallacy of division - I believe that most members of the listed organisations are christians!"

Absolutely not, I just showed you why it was a fallacy. I could have said, most members are Muslim, or Jewish. The point is you can't assume the composition of the group based on the "secular" label. That is the point.

The 'ground rules' of this exchange are contained in your opening 'proof'.

Absolutely. And the assumptions I make are absolutely valid. If I look up on the web Salvadoran organizations, I can make the fair assumption that the members won't be Australian. I can make the fair assumption that they wont be Mexican. I can make the valid assumption the members are Salvadoran.

The organization's label you presented does not allow me to make any such assumptions, which you have attempted to make.

You argued that "existence of organisation identifying themselves as christian" is proof of "christian service". When I use *exactly* the same proof as a counter, you invoke a 'logical fallacy'.

You have conceded nothing, you are being factitious at best. And you are smart enough to know I'm right.

I concede, Christian. You apply rules to suit, based upon your conviction that the conclusion is obvious.

I really have no chance with you, do I?

Evildave wrote
If someone uses a hammer to drive nails, and another uses a hammer to drive screws, the outcome is not the same, even though one is using "the same tools".

In this case, the tools are "communication", and the nails and screws are "definitions".

It took me 3 times to read this, to get it (maybe more). Am I stupid or what? Don't answer that.

Well, finally got it.

The metaphor attempts to drive home the point that our underlying definitions for terms for ideas conflict.

Yes.

Perhaps we need to add some notation to keep the words clear? Paint the nails and screws different colors so they're easier to tell apart?

christian.Christian: Christian's definition of 'Christian'
???

Someone who believes and claims that the central tenet of life is Christ dying on the Cross for his/her sins and on the third resurrecting from the dead to give him/her the gift of salvation and eternal life.

christian.Charity: Christian's definition of 'Charity'
???

-Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
-Something given to help the needy; alms.
-An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
-Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.

While charity can be religious, it does not have to be, and you would probably run afoul of the law if you demanded charity must be religious in nature.

I agree 100%

Those religious "standards" become extremely sticky, very fast. And people historically become very agitated when the "standards" do not match their own personal religion.

I agree 100%. Imagine that Evildave.

 

[Christian]

Ruby wrote:
For instance, the Unitarian Universalists are not likely to make it easy for someone who is legalistic to flourish in any of their churches. While they might not censor what that person has to say, they would surely counter their remarks..open things up for debate......and re-emphasize the UU beliefs. Why would someone legalistic want to be in a UU church anyway? It would be way too liberal for them. They'd leave in disgust after only one visit.

But, isn't this the other side of the coin? Aren't UU's being legalistic about legalistic people. And how do you define legalism? Maybe we are not talking about the same thing. Could you be saying what I understand to be dogmatic?

It is when the leaders and/or originators of a group/church/religion are legalistic or abusive that you have trouble. The UPCI originators and leaders were/are very legalistic. This makes the entire org. legalistic. Most of the nondenominational Charismatic churches are legalistic, and that is why most Charismatic churches are legalistic.

Maybe that is what you mean. Because I find Mr. Randi to be very legalistic and intolerant. I would not call him abusive though.

I think that having a sense of belonging in important is life, period. I am thankful I still feel that.

Definitely, a sense of belonging is in our hirerchy of needs, no doubt about it.

Yes, I do feel that now I am truly seeing the "truth" and that I have been freed from a prison.

This is where I object. I do have trouble with that metaphore. You were not in a prison, you were free to choose. You were there voluntarily. You chose to be there those years. You were responsible, not the church leaders or members, right?

But guess what? I came to this truth all by myself. It was not a church or church dogma that crammed this down my throat. It was my own pursuit. It was my own questioning and searching. No one preached to me. When I asked questions on here, they were answered. I was free to make up my own mind...to look into things myself.....which I did. I was not told that a whole lot of people...billions upon billions ..were going to hell...if they did not convert to Atheism or Humanism etc.

Exactly. If you are responsible for you freedom you are also responsible for your prison, not the people at the church, right?

