Hey, I'm New

Foxhound
Theist
Posts: 29
Joined: 2011-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Hey, I'm New

Hello there, my name is Jimmy Prescott and I'm a Christian. I found this site while I was writing a paper on my beliefs, and thought it would be interesting to join in on some blogs. I'm eighteen (senior in high school) and don't know TOO much, but believe that doubts should be followed to their logical conclusion, as is said in Timothy Keller's the Reason for God. After all, if my beliefs cannot stand up under pressure, then why would they be worth believing?? My only concern is that the posts that I've read through haven't seemed entirely civil, lol. Honestly, I earnestly believe that everyone is in need of salvation, and my true motivation, aside from learning effective apologetics, is to try and effectively show what I believe to be the truth. I look forward to talking with everyone here, as the members seem to have good reasoning skills and pretty good evidence for their cause.

Thanks - Jimmy


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle

TGBaker wrote:

Well I do sin with dark chocolate.

 

Yup. Me, too.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Foxhound wrote:butterbattle

Foxhound wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Foxhound wrote:
True, we HAVE insticts, but these are like the keys on a piano. Our sense of morality, the sense of right and wrong that is rooted in us, is like the sheet of music that is being played, as C.S. Lewis puts it.

I don't agree with this analogy. 

Our sense of morality is based partly on our instincts and partly on our environment; morality is not some spiritual thing that is independent of our instincts, whatever that even means.

Ultimately, what we consider 'right' or 'wrong' is just what we like or don't like. So, I see morality as nothing more than an abstraction of our preferences; it's the same as expressing your preferences for ice cream flavors. Except, instead of saying 'I like chocolate more than vanilla,' we say, 'Chocolate is absolutely better than vanilla and whoever likes vanilla more is wrong!' So, in a sense, imo, the entire concept of morality is a really intuitive category error, attaching truth values to subjective feelings.      

 

One thing that is wrong with what you're saying is that personal preference does not prevail in morals. We are actually most conscious of morals when we're acting based on a preference that we know to be wrong. For example, if there is a man drowning in a river, would you not admit that you would have an urge to jump in to save him, although you preference, based on you instict of self preservation, is to stay on shore so you don't drown as well. This is not a matter of preference, but an act of rooted morality that is contrary to animal instict.

 

As for you evolution v. creationism question, I'm a creationist. Evolution is a theory that is pitted against a law - the law of entropy. To believe evolution you must assume that the law of entropy does not apply, and it is therefore not scientific in my opinion.

Actually helping another of your species including jumping in water to save a fellow drowning is found in the animal world and is on film concerning several ape species. There are many things that run far from entropy. The sun increases in complexity in that it makes complex elements from hydrogen.  Stochastic processes and dissipative structures all move away from an entropic state by capitalizing on maintaining its structure by displacing the entropy into the environment. I suggest you read the 1977 nobel prize winner on thermodynamics, Iya Prigogene.  A good book to start on is Order out of Chaos or just google it to wikipedia.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Foxhound
Theist
Posts: 29
Joined: 2011-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Foxhound wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Foxhound wrote:

 well, I tried >_< I'm sorry you feel that way. And that's not a sarcastic remark by the way.

 

I'm sorry about the way you feel, too. Because even though you understand god acts violently and in a manner that is morally inconsistent, you turn your morals off when you think about him. Did he scare you into this?

 

what you see as morally inconsistent is more than likely otherwise if we look at the big picture. Which neither of us can do. Now both of us are making claims on faith. I say God's actions are not inconsistent, based on a view of everything, you say they are, based on teh narrow view that each of us can see.

 

Causing suffering is considered immoral - by me at any rate - and by the ten commandments. So a god who deliberately causes such suffering is, in my opinion, immoral.  Is murdering those who don't agree with you wrong? Is torture wrong? Is coercion wrong? Are threats wrong? You are seriously fine with god dabbling in all these? How is that? Do you claim to be a moral person?

What can you see of god, Jimmy, that I cannot? You have all the same sense data inputs I have and no more. What is this picture of everything you claim to see? Do you mean a picture tinted by blindly accepting religious dogma on face value? I'm the child of an evangelical preacher and a missionary. I know exactly what it feels like to be a christian. But that feeling is not the knowable truth.

 

 

 

I'm not claiming to see anything more than you do. I'm placing this particular issue on my faith that the plans and actions that God carries out are greater than what my data sensory can percieve. I cannot know all of the suffering that all of the generations throughout history have felt, but based on the fact that I believe that the Bible is true, and that the Bible says that God is just, and I know this God personally...I can have faith that those actions that He undertakes are ouside of my bounds of knowledge. What more can anyone expect when dealing with an omnipotent God?


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Foxhound wrote:Now, about

Foxhound wrote:

Now, about God's omnipotence, it should be understood that He provides for the greater good in the end. The "greater good defense" if you will. This means that, although things as we see it are a mess, God's plan is greater. Everything will find justice.

Isn't God just morally right because he is more powerful than anyone else? Doesn't might make right?

If you or me have a different moral code than God, you must say it's wrong because he has more power over life and death. It's just like a policeman can enforce a moral code only because he and all his buddies have guns.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Crumbs, Jimmy.

Foxhound wrote:

 

The whole world is groaning with sin. This means that all of creation is paying the price because we aren't living the way that we are MADE to. So you just admitted that torturing babies is wrong. There is truth in that, correct? so consider this truth, along with all of the others that you can think of, and let's call it a moral law Eye-wink This moral law is like programming in a computer. Well, just like a computer, if the programming is not being followed for some reason or another, which it is not, because people are sinning every day, then everything starts going haywire. That's waht's happened to the world.

Now, about God's omnipotence, it should be understood that He provides for the greater good in the end. The "greater good defense" if you will. This means that, although things as we see it are a mess, God's plan is greater. Everything will find justice.

