The Christian Thread!

[SkinWalker]

Now where have I hear that analogy made before... hmm....

 

 

But what a powerful analogy it is!

[Valter]

I never really wanted to get into this debate but oh well...

 

I don't see how your comment about the proved/unproved nature of your, or any other, god has on the passage of mine that you quoted. I made no reference to this. With regard to that other debate of evolution, only the under-educated and those who believe their mythology is threatened and thus deny it believe evolution to be anything other than a fact. That debate can be accessed in my signature.

 

I apologise, I did not present my argument very well. I will try not to make that mistake again.

 

 

My bet is that your parents and the culture you grew up in is where you draw your "knowledge" of whatever god you believe in. If I'm wrong, then you are an anomaly since the vast majority of all religious adherents inherit the mind virus of their particular religion from their parents and their dominating culture.

 

Unfortunately you lose the bet, my father is Catholic and my mother is "Non-Denominational". The Chuch I go to is "Non-Denominational" as well. My own interpretation of the Bible has led me to believe that the Protestant point of view is the most accurate.

 

I acept Protestantism over the other three branches of Christianity for a number of reasons. I believe Christ is the only mediator between God and His people instead of the Pope or "Saints" or Mother Mary.. In this branch of Christianity it is taught that works do not apply to ones' salvation, that only the blood of Jesus Christ and accepting His teachings as truth can save us. Lastly, Protestants believe in the Grace of God, in other words no one is worthy of salvation and everyone deserves to go to Hell, but God sent His son to die for us so that we may spend eternity in Heaven.

 

I belive in this "poppycock" despite what my Parents and Church taught me. If you were to ask me why I believe in Christianity I would say it's because my faith in Christ has helped through some hard times in my life. Reading the Bible gives me strength each day. My faith has shaped me into the person I am today.

 

Those that allow facts to pass them by rather than influence their worldviews find themselves continuing to follow the religious cults they are born to, without examining other faiths and philosophies and without inquiry into their own religion. Indeed, nearly every religion has a common attribute: inquiry and criticism is taboo. It simply would not do to have adherents question their religious cults and the doctrines they are based upon.

 

What facts are you refering to exactly?

[Jae Onasi]

The Christianity vs. Atheism debate is very interesting. It's also unfortunately one that I don't have time to delve into fully because I have a massive project due Oct. 1 and a final report in mid-Oct for it.

I _might_ be able to do a debate if we break it down into small parts, otherwise I have to wait til after mid Oct.

[Nedak]

Well in the Bible it says the reason is because God loved us so much that he made us superior to all the other creatures and gave us free will. We don't really know why he didn't put us on other planets but it probably falls within the same answer.

 

Then why God make other planets, if we are supose to be the only beings?

[SkinWalker]

To give us astrology, of course. [/sarcasm]

[Jeff]

Well no one really knows the answer to that I suppose. I do believe that somewhere out there there is life, but how far away and how intelligent I don't know.

[Jae Onasi]

To give us astrology, of course. [/sarcasm]

 

Or so we could sit here and argue about it on LucasForums.

[Nedak]

Well no one really knows the answer to that I suppose. I do believe that somewhere out there there is life, but how far away and how intelligent I don't know.

 

Wouldn't the belief of other beings be against Christianity?

[Valter]

Then why God make other planets, if we are supose to be the only beings?

 

Perhaps He made all of the different planets to display His wisdom and power and maybe He's creative, you know being a creator and all that.

[Darth Andrew]

Indeed, nearly every religion has a common attribute: inquiry and criticism is taboo.

Sign. If only you knew.

A teapot in orbit around the sun has also never been disproven, nor has it been proven. Are you prepared to believe in that teapot simply because you cannot disprove it?

Science can prove whether a teapot can or cannot orbit the sun, as it is part of the physical world. A god, however, is of the supernatural, thus the existance of a god can never be proved or disproved.

Wouldn't the belief of other beings be against Christianity?