Oh, and now you have a new idea that replaces the old. Now, all humans, from all of history, from all time. Have and will disappear, cease to exist. This is more than billions and billions. All of us are destroyed forever. No one escapes this destruction.

I consider myself blessed to be set free from Christian dogma. It has changed my life so much for the better. Christianity never did half of what has occured in my life since de-converting.


For sure, your attitude has changed. That makes a big difference. Someone can be in a real prison and feel the greatest joy and someone can have all the luxuries of the world and feel miserable.

Yes, life....society...comes with rules. Many of those rules I am thankful for...like speed limits....no drinking and driving........rules against crime. There are also rules to protect against discrimination. These, and many others, are good rules. Many people have fought for these rules to be out into effect.

What I am talking about is a church org that has strict rules set up dictating to it's members on how they should dress or wear their hair. This church org. does not just look down on women who have short hair, but it looks down on a woman for just trimming her hair. It is considered sin to cut your hair, period. They claim that the bible teaches this.

Have you ever worked in corporate America? Lot's of orgs. have strict dress code rules. And they consider a "sin" many of comporable things you speak about. Conduct rules are everywhere, that's not the problem.

Society has moved forward concerning women, not backward. Women were given the right to vote, and then equal rights in the work place. Women are running for more political offices than ever. I don't see things for women becoming more restrictive. But, we have the UPCI with it's strict rules for women, and Charismatic Christianty with it's teachings on women being subservient to their husbands and not allowed to be Pastors or teach to men.

I'd say sociey is way ahead of the UPCI and Charismania. I'm glad that society allows women to be free,and to be equal to men.

Ok.

I'm clueless about this situation. The only abuse I had was from Dark Cobra...but he was a teen going through some rough stuff.


Indeed you are. But it has been a great thing in here. And you are because you focus primarily on the good around here, on the sunshine.

Whoa, wait a min. Something I have not got into yet is how I realized the UPC doctrine was wrong. There are many flaws in the UPC salvation doctrine. I am well aware that the passage does not explicitly citethat is it the way salvation occurs.

Good.

That is one of the very passages I used to use after I had left the UPC to debate Oneness Pentecostals online. It is a good counter argument against their tongues doctrine.....that is, their belief that everyone who is baptized with the Holy spirit wil speak in tongues as evidence.

Ok.

Well, of course, I do. Why do you think I left the org? Why do you think I studied the bible after that for myself and saw right through their doctrine. I found out that the "Holy spirit baptism" was not ever referred to as salvation in the bible. All the bible referrs to it as being is "empowerment".

Then there was Matthew 3:16-17 "After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."

I read that passage and realized that the UPC doctrine "Oneness"...which claims that Jesus was literally the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, could not be true due to the above passage. How could Jesus be in the water, and the holy spirit above, with a voice coming out of the heavens, with the claim that Jesus was the holy spirit and the Father. Could Jesus project his own voice to tell himself "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased". There were other passages too that led me away from the oneness doctrine, but the Matthew one was the clincher. No one taught these passages to me. I studied and found them myself.

It confounded me that I had never seen or realized them while I was UPC.

If you have read NT from with the eyes of a Chrisitian, I'm curious to know. Why is it that you don't find many of the NT passages excellent for life, as a philosophy of life?

 

[Loki]

Christian,

All of us are destroyed forever. No one escapes this destruction

But this a morally neutral outcome, unlike the christian outcome.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Why are you doing this?

Because I was stunned the first time you said this to me (back in the early days) - so much so that I clarified it with you, and you repeated it. You stated clearly that you believed I (and others) truly knew you were right, but we were just rebelling against this knowledge by claiming to not believe in the existence of god.

But the threads are long gone, so if you choose to deny saying this we'll have to just chalk this up to (a) my faulty memory or (b) you changing your mind. Either way, you've made your current position clear. Consider me updated.

Are you frustrated or something.

Only by Interesting Ian.

You are resorting to false statements and misinterpretations.