 

Some one did a real number on you, didn't they.

Don't worry, mate. The world is not groaning with sin.

Crimes rates are falling, there are fewer wars than at any time in recorded history. Life expectancy has never been longer. Healthcare never better. Education rates never higher. Sure, there's work to do and we face threats.

But fear not. Out of the depths of darkness and despair will be born again the glory of mankind.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Foxhound wrote:TGBaker

Foxhound wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

 

 

If you say that the whole species has fallen then you are making claims about everyone including each and everyone of us here. Well prove to me I'm fallen. Where's this original sin apart from some mythic creation story???

 

 

Christianity only begins to speak once the recipient accepts that they are in need of repentence. That's an issue you'll have to deal with yourself, no amount of arguing can convince you unless that part of you is open :/

Actually it is a proposition that you made earlier. That we all are sinners... criminals.... As to metanoia 9 repentence0 a change of mind. That is supposedly an accurance from one like yourslef presenting the gospel message or kerygma.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey there

 

Foxhound wrote:

"...that the plans and actions that God carries out are greater than what my data sensory can percieve."

 

Jimmy, could you explain how it is possible to know things your sense data cannot perceive - what are these things you are talking about?

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Foxhound
Theist
Posts: 29
Joined: 2011-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Foxhound wrote:

 

The whole world is groaning with sin. This means that all of creation is paying the price because we aren't living the way that we are MADE to. So you just admitted that torturing babies is wrong. There is truth in that, correct? so consider this truth, along with all of the others that you can think of, and let's call it a moral law Eye-wink This moral law is like programming in a computer. Well, just like a computer, if the programming is not being followed for some reason or another, which it is not, because people are sinning every day, then everything starts going haywire. That's waht's happened to the world.

Now, about God's omnipotence, it should be understood that He provides for the greater good in the end. The "greater good defense" if you will. This means that, although things as we see it are a mess, God's plan is greater. Everything will find justice.

 

Some one did a real number on you, didn't they.

Don't worry, mate. The world is not groaning with sin.

Crimes rates are falling, there are fewer wars than at any time in recorded history. Life expectancy has never been longer. Healthcare never better. Education rates never higher. Sure, there's work to do and we face threats.

But fear not. Out of the depths of darkness and despair will be born again the glory of mankind.

 

 

 

 

The world is in fact growning with sin. We will never reach perfection here. Sure, we may become more strict on crime rates here in the U.S., but I see enough evil every day to know that we're not in a good situation. And other place sin the world are even worse by the way.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Foxhound wrote:Jeffrick

Foxhound wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

Foxhound wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

Foxhound wrote:

Thanks for the welcome, sir Smiling There aren't any specific questions on my mind at the moment actually, I just sorta stumbled onto this site and wasn't really looking for answers to any particular questions. Anything that you might like to ask, though, since we're on the subject?

 

 

                  I'd like to ask,  what kind of christian are you?  Liberal  --  YEC  --  easy going.  What is your take on science,  evolution or creation? What part of the country do you live in. Toronto Canada here.

 

I live in Florida. My denomination is Christian and Missionary Alliance, which is between Protestant and Baptist. Pretty mush, we take the Bible literally. I believe that Christian doctrine can be proven just as well as anything else; the concept of pure faith has been employed too mush in the U.S. and is not a strong Christian value, in my opinion. But it's still extemely necessary, don't get me wrong. Science is a tool for both sides, but it can't give all the answers in any case.

Hopw that answered your question Eye-wink

 

 

                       I checked the C & M allience web site,  they  claimed to be pentecostal in nature.  Christian doctrine is not something that has to be proven; by definition if you follow the doctrine then you are a christian, it is not a case of proof v. disproof; it is a case of belief v. disbelief.

 

 

                       Science is not a tool for both sides;  what sides?   Theology and science are two very different courses of study.  Theists trying to use science to justify their tenets just look rediculous  [YEC's  etc].  If humans believed the biblical science that Pi =3, then the wheel would not exist and humans would still be living in caves ;  since nothing else could be buildt without the wheel.

 

 

                       btw  Jesus Chritos is NOT a name it is a title;  it means  "gods annointed savior"  ;  there was NO real person by that name. The charactor Jesu christos is a composite from meny sources some real most imaginary;  mostly of Lord Mithras of the Zoarastrian religion.

 

People stop too quickly at the faith answer when things can be elaborated, that's what i'm saying. Also, I think you're assuming that Christianity is not based on facts? That's not true. And I don't really understand your point with the C&MA thing lol.

Anywho, you follow any belief to its root and it ends in faith that cannot be proven. Even your belief that there is no God. Science cannot fully prove either side, even that saide that you've labeled as Science. And since neither of us were there, we are both, making faith claims on Jesus Christ. New historical discoveries are made every day. Tomorrow you'll have another person from the past that Jesus was "probably inspred by." This course of opinioated historical argument won't bring truth to either of us.

What facts is christianity based upon? I have a degree in it and I found it to be built upon myth and fantasy. The onus really is if you claim there is a god to prove it. We simply say we see no evidence of it and when looking for some find none.  There is no faith claim involved from an atheistic position. It is simply a rejection of a faith claim.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Foxhound
Theist
Posts: 29
Joined: 2011-03-10
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Foxhound

TGBaker wrote:

Foxhound wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Foxhound wrote:
True, we HAVE insticts, but these are like the keys on a piano. Our sense of morality, the sense of right and wrong that is rooted in us, is like the sheet of music that is being played, as C.S. Lewis puts it.

I don't agree with this analogy. 

Our sense of morality is based partly on our instincts and partly on our environment; morality is not some spiritual thing that is independent of our instincts, whatever that even means.