How?

[Jeff]

Wouldn't the belief of other beings be against Christianity?

I don't know, I haven't learned anything about that, but I don't know if it would change my views.

[Pho3nix]

http://www.break.com/index/islam_vs_christianity2.html

 

[Joetheeskimo]

Wouldn't the belief of other beings be against Christianity?

 

Christians believe God to be more powerful than we can humanly fathom. Who are we to say God would constrain himself to one tiny planet, and one tiny group of tiny people? The universe is infinite, isn't it?

[Kurgan]

It might be infinite, or it might not. Or there might be more than one universe. But none of those possibilities would rule out there being a God or that Christianity could be true.

[Joetheeskimo]

Nor was I suggesting that....

[SkinWalker]

It might be infinite, or it might not. Or there might be more than one universe. But none of those possibilities would rule out there being a God or that Christianity could be true.

 

And yet these nor any other information logically imply that a god must exist any more than there is data to support the notion of the Stay-Puff Marshmellow Man as creator and caretaker; or that the universe is simply infinitely large as well as infinitely old, thereby requiring no creator at all or a god to manage it.

[90SK]

Refusing to even consider the possibility that there may be/have been some sort of divine presence in the universe is just as ignorant as blindly believing in a specific entity. We don't know anything about the origin of the universe and the life within it.

[TK-8252]

Refusing to even consider the possibility that there may be/have been some sort of divine presence in the universe is just as ignorant as blindly believing in a specific entity.

 

Show me evidence and I'll consider it.

 

We don't know anything about the origin of the universe and the life within it.

 

Unless you buy into that "science" nonsense that non-believers are always spreading...

[SkinWalker]

Refusing to even consider the possibility that there may be/have been some sort of divine presence in the universe is just as ignorant as blindly believing in a specific entity.

 

I certainly consider a "divine presence" as a possibility. So is the Stay-Puff Marshmellow Man. I simply see no evidence to get overly expectant of either of these *or* any other infinite number of explanations.

 

We don't know anything about the origin of the universe and the life within it.

 

We know a lot about the universe, but I'll concede there's a lot we don't know. At least I'm willing to say, "I don't know." Cult members of the world's religions aren't willing to do this. They think they "know." And aren't willing to concede ignorance. Not knowing the origin of the universe is hardly reason to subscribe to magical explanations.

[Jae Onasi]

A civil debate involves having a certain level of respect for the opposing viewpoint(s). I am not going to treate atheism with disdain. Those who believe in atheism obviously feel very strongly about it, and I respect that right. However, I happen to believe strongly in Christianity. While I find it faintly amusing that some consider belief in God analogous with belief in magic, a cartoon marshmallow character or some floating teapot in space, I find it also rather disrespectful. You can argue your points without making fun of someone's belief (or lack thereof) in God.

 

Now with that being said, I have a little philosophy digging to do before I can adequately address the question of 'why believe in a God?' with a better answer than 'I can see the evidence of God's presence around me.' That's a rational question to ask.

[90SK]

Show me evidence and I'll consider it.

 

So, what you're saying is: If there isn't solid evidence that something exists, you don't believe in it?

 

 

Unless you buy into that "science" nonsense that non-believers are always spreading...

 

Ah, okay. I forgot scientists had already plumbed the murky depths of creation and retrieved all the critical answers.

 

Maybe you can tell me all about how the universe came into existence, and better educate me so I won't make foolish invalid statements.

[TK-8252]

So, what you're saying is: If there isn't solid evidence that something exists, you don't believe in it?

 

Usually I only believe something though if there's actual proof. Evidence isn't always enough, but at least a shred of some would help.

 

Ah, okay. I forgot scientists had already plumbed the murky depths of creation and retrieved all the critical answers.

 

Maybe you can tell me all about how the universe came into existence, and better educate me so I won't make foolish invalid statements.

 

I'm not a scientist, and I'm not going to pretend to be one.