No, I'm repeating my clear memory of an earlier conversation. You're denying it, and I can't prove it (the thread is gone), so from now on I'll accept that you DON'T believe this. Done.

I believe the flood is a literal story.

Yes, but two years ago you were prepared to consider that it WAS a global flood. Then you changed and decided that it's definitely a local flood.

You are either confusing me with someone else...

No, the memory is clear. I remember being stunned by your comments. The arrogance implied in the comment was amazing, even for you.

..., or you are intentionally or unintentionally saying something which is false.

Well, despite the strength of my memory, it's (always) possible I'm mistaken. Either way, you've set the record straight.

I believe the main driver of this conviction is rebellion.

Need I repeat the theme of "prejudice" that keeps running through your posts?

This is why the common theme to atheists (including you) is freedom.

The fact that you prefer bondage remains your problem.

Organizations that identify themselves as Christian have as a requirement that you be a Christian in order to join the organization.

Can you support this? This is a blanket statement - you'll need to show that it applies to the vast majority of christian organisations. Off you go.

No one can make the fair assumption that secular organizations have atheist members

So the organisations I listed probably don't have atheist/secular members? So the majority are christians? Why then do christians, given a choice between two similar organisations, choose to join and support the secular one? Having joined, and being in the majority, why doesn't the organisation start to promote and advertise it's 'christian' nature?

I can show you two examples of organisations that began life as christian ones but have changed to become secular (dropping the 'christian' from their title, removing all references to god or religion from their mission statements). Can you show a secular organisation that has become christian?

Making that assumption, is a fallacy of division.

The reason I disagree is simple. A fallacy of division is when there is no valid reason to assume that an attribute of the whole can be applied to the parts. You and I think there is a good reason to apply the 'christian' trait to the mmebers of christian organisations. You and I disagree about secular organisations - I still think it's pretty damn weak of you invoke "no, its' different" only after being shown a list - and to present no evidence of this difference except you own assumptions. It's at that point I remembered that you always win - and I've conceded, to avoid delaying the inevitable.

The organization's label you presented does not allow me to make any such assumptions, which you have attempted to make.

If by 'label' you mean the name, then you may be right. But each of the organisations I listed for you, I read their mission statement, charter, and/or statement of the board before listing them. They ALL contain no mention of religion at all. Not one. For you to then argue that we can assume nothing about the religious nature of the organisation is IMO ridiculous. For you to go further and argue that you believe that most secular organisations are staffed by a majority of christians simply tells me it's time to leave this.

You have conceded nothing, you are being factitious at best.

No, I concede. You are correct. Only christians can do charity work, and you've proven it. I intend to simply stay here on this fourm with my selfish, non-charitable atheist compatriots and watch you save the world's poor. Now get to work, there's a lot that needs doing...

And you are smart enough to know I'm right.

I'm dumb enough to get sucked into debates with you. I'm smart enough to (eventually) realise you like the sound of your own arguments too much to make for a reasonable exchange.

 

[evildave]

christian.Christian: Christian's definition of 'Christian'
???

Someone who believes and claims that the central tenet of life is Christ dying on the Cross for his/her sins and on the third resurrecting from the dead to give him/her the gift of salvation and eternal life.

This is good. Communication is happening.

What of followers who revere Christian teachings, but fail on one or more of your tests? It's certain that there are 'other.Christians' who have more stringent definitions of what a 'Christian' must be, and that you might fail on one or more of their points for. There are others who have a completely different set of points for their definitions.

From my (outsider) perspective, I can't really remove one Christian from another. The conflicting definitions have only one common denominator, and that's the label. I can only judge from the most liberal of standards for what constitutes a 'Christian'.

The definitions span from fairly neutral (Unitarian Universalist) UU.Christian definitions, to the (Rapture Ready) RR.Christian definitions, to some genuinely creepy people (GC.Christian?).

A few variables for illustration...