Ultimately, what we consider 'right' or 'wrong' is just what we like or don't like. So, I see morality as nothing more than an abstraction of our preferences; it's the same as expressing your preferences for ice cream flavors. Except, instead of saying 'I like chocolate more than vanilla,' we say, 'Chocolate is absolutely better than vanilla and whoever likes vanilla more is wrong!' So, in a sense, imo, the entire concept of morality is a really intuitive category error, attaching truth values to subjective feelings.      

 

One thing that is wrong with what you're saying is that personal preference does not prevail in morals. We are actually most conscious of morals when we're acting based on a preference that we know to be wrong. For example, if there is a man drowning in a river, would you not admit that you would have an urge to jump in to save him, although you preference, based on you instict of self preservation, is to stay on shore so you don't drown as well. This is not a matter of preference, but an act of rooted morality that is contrary to animal instict.

 

As for you evolution v. creationism question, I'm a creationist. Evolution is a theory that is pitted against a law - the law of entropy. To believe evolution you must assume that the law of entropy does not apply, and it is therefore not scientific in my opinion.

Actually helping another of your species including jumping in water to save a fellow drowning is found in the animal world and is on film concerning several ape species. There are many things that run far from entropy. The sun increases in complexity in that it makes complex elements from hydrogen.  Stochastic processes and dissipative structures all move away from an entropic state by capitalizing on maintaining its structure by displacing the entropy into the environment. I suggest you read the 1977 nobel prize winner on thermodynamics, Iya Prigogene.  A good book to start on is Order out of Chaos or just google it to wikipedia.

 

 

 

In a situation where liklihood of survival is nill?

And entropy says that matter and processes will decay without the help of an ouside force (aren;t we talking bout an outside force here?). And physics oulines the uniform processes by which the universe is governed. I would say that those very organized processes were placed there. Random chance? uhhh...? And let's not forget the goldilocks argument - that if the world were set just a hair of a degree off, there would be no life here on Earth O_o. Sigh...I have school tomorrow -_-


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Foxhound wrote:TGBaker

Foxhound wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Foxhound wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Foxhound wrote:

well, crime is an intersting word for it. I believe that man is fallen, yes. we aren't operating the way that we were designed to- that's the problem

 

Humans are demonstrably acting exactly as they have evolved to. Right and wrong is a balancing act - some people are better at it. Some people have no empathy whatever. I think it's clear that people have the ability to conceptualise universal altruism and morality cults use this improbable benchmark to insist that it's actually possible to behave perfectly to all living beings all the time. This is a blatant untruth. The first time jesus took a bite of a lamb kebab he breached these 'rules'. No one has ever attained universal altrusim. It's impossible.

And conceiving universal altruism does not allow you to exercise the sort of moral inconsistency that lies at the heart of the garden of eden story. There's not a christian I know who would torture or murder another human but they're all so happy for the lord to do so. How does this work, Jimmy? On judgment day when they're pitchforking screaming school kids into the pit, will you intervene?

 

I'm slightly embarrassed to say that i don't know what "altruism" is, but I don't Jesus eating a lamb chop violates heavenly decree, lol. That school boy example is very vivid by the way 0_0 But everyone is given a chance. And I should also say that what we see as evil can be a tool for something else outside of our perception. We can't see everything that happens to everyone, and we can't see everything that happens in consequence. But I can safely say that, whatever the situation, I can trust the God who I believe in to make a better choice than I could. He IS omnipotent after all Eye-wink I don't think I really tackled the argument there did I?

If he is omnipotent and good guy why do babies get tortured in burned in his creation?


 

 

 

The whole world is groaning with sin. This means that all of creation is paying the price because we aren't living the way that we are MADE to. So you just admitted that torturing babies is wrong. There is truth in that, correct? so consider this truth, along with all of the others that you can think of, and let's call it a moral law Eye-wink This moral law is like programming in a computer. Well, just like a computer, if the programming is not being followed for some reason or another, which it is not, because people are sinning every day, then everything starts going haywire. That's waht's happened to the world.

Now, about God's omnipotence, it should be understood that He provides for the greater good in the end. The "greater good defense" if you will. This means that, although things as we see it are a mess, God's plan is greater. Everything will find justice.

Yea well I'll protect those babies from god's immoral difference. I doubt very seriously that the mythical persons Adam and Eve screwed up the whole universe by eating a fruit that gave the knowledge. The truth comes from a simple mental construct. Just as you can know good health... you can know well-being. Imagine a place where everyone suffers as much as possible for as long as possible ( your god's little torture chamber )/ Then any movement from that is a move to well being. It not a matter of some abstract moral truth it is simply a matter of pain / pleasure programming and other instinctual processes being balanced by a linguistically based consciousness. God is not omnipotent if he must wait for a greater good rather than relieving the suffering of innocent or guilty for that matter. He is simply sadistical in his passive watching.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Circularity

Foxhound wrote:


I'm not claiming to see anything more than you do. I'm placing this particular issue on my faith that the plans and actions that God carries out are greater than what my data sensory can percieve. I cannot know all of the suffering that all of the generations throughout history have felt, but based on the fact that I believe that the Bible is true, and that the Bible says that God is just, and I know this God personally...I can have faith that those actions that He undertakes are ouside of my bounds of knowledge. What more can anyone expect when dealing with an omnipotent God?

 

The bible is obviously going to say god is just. It's god's marketing material, not an unbiased review. I think it's a circular argument to say you believe the bible is infallible and because the bible is infallible then god is real and just. It sounds like you are accepting all these things just to keep your convictions afloat.

I understand how it is to feel you have a personal relationship with god. But that relationship is a relationship you are having with your own limbic system inside your own head - it's the anthropomorphism of a concept. Your feelings of oneness with god do not reflect the nature of reality in the slightest way. The rest of what you are saying is simply assertion and assumption.

You said in the OP that you believed in taking questions through to their logical conclusion. This does not seem to be the case. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Foxhound
Theist
Posts: 29
Joined: 2011-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Foxhound wrote:

"...that the plans and actions that God carries out are greater than what my data sensory can percieve."