[SkinWalker]

While I find it faintly amusing that some consider belief in God analogous with belief in magic, a cartoon marshmallow character or some floating teapot in space, I find it also rather disrespectful. You can argue your points without making fun of someone's belief (or lack thereof) in God.

 

My philosophy in life is that religion shouldn't be shielded from the same tools of criticism, inquiry, and skepticism that other human endeavors seem to find with little or no quarrel. I'm sure those of particular political persuasions find it offensive that their politics are criticized and questioned, yet society as a whole accepts this. I'm sure that pedophiles are offended that those not afflicted with their deviant desires dare question their motives. I'm not in any way comparing religion to pedophilia, but showing that "offense" is often an emic and even ethnocentric perspective. Perhaps a more fitting analogy is the Islamic adherent that is offended by the practices of Western, Christian women which range from the clothes they wear to the positions of authority they attain in society. The Muslim is "offended," yet we do not yield to their sensibilities.

 

My criticism of religion as "magic" is a fair one and my analogy of the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man is likewise a fair one. I'm afraid I cannot offer my apology if you are offended, for this is my position; my argument; and my story. I'm sticking to it. As Lord Reith once remarked, "there are those for whom it is one's duty to offend." Religion is one of the most pervasive human endeavors and it permeates every culture in some form or another. Most importantly, religion has the potential, as history has demonstrated so painfully, to influence large numbers of people, including entire populations, for good or for bad. Any human institution or endeavor with this much power and potential should be carefully scrutinized and the tough questions asked of it always.

 

Ironically, the most significant and pervasive human endeavor is the one that is most likely to be tolerated without inquiry or dissent: a human failing that has resulted in much pain and suffering in history.

[SkinWalker]

Ah, okay. I forgot scientists had already plumbed the murky depths of creation and retrieved all the critical answers.

 

Maybe you can tell me all about how the universe came into existence, and better educate me so I won't make foolish invalid statements.

 

 

This is a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance. Not knowing how the universe came into existence or retrieving all the critical answers from the "depths of creation" (whatever that is), doesn't imply that a god is necessary. Nor does it imply that one is unnecessary.

 

A god or gods is certainly possible, but what TK is saying is that there is simply no more reason to believe in a god or gods than there is a magical, invisible teapot orbiting the sun. Or a Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man that hides on the dark side of Jupiter. Or an invisible, incorporeal dragon that lives in my garage. Each of these has the same quantity and quality of evidence as any of humanities "gods."

 

Applying the explanation that "a god did it" is a cop-out, illogical, and nonsensical when asking questions that have meaning. Cosmologists and astronomers actually *do* have some very good ideas of the origins of the universe, though they admittedly have many more questions than answers. This implies only that there is more knowledge to be gained, not that there is some magic involved in "creation." It may be that the universe is simply infinitely old. After all, most people have little problem imagining that time can go on to infinity in a forward motion (the future). Why not in a backward motion (the past)?

 

Incidentally, relying on the "god did it" explanation as a "creator" for the universe creates a paradox: who created this god? Who created the creator's god? Who created the creator's creator's god? ... ? Suddenly, we have an infinite number of "gods." In a universe(s) with so many gods, of what use are mere humans? Moreover, shouldn't we be tripping over this infinite number of gods?

 

The natural, non-god explanations are far more parsimonious.

[90SK]

This is a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance.

 

I don't think I'm claiming that a god exists. I'm advocating that it's feasible, because we couldn’t know either way. Just like your toaster, or marshmallow man, or whatever. In that particular response, I was just demonstrating that there's a great deal about everything that we don't know, not that because we don't know about it obviously god is responsible.

 

The natural, non-god explanations are far more parsimonious.

 

Yes, they are. I could use a rebuttal like "If a god or gods do exist, I'm pretty sure they'd be beyond our comprehension”, but that’s hardly a decent focal point for an argument, considering it is theory based on theory. So, no arguments here.