Door-To-Door vs Public Space Lurkers vs (for lack of a better term) 'Well Behaved'
Literal vs Interpreted
Liberalism vs Fundamentalism
'Doomsday' vs 'Judgment' vs 'Return'
Works vs Saved
Fate vs Choice

Perhaps this could be charted in some way that made it clear. I'm not sure how. People won't even agree on the categories that matter.

The notation is helpful, I think. Perhaps some better form of it could be derived?

How to tell what sort of 'Christian' it is we're really talking about, trivially?

christian.Charity: Christian's definition of 'Charity'
???

-Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
-Something given to help the needy; alms.
-An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
-Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.


But what of 'charities' which have other goals? There are organisations that fight for human rights, environment, etc. Most at least indirectly help the needy, by attempting to improve things for everyone.

Then there are further 'charities' that seek to reduce cruelty to animals (I'm thinking more SPCA than 'PETA' here, just for clarification). Doesn't really help 'people', unless we want to redefine 'people'.

evildave.people: "If it wants, it's people."

 

[wollery]

Exchange between Loki and Christian

Loki
1. All atheists know god, but deny him.
2. All those who call themselves atheists but have read the gospels know the true of god, but deny him. There are some atheists who are 'true atheists'.
3. There may be some athesits who actually believe and deny god, but there is no pattern to this.

Christian
None of the above. Let's set the record straight. I believe an athiest does not believe in any gods. I believe there is a conviction to this.
I believe the main driver of this conviction is rebellion. This is why the common theme to atheists (including you) is freedom.

Apologies for butting in, but I have to ask - Christian, what do you think atheists are rebelling against?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Christian:

What is the difference?

For starters, a codefied system of principles that have lasted for 2000 years.

So the unfounded belief of the existance of the Christian god is superior because it's old? The belief that the Earth is flat is much, much older.

Or is it that unfounded belief of the existance of the Christian god is superior because a bunch of principles (whatever that means) were written down, based on this belief. If so, I can quickly make a bunch of principles based on the existance of Bigfoot. Or I could refer you to the "principles" of Scientology.

Yes, please show how one unfounded belief is superior to another.

You say unfounded, I say it is not. Christianity is superior to a belief in Bigfoot in many areas.

Of course it is unfounded. Please show me otherwise.

BTW, is being a Christian superior to being a Scientologist? Or a Muslim? Or a Budhist?

Now, you are comparing oranges to oranges. By your question you are talking about individuals. We would have to compare a specific Christian to a specific Muslim or Budhist. And we would have to qualify un which way they are superior. One can't be absolutely superior to the other as a person.

Now, if you change the question to: is Christianity superior to Scientology or Islam or Budhism, then that is a different answer.

And what, pray tell, is the answer if the question is thus changed?

So if everything is now clear, please tell me: Is believing in something for which there is no evidence perfectly reasonable as long as said belief isn't a disadvantage to the life of the believer?

It is reasonable to believe in things for which one has evidence. That others may not accept this evidence is another matter. The advantages come from the belief working in one's life.

If the evidence isn't credible, it isn't evidence.

Oh, and please show me how being a believer is not only not a disadvantage but is actually an advantage.

I.e., is making stuff up (e.g. elves in Elvis outfits live at the center of Jupiter. They are all named Zem) and then believing it OK as long as it isn't detrimental to living a happy life?

You keep constructing this strawman. The answer is obvious and it is not the position I hold. You are attacking an interpretation of what you think I mean, not my position.

I am addressing the actual situation. You have decided to believe in something which there is no reason to suspect is true. Is such a belief a rational and reasonable belief as long as it isn't detrimental to your life?

Is such a belief compatible with a search for truth about how the world works?

The problem is that you are constructing ideas that suit you for purpose destroying them later.

The model that I work with tells me that we both have limited access to what is real. We both go to the distance of what is possible to know. From that point on, you live in a world uncertainty. I live in a world of faith. That I’m deluding myself in that final mile, is inconsequential because, at the end, from your perspective, the outcome is a matter of probability, chance. So if I’ve done as much homework as you have, and at the end, kissing the dice before throwing them is, in your view, a waste of time, it can’t hurt me.