 

Jimmy, could you explain how it is possible to know things your sense data cannot perceive - what are these things you are talking about?

 

 

 

 

Say, your friend is in a car crash, but you are not there to see it. Later your friend tells you about it. Well, your sensory didn't percieve anything of the accident, but you trust your friend that it happened. Well, I trust the Bible and the claims that it makes as you would trust your friend, for several reasons. I trust that God is just. This particular issue is one of faith, as I said before, that the God of the Bible is in fact as He claims to be.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Foxhound

Foxhound wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Foxhound wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Foxhound wrote:

 well, I tried >_< I'm sorry you feel that way. And that's not a sarcastic remark by the way.

 

I'm sorry about the way you feel, too. Because even though you understand god acts violently and in a manner that is morally inconsistent, you turn your morals off when you think about him. Did he scare you into this?

 

what you see as morally inconsistent is more than likely otherwise if we look at the big picture. Which neither of us can do. Now both of us are making claims on faith. I say God's actions are not inconsistent, based on a view of everything, you say they are, based on teh narrow view that each of us can see.

 

Causing suffering is considered immoral - by me at any rate - and by the ten commandments. So a god who deliberately causes such suffering is, in my opinion, immoral.  Is murdering those who don't agree with you wrong? Is torture wrong? Is coercion wrong? Are threats wrong? You are seriously fine with god dabbling in all these? How is that? Do you claim to be a moral person?

What can you see of god, Jimmy, that I cannot? You have all the same sense data inputs I have and no more. What is this picture of everything you claim to see? Do you mean a picture tinted by blindly accepting religious dogma on face value? I'm the child of an evangelical preacher and a missionary. I know exactly what it feels like to be a christian. But that feeling is not the knowable truth.

 

 

 

I'm not claiming to see anything more than you do. I'm placing this particular issue on my faith that the plans and actions that God carries out are greater than what my data sensory can percieve. I cannot know all of the suffering that all of the generations throughout history have felt, but based on the fact that I believe that the Bible is true, and that the Bible says that God is just, and I know this God personally...I can have faith that those actions that He undertakes are ouside of my bounds of knowledge. What more can anyone expect when dealing with an omnipotent God?

hardly an omnipotent god who can't remove suffering from a world he created. Or he can an he ain't a real nice person.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Foxhound
Theist
Posts: 29
Joined: 2011-03-10
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Foxhound

EXC wrote:

Foxhound wrote:

Now, about God's omnipotence, it should be understood that He provides for the greater good in the end. The "greater good defense" if you will. This means that, although things as we see it are a mess, God's plan is greater. Everything will find justice.

Isn't God just morally right because he is more powerful than anyone else? Doesn't might make right?

If you or me have a different moral code than God, you must say it's wrong because he has more power over life and death. It's just like a policeman can enforce a moral code only because he and all his buddies have guns.

 

He would be right because He made us for a certain reason. This is like saying that you create a robot to perform a certain task, like get you a drink from the fridge, but when you give it free will (for some reason), it runs out of your house and starts killing children. Obviously the robot isn't doing what it's supposed to....


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 Lol, this is too sweet to

 Lol, this is too sweet to pass up... Welcome to the forum Foxhound.  I think someone made the point that your apologetic approach is unorthodox for your brand of Christianity.  Since you follow the bible literally you can hardly appeal to physics or logic.  So what does that leave you? Saying that GoB said so, and hence it must be true is hardly a noteworthy apologetic technique.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
MEP, Jimmy.

 

Foxhound wrote:

And entropy says that matter and processes will decay without the help of an ouside force (aren;t we talking bout an outside force here?). And physics oulines the uniform processes by which the universe is governed. I would say that those very organized processes were placed there. Random chance? uhhh...? And let's not forget the goldilocks argument - that if the world were set just a hair of a degree off, there would be no life here on Earth O_o. Sigh...I have school tomorrow -_-

 

If you want to know more about entropy, visit this site. And don't go on about the 2nd law like it's the latest thing. Next you'll be telling us that Darwin is the last word in evolutionary theory and 150 years of research and technical advance can be set at nought.

 

http://www.lawofmaximumentropyproduction.com/

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Foxhound

Foxhound wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Foxhound wrote:

 

The whole world is groaning with sin. This means that all of creation is paying the price because we aren't living the way that we are MADE to. So you just admitted that torturing babies is wrong. There is truth in that, correct? so consider this truth, along with all of the others that you can think of, and let's call it a moral law Eye-wink This moral law is like programming in a computer. Well, just like a computer, if the programming is not being followed for some reason or another, which it is not, because people are sinning every day, then everything starts going haywire. That's waht's happened to the world.

Now, about God's omnipotence, it should be understood that He provides for the greater good in the end. The "greater good defense" if you will. This means that, although things as we see it are a mess, God's plan is greater. Everything will find justice.

 

Some one did a real number on you, didn't they.

Don't worry, mate. The world is not groaning with sin.

Crimes rates are falling, there are fewer wars than at any time in recorded history. Life expectancy has never been longer. Healthcare never better. Education rates never higher. Sure, there's work to do and we face threats.

But fear not. Out of the depths of darkness and despair will be born again the glory of mankind.

 

 

 

 

The world is in fact growning with sin. We will never reach perfection here. Sure, we may become more strict on crime rates here in the U.S., but I see enough evil every day to know that we're not in a good situation. And other place sin the world are even worse by the way.

Well sin is just a Judeo/Christian concept taken from the world harmateia ( an archery term ) meaning missing the mark.  Evil on the other hand is doing harm against people intentionally like your god in the OT wiping out villages including the animals and children oh but lets keep the virgins for the winning tribe... your god likes virgins doesn't he?