And I’m willing to argue that kissing the dice before throwing them has helped me immensely.

No. You live in world where not knowing something is scary and you therefore decide to make up an answer which comforts you. I live in the real world and although it irritates me that I don't know the whole truth, I'm not willing or capable of inventing an answer which seems comforting and then actually believing it.

I know enough to know that Christianity's version is wrong.

What you believe to be Christianity’s version is wrong. Not the same.

So tell me, what is Christianity's version?

So which parts of the Bible do you find are wrong?

None.

That's impossible. Please read Genesis again.

Eh? An interpretation? Which bits of the Bible are up for interpretation, then?

A lot of parts. Why would you suspend the common rules of literature with the Bible. Some parts of the Bible are literal, some are allegorical, some need context to be interpreted, etc, just like any text that is voluminous.

You must be kidding! Are you saying that the Holy Book itself isn't written in a clear and concise manner as one would expect from an omnipotent god? Are you saying that the bits which can be shown not to conform to reality were therefore clearly meant to be taken metaphorically? Can you show where it says they were meant to be taken thus? Where is the "interpretation protocol" stated? Given the many cults of Christianity which interpret the Bible as they see fit, I somehow suspect this protocol is missing.

Was Jesus really crucified? Or was this just a metaphor for his tax audit? Was he really the son of god? Or was this just a metaphor for his sharp dressing?

He was crucified and He is the Son of God.

How do you know? Why is the stated fact that your god made the world in 7 days to be interpreted metaphorically while the "son of god" status of the carpenter isn't?

How is it a strawman?

Because I would have to defend a position you have constructed. You characterize my position as hard-core pragmatist. I don’t agree with that characterization. First show me that your characterization of me is correct, then I will defend my position.

You already showed it yourself:

...I don’t see how being an atheist is better than being a believer? And if it is not better, why not be a believer? I don’t see any practical advantages to not believing.

QED.

Which bits need the "proper interpretation" to make the slightest sense.

With the proper interpretation, all of it makes sense.

With the proper interpretation, XCJHKTYGFRDTB makes sense.

Either your holy book makes sense as written or it doesn't.

BTW, haven't the bits which require "interpretation" changed throughout the years as new knowledge made it impossible even for true believers to defend their blind belief?

Because you have already decided how certain parts of work without any reason to suspect that what you have decided is true.

This is not true. I have reason to suspect that why I have decided is true.

Give me a clue.

You have decided that humans have souls, without evidence. You have decided that the fate of these souls is determined by an invisible being.

But I do have evidence. It is not the type that can convince you, but it is sufficient for me.

Provide it.

You have decided that wishing ferverently (praying) to this invisible being can magically influence things in the real world.

Yes, I have.

Evidence, please.

You have decided that this being started the Universe. You have decided that life on this planet was likewise created by this magic being. All of this without the slightest evidence. How can you search for the actual truth if you have already decided what the truth is?

You speak of the truth as if it were a small object that one chases to catch. This is not the case.

Knowledge is so vast that, in your life time, you wont be able to even grasp an infinitesimal part of it. Not even an infinitesimal part, will you or I be able to grasp.

Your point is moot, from this perspective. And I suspect you don’t use any examples of the knowledge that is commonly useful to most humans because you will find that we are in equal footing.

That I believe those things to be true, does not impede from learning and acquiring knowledge. The areas of knowledge are so vast and we can’t be right about everything we think is true.

And remember, you still have to function in a world that is impatient an wont stop for you figure out through the scientific method, what choices to make.

Give me a break. You have decided to believe in a random truth which comforts you. You are a believer. Being a believer in a random truth is incompatible with a desire to learn the actual truth, no matter what it is. In my opinion, and don't take this personally, believers are whimps who can't stand on their own two feet and face the world as it is.

Where did I say this? I said that such an unfounded belief would encumber the search for the truth. See above.

If I follow your line of argumentation, you are still wrong because an unfounded belief would encumber the search for a tiny miniscule infinitesimal part of knowledge, not the whole truth.

An unfounded belief encumbers all searches for the truth. It is the antithesis of knowledge.

Presumably. I wonder how they reconcile their belief in a dictated truth and actually searching for the truth.

Wonder no more.

Why, do you have an answer?

A couple of examples of what?

Show me specific examples how your life is better in this exploration.

I already gave you an example. I'm not straighjacketed into a dictated view of how the world works. I can explore the world and base my understanding on what actually takes place.

Oh, and I don't need to pray or slaughter the infidels or other such nonsense.

There is no reason for me to expect otherwise. How is this a straightjacket?

(in relation to no other life but this one) You have a time limit to attain all the knowledge you can. This is infinitesimal. For you, this is a fact. Isn’t searching for the truth important to you? You will only find a miniscule part of it. And part of that infinitesimal part will be wrong.

Having only one life (how many do you expect to have?) I'm in a hurry to learn as much as I can, yes. How is this a straightjacket?

There is no reason for me to expect otherwise. How is this a straightjacket?

(in relation to being free) Because you are not free, you have very limited freedom. You have very little say on what goes on in the your world. But you hold the illusion of freedom, which according to your standards is unfounded.

I can say whatever I want. In what sense am I not as free as someone who believes in an invisible magic being?

No, as a matter of fact, I don't. Most people have a conscience.

(in relation to there are no consequences of negavite action that go unpunished by humans.) Why would you believe in something not physical, material. If someone kills another person and gets away with it. There are absolutely no consequences for this person for his actions. What is the physical rule that states that people will feel anything? What is a conscience? What are the related physical properties to negative actions that go undetected by humans?

A conscience is the part of your brain setup which makes you feel bad if you have done something which you know is wrong. It is entirely physical.

Not sure what you mean. I believe most morals are genetically based.

(in relation to morality being relative to you and you alone.) I’m confused, you don’t choose your morals, they are determined by your genes?

Most of them are, yes.

Why?

(in relation to accepting that other societies behavior are as legitimate as yours based on this last premise.) Well, who are we (from the atheist’s perspective) to dictate moral principles to other societies. For atheists, ethnocentricity is a no no.

I don't need to dictate my morals onto those who have different ones. That is the job description of a missionary.

Obviously my view of what is right or wrong will result in me viewing some things as right and some as wrong.

Obviously. And that’s the point. You cannot impose your views of what is right or wrong to others. The Guarani, historically (not the only tribe either) have killed their children to survive. The mother performs this task. May tribes kill their children who are deformed. From the atheist’s perspective, I see no way you can judge this behavior as bad.

I can judge it as bad if it doesn't conform with my morals, just as a believer can. In the case you describe (killing deformed offspring) it doesn't, though.

How is that a straightjacket in regard to searching for the truth about the workings of this Universe?

What is right or wrong? What is good? From where would you get the compass of what is right or wrong? Is monogamy right or wrong? If you speak to most women (atheist or not) they will say, that polygamy is not right for them. If you speak to most men (atheist or not, and if they are truly honest) they might have a different view.

Don’t go so far in the universe. The choices you make everyday, here on earth gives you your straightjacket.

If you believe you have no right to impose your morality on others, then you must let the Guaranis be.

The Catholic Church believed on imposing morality on others as do I. This gives a very different approach to life.

Now, before responding to my assertion (be outraged) that I believe on imposing morality on others, think about it.

From my relations to atheists, I have found that many like cursing a lot. (maybe is this false sense of freedom). Yet, morality was imposed on them right here on this website. I agree with this imposition. See, you are not free to curse in here. You have to follow others morality.

This is good.

Once again, how is my view of what is morally right or wrong a straightjacket in the search for the truth?

The only way I can imagine is if we discuss experiments on living things. Well, forgive me for having empathy. And how is this a limit which believers don't have?

 

[evildave]

Apologies for butting in, but I have to ask - Christian, what do you think atheists are rebelling against?

"What do you got?"
(Gratuitous movie quote of the day.)
.