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Foxhound
Theist
Posts: 29
Joined: 2011-03-10
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry everyone, I will

I'm sorry everyone, I will address your arguments in a prompt and orderly fashion tomorrow Eye-wink It's 12:30 here and I have school in 5 hours -_- and a physics quiz *sigh* thanks for the insights though! By the way, in your guys' opinion, am I just being hard-headed or am I actually posing decent arguments?? I don't wanna be the obnoxious guy who doesn't have any business being on here lol. Thanks


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Foxhound wrote:TGBaker

Foxhound wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Foxhound wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Foxhound wrote:
True, we HAVE insticts, but these are like the keys on a piano. Our sense of morality, the sense of right and wrong that is rooted in us, is like the sheet of music that is being played, as C.S. Lewis puts it.

I don't agree with this analogy. 

Our sense of morality is based partly on our instincts and partly on our environment; morality is not some spiritual thing that is independent of our instincts, whatever that even means.

Ultimately, what we consider 'right' or 'wrong' is just what we like or don't like. So, I see morality as nothing more than an abstraction of our preferences; it's the same as expressing your preferences for ice cream flavors. Except, instead of saying 'I like chocolate more than vanilla,' we say, 'Chocolate is absolutely better than vanilla and whoever likes vanilla more is wrong!' So, in a sense, imo, the entire concept of morality is a really intuitive category error, attaching truth values to subjective feelings.      

 

One thing that is wrong with what you're saying is that personal preference does not prevail in morals. We are actually most conscious of morals when we're acting based on a preference that we know to be wrong. For example, if there is a man drowning in a river, would you not admit that you would have an urge to jump in to save him, although you preference, based on you instict of self preservation, is to stay on shore so you don't drown as well. This is not a matter of preference, but an act of rooted morality that is contrary to animal instict.

 

As for you evolution v. creationism question, I'm a creationist. Evolution is a theory that is pitted against a law - the law of entropy. To believe evolution you must assume that the law of entropy does not apply, and it is therefore not scientific in my opinion.

Actually helping another of your species including jumping in water to save a fellow drowning is found in the animal world and is on film concerning several ape species. There are many things that run far from entropy. The sun increases in complexity in that it makes complex elements from hydrogen.  Stochastic processes and dissipative structures all move away from an entropic state by capitalizing on maintaining its structure by displacing the entropy into the environment. I suggest you read the 1977 nobel prize winner on thermodynamics, Iya Prigogene.  A good book to start on is Order out of Chaos or just google it to wikipedia.

 

 

 

In a situation where liklihood of survival is nill?

And entropy says that matter and processes will decay without the help of an ouside force (aren;t we talking bout an outside force here?). And physics oulines the uniform processes by which the universe is governed. I would say that those very organized processes were placed there. Random chance? uhhh...? And let's not forget the goldilocks argument - that if the world were set just a hair of a degree off, there would be no life here on Earth O_o. Sigh...I have school tomorrow -_-

Read Prigogene structure within chaos is spontaneous. not placed.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Foxhound wrote:He would be

Foxhound wrote:

He would be right because He made us for a certain reason. This is like saying that you create a robot to perform a certain task, like get you a drink from the fridge, but when you give it free will (for some reason), it runs out of your house and starts killing children. Obviously the robot isn't doing what it's supposed to....

But if the robot did that, I as the designer would either be incompetent or a criminal. Right? But if I designed a robot know that it would go off and kill people, you would say I was bad. But you have a different standard for God. Why?

Or if the robot was really good at killing, I could make everyone love me and worship me. Anyone who objects would be silenced.

Or I could just make people believe the robot will kill them if they don't go along with my agenda.

Weapons are the ultimate source of morality.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Foxhound

Foxhound wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Foxhound wrote:

"...that the plans and actions that God carries out are greater than what my data sensory can percieve."

 

Jimmy, could you explain how it is possible to know things your sense data cannot perceive - what are these things you are talking about?

 

 

 

 

Say, your friend is in a car crash, but you are not there to see it. Later your friend tells you about it. Well, your sensory didn't percieve anything of the accident, but you trust your friend that it happened. Well, I trust the Bible and the claims that it makes as you would trust your friend, for several reasons. I trust that God is just. This particular issue is one of faith, as I said before, that the God of the Bible is in fact as He claims to be.

If you want to seriously discuss the bible and why it should not be trusted I will be nice and patient and go through all of the fabrications. But if you are going to simply say it is inerrant and not dialogue there really is no need for conversation.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Foxhound wrote:I'm sorry

Foxhound wrote:

I'm sorry everyone, I will address your arguments in a prompt and orderly fashion tomorrow Eye-wink It's 12:30 here and I have school in 5 hours -_- and a physics quiz *sigh* thanks for the insights though! By the way, in your guys' opinion, am I just being hard-headed or am I actually posing decent arguments?? I don't wanna be the obnoxious guy who doesn't have any business being on here lol. Thanks

No you're just repeating programming that many of us had until we actually did objective research into the claims of religions.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey Jimmy

 

Foxhound wrote:

I'm sorry everyone, I will address your arguments in a prompt and orderly fashion tomorrow Eye-wink It's 12:30 here and I have school in 5 hours -_- and a physics quiz *sigh* thanks for the insights though! By the way, in your guys' opinion, am I just being hard-headed or am I actually posing decent arguments?? I don't wanna be the obnoxious guy who doesn't have any business being on here lol. Thanks

 

Thanks for dropping by and good on you for being prepared to go a few rounds with us. Look, I think your beliefs are faith-based and they are the result of a christian upbringing, not the result of a strong understanding of core issues about the nature of reality.

Centrally, you revert to faith as the bulwark of your belief system and you admit this openly, which is a good thing. Obviously, most of us are not going to agree with you. There's no doubt you cherry pick a couple of things that allow you to write off all of science - whole libraries and lifetimes of painstaking research.