 

[Christian]

Evildave wrote:
What of followers who revere Christian teachings, but fail on one or more of your tests? It's certain that there are 'other.Christians' who have more stringent definitions of what a 'Christian' must be, and that you might fail on one or more of their points for. There are others who have a completely different set of points for their definitions.

From my (outsider) perspective, I can't really remove one Christian from another. The conflicting definitions have only one common denominator, and that's the label. I can only judge from the most liberal of standards for what constitutes a 'Christian'.

The definitions span from fairly neutral (Unitarian Universalist) UU.Christian definitions, to the (Rapture Ready) RR.Christian definitions, to some genuinely creepy people (GC.Christian?).

A few variables for illustration...

Door-To-Door vs Public Space Lurkers vs (for lack of a better term) 'Well Behaved'
Literal vs Interpreted
Liberalism vs Fundamentalism
'Doomsday' vs 'Judgment' vs 'Return'
Works vs Saved
Fate vs Choice

Perhaps this could be charted in some way that made it clear. I'm not sure how. People won't even agree on the categories that matter.

The notation is helpful, I think. Perhaps some better form of it could be derived?

How to tell what sort of 'Christian' it is we're really talking about, trivially?

I have presented what the Bible says is the minimum requirement to be a Christian. I think most Christians would agree with that.

But what of 'charities' which have other goals? There are organisations that fight for human rights, environment, etc. Most at least indirectly help the needy, by attempting to improve things for everyone.

Then there are further 'charities' that seek to reduce cruelty to animals (I'm thinking more SPCA than 'PETA' here, just for clarification). Doesn't really help 'people', unless we want to redefine 'people'.


No definition can be perfect, but the general idea is helping others directly or indirectly. I do make a distinction on animals though.


wollery wrote:
Apologies for butting in, but I have to ask - Christian, what do you think atheists are rebelling against?

Mainly authority.



DanishDynamite wrote:
So the unfounded belief of the existance of the Christian god is superior because it's old? The belief that the Earth is flat is much, much older.

Because it remains relevant after all that time. The belief the earth is flat did not survive did it. Christianity is bigger than ever and more relevant than ever.

Or is it that unfounded belief of the existance of the Christian god is superior because a bunch of principles (whatever that means) were written down, based on this belief. If so, I can quickly make a bunch of principles based on the existance of Bigfoot. Or I could refer you to the "principles" of Scientology.

You would be so lucky as your writings pass the test of time. Consider only one such relevant issue as Israel.

Go ahead, choose a country, anyone you wish. Put it in your writings and say it will remain relevant to prove the writing correct. Then, wait 2000 years to see if the country (people) you chose are still around to make your writing relevant.

Of course it is unfounded. Please show me otherwise.

I see the force of Christian movement, its relevance as proof of its superiority. How many people can invent systems of belief but most don’t hold up to time or relevance.

The Bible, today, is the most printed and translated book of all times. Christianity is the most powerful force in human history, still today.

And what, pray tell, is the answer if the question is thus changed?

Well, if you speak about any statistics, Christianity is superior.

If the evidence isn't credible, it isn't evidence.

Credibility is a subjective matter. And many things that can’t be proven scientifically still are true.

Oh, and please show me how being a believer is not only not a disadvantage but is actually an advantage.

I’m not going to argue this position. The only position I’m going to argue is that we are at least in equal footing.

I am addressing the actual situation. You have decided to believe in something which there is no reason to suspect is true. Is such a belief a rational and reasonable belief as long as it isn't detrimental to your life?

You keep saying there is no reason to suspect is true. That is what’s not true.

No. You live in world where not knowing something is scary and you therefore decide to make up an answer which comforts you. I live in the real world and although it irritates me that I don't know the whole truth, I'm not willing or capable of inventing an answer which seems comforting and then actually believing it.

This is empty statement. It doesn’t mean anything. Where do I live, I an imaginary world? I live in the same real world you do. I don’t see how your life is any better than mine.