It is a fact there are things we do not know. But these questions do not invite the insertion of any personal interpretation into the knowledge gaps. It is acceptable to not know the answers and it is unacceptable for a supernatural doctrine to argue its case on the basis of threat unsupported by any actual facts.

Good arguments are not based on fallacies from force. And morality is not based on religion - it's the other way around.

 

Hey - Good luck in your test.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Foxhound wrote:I'm sorry

Foxhound wrote:

I'm sorry everyone, I will address your arguments in a prompt and orderly fashion tomorrow Eye-wink It's 12:30 here and I have school in 5 hours -_- and a physics quiz *sigh* thanks for the insights though! By the way, in your guys' opinion, am I just being hard-headed or am I actually posing decent arguments?? I don't wanna be the obnoxious guy who doesn't have any business being on here lol. Thanks

If you're serious about apologetics, you should drop the fundamentalist simplistic circular reasoning.  You can't be thought of as an intellectual equal when your argument is, God exists, because the bible says He does, and I believe the bible because it is the word of God.  If you can't get past that, then really you're wasting your time here, and you'll have a hard time convincing anyone in our increasingly skeptic society.  If you want to learn how an atheist thinks, and learn the common arguments against religion, you need to be more open minded.  

The problem with most theist-atheist debates, is that it is one sided.  The atheist is willing to suppose that he may be wrong, a fundamentalist theist would consider it a sin to even suppose such a position.  If you're not willing to take that position you can't present decent arguments.  The amount of time you spend on here really depends on how well you can take criticism.  So far you seem to just disregard it all out of hand, shrug and say god is great... which may work in church, but it makes for an EXTREMELY dull argument. 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Foxhound

Ktulu wrote:

Foxhound wrote:

I'm sorry everyone, I will address your arguments in a prompt and orderly fashion tomorrow Eye-wink It's 12:30 here and I have school in 5 hours -_- and a physics quiz *sigh* thanks for the insights though! By the way, in your guys' opinion, am I just being hard-headed or am I actually posing decent arguments?? I don't wanna be the obnoxious guy who doesn't have any business being on here lol. Thanks

If you're serious about apologetics, you should drop the fundamentalist simplistic circular reasoning.  You can't be thought of as an intellectual equal when your argument is, God exists, because the bible says He does, and I believe the bible because it is the word of God.  If you can't get past that, then really you're wasting your time here, and you'll have a hard time convincing anyone in our increasingly skeptic society.  If you want to learn how an atheist thinks, and learn the common arguments against religion, you need to be more open minded.  

The problem with most theist-atheist debates, is that it is one sided.  The atheist is willing to suppose that he may be wrong, a fundamentalist theist would consider it a sin to even suppose such a position.  If you're not willing to take that position you can't present decent arguments.  The amount of time you spend on here really depends on how well you can take criticism.  So far you seem to just disregard it all out of hand, shrug and say god is great... which may work in church, but it makes for an EXTREMELY dull argument. 

 

This is why I keep suggesting you focus in on the scriptural presuppositions that ground or originate their faith. Deconstruct the truth claims of scripture and you find the primitive world view its absurdity and the blatant fabrication of the writers to create scripture ( Koran too). 


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:This is why I

TGBaker wrote:

This is why I keep suggesting you focus in on the scriptural presuppositions that ground or originate their faith. Deconstruct the truth claims of scripture and you find the primitive world view its absurdity and the blatant fabrication of the writers to create scripture ( Koran too). 

In a case like this, there really is no other approach.  You are of course correct.  For your more elevated apologist however, they would simply cherry pick which parts of the scripture they interpret literally and which metaphorically.  I'm beginning to get a better understanding of the paradigm divide however, your previous comments carry more value with this example. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


mrOriginal
atheist
mrOriginal's picture
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum

Welcome to the forum "Jimmy".  I find your post very interesting.  Very rarely have I met a theist who's agenda is quite like yours.  The usual suspects try and push how they are right, and how we as skeptics are wrong.  The fact that you want to see if your theology can stand up to scrutiny will put your belief system into question.  My natural assumption is why do you feel the need to explore the doubt side?  Asking questions is certainly a great idea for anyone no matter who or what they believe in; if not to have a change of heart, but to be more informed.  Are you are here to try and save a few souls.....or  do you allready have some doubt in your mind that what you have been taught for 18 years might not be true, otherwise, why would you need to see if your belief system can "pass the test".  Good luck young man, I have met some highly intelligent people on this site, and they do not play around.  It can be very easy for you to feel the same way we do when we walk into a church.....provoked and judged....

  Even though I am an Atheist, I was never pushed or persuaded into who and what I am.  You have every right to believe in whatever you choose.  But, you also have the right to read, investigate, think, and research anything that doesn't make sense to you, so that you can come to your own conclusion on what is best for you. 

I look forward to your posts.

 

Mr. O.

"Whoever feels predestined to see and not to believe will find all believers too noisy and pushy: he guards against them."

Friedrich Nietzsche


mrOriginal
atheist
mrOriginal's picture
Posts: 80
Joined: 2011-02-26
User is offlineOffline
The development of the