So tell me, what is Christianity's version?

There is a Creator, a first mover. That’s Christianity’s version.

That's impossible. Please read Genesis again.

Why impossible?

You must be kidding! Are you saying that the Holy Book itself isn't written in a clear and concise manner as one would expect from an omnipotent god? Are you saying that the bits which can be shown not to conform to reality were therefore clearly meant to be taken metaphorically? Can you show where it says they were meant to be taken thus? Where is the "interpretation protocol" stated? Given the many cults of Christianity which interpret the Bible as they see fit, I somehow suspect this protocol is missing.

Listen, if you can’t get the idea that the Bible contains tons of different styles of writing, I’m not going to spend time in showing you.

How do you know? Why is the stated fact that your god made the world in 7 days to be interpreted metaphorically while the "son of god" status of the carpenter isn't?

I didn’t say the creation story is metaphorical. It is very incomplete if you had wanted a science account, it is good enough for the purpose it served.

With the proper interpretation, XCJHKTYGFRDTB makes sense.

Either your holy book makes sense as written or it doesn't.

There isn’t a single voluminous complex book of any kind where all makes sense as written. Have you ever heard of context, reference, literally figures of speech. Read Proverbs, Psalms, Ecclesiastics.

You have decided that wishing ferverently (praying) to this invisible being can magically influence things in the real world.

Yes, I have.
Evidence, please.

I see my prayers being answered. I am witness to this.

Give me a break. You have decided to believe in a random truth which comforts you. You are a believer. Being a believer in a random truth is incompatible with a desire to learn the actual truth, no matter what it is. In my opinion, and don't take this personally, believers are whimps who can't stand on their own two feet and face the world as it is.

You know what, I do take it personally. You words are like balloons full of hot air. “Learn the actual truth” means nothing. It is just an empty expression. I face the world at least as good as you do, that at the very least.

An unfounded belief encumbers all searches for the truth. It is the antithesis of knowledge.

Now you give me a break. This is nonsense. Again, the truth to you is like a prize you are chasing. You speak like you can have even a glimpse of reality. If you have as much as that, you can consider yourself lucky.

I already gave you an example. I'm not straighjacketed into a dictated view of how the world works. I can explore the world and base my understanding on what actually takes place.
That means nothing. You can explore the world and base your understanding on what actually takes place. What does that mean? You actually go out and do some exploration, like Columbus or Marco Polo?

Having only one life (how many do you expect to have?) I'm in a hurry to learn as much as I can, yes. How is this a straightjacket?

The straightjacket is the notion that you believe that being in a hurry can make any difference.

I can say whatever I want. In what sense am I not as free as someone who believes in an invisible magic being?
No you are not free to say whatever you want. And you are not free to do many things you would want.
I didn’t say a believer is more free than you are.

A conscience is the part of your brain setup which makes you feel bad if you have done something which you know is wrong. It is entirely physical.

Keep wishing. If this were true, we wouldn’t need a punitive system. Jurisprudence shows time and again that most people who commit wrongdoings are only remorseful after they have been caught. Contrary to popular beliefs, most crimes go unpunished by the human legal system. I rather trust the system for my protection than anyone’s conscience.

Most of them are, yes.
Dream on, atheist morality is as diverse as individual atheists.

Once again, how is my view of what is morally right or wrong a straightjacket in the search for the truth?

If you believe something is morally wrong and a fellow atheist believes it is morally right. You have no way of assuring yourself any kind of protection from his/her actions. Because you don’t believe in imposing your morality on others, you are in constant danger. Or you are the constant danger.

 

[wollery]

wollery wrote:
Apologies for butting in, but I have to ask - Christian, what do you think atheists are rebelling against?

Christian answered:
Mainly authority.

Whos authority? (or what authority?)

 

[Christian]

wollery wrote:
Whos authority? (or what authority?)

That depends on each atheist, I guess. We have to know the personal story to answer that question.

The common theme is that now they are free, they have been liberated, etc.

They seem to speak about a journey from slavery to freedom.