The development of the Frontal Cortex of the brain since the dawn of time speaks volumes for why we as humans have also evolved morally.  We manage things that cause us pain through our actions and reaction.  Slowly but surely our reaction to the world as our experiences give us the chance to see the difference between right and wrong.  Just like other herd animals, we need food, shelter, water..etc.....but through natural selection there are those of us who are bigger and stronger and defend and manage the herd....Natural Laws have rules.  Animals in the wild do not have speech, but still have ways to communicate in order to perpetuate the species.  We experience pleasure and pain, as we always have since the beggining, but just because we can communicate it does not make it "moral".  Right and wrong may start as "instinct", but, we as humans found a way, through speech to verbalize that which causes pleasure, and that which causes pain.  Too much food makes you fat. Clogs arteries, and kills you faster.  So gluttony is frowned upon.  Too much sex equals STDs.  Violence promotes death....I could go on and on......millions and thousands of years later, the things that have been seen to cause us pain, or death have been turned into a moral code claimed to be inspired by God.  When, in reality, the frontal cortex evolved, the medulla oblongata shrank over time to make us who and what we are.  An example of proof would be the studies on drug addicts.  It is a fact that repeated and prolonged used of drugs and alcohol have an impact on how many times we access the frontal cortex (aka moral center of the brain). Over time, an addict will display behavior based soley on the primal need for the drug, and become more capable of lying, stealing, prostitution etc....The drug use causes the user to access the frontal cortex less and less, therefore moral, rational thought becomes less and less apparrent.  Take that same addict, and studies have shown that after being in recovery from drugs and alcohol, the brain starts to repair the pathways that were damaged and not used for years, via the frontal cortex, and a profound change in behavior is quite evident.  Morality is simply a herd instinct learned over the years for preservation of the species, communicated through speech and behavior patterns.  Babies are born without any sense of right or wrong.  They are a product of their environment, not of the tree of knowledge.

What you described as God's moral law handed down to humans, would mean to say, that we should have the same set of morals given to us as Genesis would describe it, but in case you didn't notice, we have evolved quite a bit from the barbarians our race used to be.  A tree, in a garden, with some fruit, 6,000 years ago has nothing to do with right or wrong.  It is fact that there has been life on this planet for millions and millions of years.  Fossil record..duh!  It is a fact that we have found early human remains much older than 6,000 years.  The men who wrote the bible didn't know what we know now.  If God had truly come to them (being perfect and all knowing), you think he would have mentioned some of these facts to them, so that a few thousand years later, they wouldn't look like idiots....If God is perfect and all knowing, then he shouldn't make mistakes.  However the bible just doesn't hold up under scrutiny.  It was written by ignorant people.  If we were to write the bible in this day in age, 6,000 years from now, we would look like ignorant idiots too......look how far we have come in just the past hundred years...much less what is to come a few thousand years from now. 

"Whoever feels predestined to see and not to believe will find all believers too noisy and pushy: he guards against them."

Friedrich Nietzsche


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Foxhound wrote:And entropy

Foxhound wrote:
And entropy says that matter and processes will decay without the help of an ouside force (aren;t we talking bout an outside force here?).

Do you actually understand what you're saying? What does "decay" mean? How does an "outside force" "help" the matter not "decay?"

For our purposes, we can conclude that entropy always increases by applying statistical mechanics. Imagine that you have a tray with 4 quarters in it, and suppose that all of the quarters start with the "head" side up. If you shake the tray, you will notice that the most common scenario will be that half of the quarters will be heads and half of the quarters will be tails. It is less likely that you will see all of the quarters in the heads position again because there is only 1 state in 16 that would make all of those quarters heads i.e. 1/16. On the other hand, there are 6 possible combinations of making the quarters half heads and half tails. The state of having a certain number of heads/tails is called the "macrostate." Each possible specific combination of heads/tails is called the "microstate." This is not a perfect analogy, but the main point is that entropy is kind of like saying that if you keep "shaking" the system, it'll eventually achieve the macrostate with the greatest multiplicitiy i.e. greatest number of microstates.

So, there's no "intangible" rule which says that stuff "decays." If simply follows from the movement and interaction of matter and energy. E.g. when energy is free to travel between two bodies as heat, the two bodies will eventually go to the same temperature because that is the most likely state. The particles don't purposely move anywhere, but the result is, nevertheless, non-random.

And, it's very important to note that the second law states that entropy always increases in an "isolated" system. This means that entropy can decrease in an open system, as they can receive an external source of energy. The only truly isolated system that we know of is the universe itself, so practically, the second law could be said as the entropy of the universe, as a whole, is always increasing.

Neither evolution nor the Big Bang requires that the entropy of the universe does not increase. Evolution clearly involves entropy decreasing in open systems, but if the claim is just that entropy can never decrease, you might as well argue that water can't freeze and the computer you're typing on is impossible. Organisms are all subject to the second law. In fact, the case could be made that life is in a constant race against the second law; it is, ultimately, why organisms have to eat/drink/breathe/absorb energy from sunlight, etc.

Foxhound wrote:
And let's not forget the goldilocks argument - that if the world were set just a hair of a degree off, there would be no life here on Earth

Ah, fine tuning. The specific argument you're referring to seems to be a statement of the obvious followed by a non sequitur.

Yes, if the conditions on Earth were not suitable for life, then there would be no life on Earth. But so what? That's really the end of the argument. Logically, you cannot use this to derive that the Earth was designed. If we ever found life on another planet, I could claim that God designed that planet too, and it would be an unsound argument for the same reasons. In fact, it's not even justified to assume that life implies design. After all, this is just a probability argument, so assuming that a God would create our planet for the life on it is just question begging and makes the argument kind of disingenuous. How do you know Pluto wasn't the one that was designed? After all, the probability that Pluto would be exactly the way it is is vanishingly small.

It's like claiming that every lottery winner was deliberately chosen by God. Of course, the chance of a specific person winning the lottery is small, but the chance of someone eventually winning is 100%. So, you can't just the point the person that won after they won, and say, "he was chosen by God!"

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Foxhound wrote:My only

Foxhound wrote:
My only concern is that the posts that I've read through haven't seemed entirely civil, lol.

By the way, Jimmy, if you are concerned with 'tone' or 'civility', you can post in the Killl 'Em With Kindness forum, where there are specific rules for keeping it clean. The rest of the forums are a place where people can speak their minds without walking on eggshells, as long as they stick to the basic forum rules.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The law of Entropy only

The law of Entropy only applies to a closed system, with no input of energy.

To avoid going against this physical principle, the emergence and evolution of life on the surface of the Earth does indeed require an input of energy.

Fortunately for us, there is such a source, flooding the surface of the with massive amounts of energy every day. Its called "the Sun".

In the Universe as a whole, it is indeed 'running down' (a more accurate term than 'decaying' ). However, its gonna take quite a while for this to happen, and for us to release and dissipate as low-level heat all the energy stored in various atomic nucleii, such as hydrogen/deuterium/tritium, and uranium, as well as harvesting the energy pouring out of the Sun.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Foxhound wrote:Hello there,

Foxhound wrote:

Hello there, my name is Jimmy Prescott and I'm a Christian. I found this site while I was writing a paper on my beliefs, and thought it would be interesting to join in on some blogs. I'm eighteen (senior in high school) and don't know TOO much, but believe that doubts should be followed to their logical conclusion, as is said in Timothy Keller's the Reason for God. After all, if my beliefs cannot stand up under pressure, then why would they be worth believing?? My only concern is that the posts that I've read through haven't seemed entirely civil, lol. Honestly, I earnestly believe that everyone is in need of salvation, and my true motivation, aside from learning effective apologetics, is to try and effectively show what I believe to be the truth. I look forward to talking with everyone here, as the members seem to have good reasoning skills and pretty good evidence for their cause.

Thanks - Jimmy

Well dude, we can have philosophical and moral arguments, but IMO the easiest way to debunk Christianity is just to focus on the core beliefs of the religion:

 

1. God exists just because he does - where's the proof? And asking "prove that he doesn't" doesn't hold water. It would be like me saying "prove that Zeus doesn't really exist - unless you can prove he doesn't, then it's rational for me to believe in him".

2. The Bible is true - Prove it. Which version of the Bible? (ex. Protestant vs. Catholic vs. Orthodox). Which verses are meant to be taken literally, and which ones aren't. How do you know these verses are literal but these ones aren't.

3. It's all about faith, not proof. - If it's all about faith, then Christianity is no different than Islam or any other religion. But if I ask a Christian if this is the case, they'll reply "no Christianity is true for a fact" or something. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If it's "just about faith" then there can't be any proof that it's "true" or "false". If it's based on facts, then what are the "facts", and do they really hold any water?

With this one out of the way there's not really much left to debate as far as "Christianity" goes. You could still debate morality and religion all you want, but the core beliefs of Christianity just don't hold up to any scrutiny.

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Welcome and good luck on

Welcome and good luck on that quiz.

 

If you wish to test your beliefs under scrutiny, I suggest you try to examine why you are a christian in the first place. Why do you believe anything christianity has to say about the world? Everything else (evolution, abortion, young earth, etc) is secondary to your belief in christianity. 

 

A quick way is to ask yourself why you don't believe in religion 'X'. If you can identify the reasons you don't believe in other religions, you can parallel these reasons to not believe in christianity. 

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Foxhound wrote:Hello there,

Foxhound wrote:

Hello there, my name is Jimmy Prescott and I'm a Christian.

Hi, Jimmy.

Welcome.

Sorry to hear about the Christian thing...

Foxhound wrote:
I found this site while I was writing a paper on my beliefs, and thought it would be interesting to join in on some blogs.

Depends on what you value...

Foxhound wrote:
I'm eighteen (senior in high school) and don't know TOO much...

There's little correlation between age and ignorance, at your age. 

Foxhound wrote:
... but believe that doubts should be followed to their logical conclusion

That's stupid.

Objective matters, can only be resolved, by comprehension of facts derived from scientific testing.

Subjective things are subjective.

Foxhound wrote:
After all, if my beliefs cannot stand up under pressure, then why would they be worth believing??

Ask people who believe in Astrology, why it's worth believing, even though they've seen it fail under even the most simple and basic scrutiny, and maybe you'll begin self actualizing.

Foxhound wrote:
My only concern is that the posts that I've read through haven't seemed entirely civil, lol.

Maybe it's time you grew a pair, Jimmy.

Life is like the Daytona 500. Buckle up, and wear a helmet and a condom. You're less likely to die that way.

Foxhound wrote:
Honestly, I earnestly believe that everyone is in need of salvation

Now you're just being a fucking goof, punk.

If you run around with a mouth like that, you'll probably be wise to have a good dental plan, and medical insurance.*

Foxhound wrote:
...and my true motivation, aside from learning effective apologetics, is to try and effectively show what I believe to be the truth. 

You better learn that some individuals do not like to be solicited, and have a 'line' that they do not like other people to cross.

Refer back to *

Foxhound wrote:
I look forward to talking with everyone here, as the members seem to have good reasoning skills

You haven't done your research, then, if you think we're just 'good'.

 

Foxhound wrote:
and pretty good evidence

We reference scientific data, and peer reviewed scientific papers, to be precise.

Foxhound wrote:
for their cause.

Just for the record, most of us would be more than content to just live in our respective, imperfect little corners of the world.

But you people aren't happy to keep your 'beliefs' and 'preferences' to yourselves, and want to persecute others who you don't approve of, and you want to spread your disinformation, your ignorance, your bigotry, contempt, dogma and mythology in schools as 'alternate' theories to scientific methods that have not currently been falsified by cross examination after cross examination by competing scientists.

So, due to our personal morals and ethics, we've all decided to donate time from our busy lives, to debunk you people, and build a database for other atheists to educate themselves rapidly on the main points that theists don't have proper understanding of, or lie about, and for theists who will learn that the foundations of their beliefs were myths, and their religions were proliferating lie after lie and disinformation after disinformation about virtually everything under the sun.

If you people stuck to your stupid beliefs and STFU in general, about them, like people who believe in Astrology do, there'd be no conflict.

But you people don't.

Maybe if you all learn that religion should be no different than masturbation. Something to keep to yourself, unless somebody wants to know more about your personal masturbation, there'd be less pushing back from the growing number of people who you ignorant fucks would classify as 'sinners'.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris