Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Number37]

Is there objective evidence for the existence of this void you speak of?

Ever heard of String Theory?
If you haven't then do some reading.
If you have then you'll know what the void refers to.

 

[Number37]

Do you consider belief in the tooth fairy equally as valid as not believing in the tooth fairy?

What are you not believing in when you don't believe in the Tooth Fairy?

A: The Tooth Fairy.

 

[Evolved1]

Ever heard of String Theory?
If you haven't then do some reading.
If you have then you'll know what the void refers to.

You said "The unresolved is the void that gets filled by faith/religion/God....including for Atheists."

What does that have to do with string theory?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You said "The unresolved is the void that gets filled by faith/religion/God....including for Atheists."

What does that have to do with string theory?

Put the kettle on.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What are you not believing in when you don't believe in the Tooth Fairy?

A: The Tooth Fairy.

An imagined entity, for whose existence there is no evidence.

Agreed?

But you think that believing in the tooth fairy and not believing in the tooth fairy are equally valid sides of the same coin?

 

[Number37]

An imagined entity, for whose existence there is no evidence.

Agreed?

But you think that believing in the tooth fairy and not believing in the tooth fairy are equally valid sides of the same coin?

Unfortunately you are not capable of understanding the point.

You said "The unresolved is the void that gets filled by faith/religion/God....including for Atheists."

What does that have to do with string theory?

Ever heard of String Theory?
If you haven't then do some reading.
If you have then you'll know what the void refers to.

 

[Evolved1]

Ever heard of String Theory?
If you haven't then do some reading.
If you have then you'll know what the void refers to.

I'm not convinced that you know what you're talking about. Elaborate please.

 

[Evolved1]

An imagined entity, for whose existence there is no evidence.

Agreed?

But you think that believing in the tooth fairy and not believing in the tooth fairy are equally valid sides of the same coin?

If we can't prove or disprove the existence of the tooth fairy, should we be agnostic about her?

Agnositicism is stupid, probably moreso than theism.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

If they're devout Christians, to what extent are they really secular?

They can be as devout as they can be but if they accept that other faiths exist and accept homosexual marriage and most of the other freedoms we enjoy today, even if they worship their God alone, then according to the religious fundamentalist they'd be secular and straying from the precise teachings of a two thousand year old book.

If they are indeed secular, then what do they actually believe?

They might believe in a wide range of things. They might accept same sex marriage and women going to work. They more often than not accept evolution and a world which is far, far older than 6000 years. The religious fundamentalist believes in the word of the Bible, a collection of books that showed glimpses of life as it was lived two thousand years ago. Ditto the even older Jewish Torah, which forms the first part of the Bible. Ditto the later Qur'an. Religious fundamentalists hold these sacred writings as truths to be lived by even in the modern age and so any who depart from them are dammed. Any departure at all.

Can you be secular and still believe in the rapture?

Yeah, you can believe in the Rapture. But if you're still observant despite being secular you usually keep to the beliefs of your particular order. Catholics for instance don't believe in the Rapture. Protestant evangelicals, on the other hand, willingly embrace the idea. Both are Christian orders. Same same but different, as they say in Thailand.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

If we can't prove or disprove the existence of the tooth fairy, should we be agnostic about her?

Agnositicism is stupid, probably moreso than theism.

I'm undecided about the tooth fairy, but who is harmed by my doubt? Same as the big question - is there a God or do we go on into darkness at the end of our lives with all of our memories and experiences suddenly snuffed out?

Agnosticism - the state of being unsure - is far from stupid.

 

[Evolved1]

I'm undecided about the tooth fairy, but who is harmed by my doubt? Same as the big question - is there a God or do we go on into darkness at the end of our lives with all of our memories and experiences suddenly snuffed out?

Agnosticism - the state of being unsure - is far from stupid.

Nobody is harmed by agnosticism, but it's a cowardly position to take.

There's no objective evidence for the existence of biblegod, and plenty of evidence against. That's a rational evidence based position.
There's no evidence for biblical creationism, and plenty of evidence against. That's another rational evidence based position.

Agnostics muddy the waters by placing two unbalanced (in terms of probability) opposing positions on an equal footing.

Are you agnostic about other conspiracy theories? Is it possible the devil planted fossils to fool evolution scientists since you can't be sure he didn't?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

As I tried to explain above, consciously rejecting faith/religion/God and preventing those things from filling the void is the same thing as consciously filling it with those things. The basis of the decision is the same for both ....faith/religion/God. One says yes and the other no.

Perhaps that doesn't make any sense to you

Actually, I do get it now. Disbelief in my case is an active choice becaus I came from a background of belief - the catholic church. By rejecting my catholic past I am still involving them to some extent because my rejection involves them. The void is filled by that.

But what about those who came from irriligious backgrounds, who haven't had a church to seperate themselves from or a God to consciously reject? What kind of void is there for them if their lives and the lives of their parents have been godless?

 

[Number37]

I'm not convinced that you know what you're talking about. Elaborate please.

If you still do not understand after all this time then nothing that I say will help you to understand.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Unfortunately you are not capable of understanding the point.

That's what you say whenever your arguments fail.

You're arguing that, in the absence of evidence, belief and non-belief are equally as valid.

In doing so, you reject a reason-based worldview that demands evidence for statements.

I believe in the tooth fairy. You don't? I mean, there's no evidence that the tooth fairy exists, so I guess we call it even?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Nobody is harmed by agnosticism, but it's a cowardly position to take.

There's no objective evidence for the existence of biblegod, and plenty of evidence against. That's a rational evidence based position.
There's no evidence for biblical creationism, and plenty of evidence against. That's another rational evidence based position.

Agnostics muddy the waters by placing two unbalanced (in terms of probability) opposing positions on an equal footing.

Are you agnostic about other conspiracy theories? Is it possible the devil planted fossils to fool evolution scientists since you can't be sure he didn't?

Well, as an agnostic I have the luxury of choosing what to believe. If something seems like nonsense to be I won't believe it. Tooth fairies and Easter Bunnies and Santa Clauses included. I'm a non-theistic agnostic so the likelihood of the devil planting anything is precicely zero in my book.

The best place for devils is on album covers anyway!

 

[Roylion]

In some ways the void is filled with faith/religion/God as a default, again, because that is the way that we are wired.

It not by default. It's by education and indoctrination. We're all born non-theists. "God" is taught.

So even when you say 'in your case it doesn't get filled', what you are also saying is that you are preventing it from filling with the default.

It's not the default.

Consistent with that is that you say that you are waiting for answers.

Answers that do not necessarily involve "God".

Define "God."

Nothing unknown is filled by faith alone.

I'll wait to see where the evidence points before I decide what might be probable about what is currently unknown. There isn;t any evidence that points to "God". Do you have any?

As I tried to explain above, consciously rejecting faith/religion/God and preventing those things from filling the void is the same thing as consciously filling it with those things.

No it's not. We are all born non-theists.

The basis of the decision is the same for both ....faith/religion/God. One says yes and the other no.

If people didn't invent or claim the truth of god/s without supporting evidence, then there would be no need to deny them or it, or question why they should believe in something claimed as 'truth' with no supporting evidence to suggest it actually is true.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

They can be as devout as they can be but if they accept that other faiths exist and accept homosexual marriage and most of the other freedoms we enjoy today, even if they worship their God alone, then according to the religious fundamentalist they'd be secular and straying from the precise teachings of a two thousand year old book.

So the question returns to what they actually believe.

They might believe in a wide range of things. They might accept same sex marriage and women going to work. They more often than not accept evolution and a world which is far, far older than 6000 years. The religious fundamentalist believes in the word of the Bible, a collection of books that showed glimpses of life as it was lived two thousand years ago. Ditto the even older Jewish Torah, which forms the first part of the Bible. Ditto the later Qur'an. Religious fundamentalists hold these sacred writings as truths to be lived by even in the modern age and so any who depart from them are dammed. Any departure at all.

If they depart from any number of Christian orthodoxies, in what sense are they Christian?

Are they just culturally Christian? Or do they actually believe that their faith is the only true faith?

I'd put it to you that if you're actually a devout Christian, the idea of religious pluralism doesn't really appeal. Why would it?

Yeah, you can believe in the Rapture. But if you're still observant despite being secular you usually keep to the beliefs of your particular order. Catholics for instance don't believe in the Rapture. Protestant evangelicals, on the other hand, willingly embrace the idea. Both are Christian orders. Same same but different, as they say in Thailand.

I don't accept that you can believe in the rapture and still be secular. If you think that judgement day is coming and everyone apart from your faith is going to hell, that's not a secular worldview. You think that divine judgement is on its way and you're on the winning team. That's not very secular.

 

[Evolved1]

Well, as an agnostic I have the luxury of choosing what to believe. If something seems like nonsense to be I won't believe it. Tooth fairies and Easter Bunnies and Santa Clauses included. I'm a non-theistic agnostic so the likelihood of the devil planting anything is precicely zero in my book.

The best place for devils is on album covers anyway!

You're an atheist if you don't believe in any deities. There's no rational middle ground called agnosticism inbetween believing and disbelieving fairytales.

 

[Number37]

Actually, I do get it now. Disbelief in my case is an active choice becaus I came from a background of belief - the catholic church. By rejecting my catholic past I am still involving them to some extent because my rejection involves them. The void is filled by that.

But what about those who came from irriligious backgrounds, who haven't had a church to seperate themselves from or a God to consciously reject? What kind of void is there for them if their lives and the lives of their parents have been godless?

Have you noticed how nearly all of the people that say they are Atheists do so by first framing it as/or justifying it with anti-religion?
The only person who hasn't is ChelseaCarlton.

ChelseaCarlton's anti-religion is derivative of his Atheism. Atheism primary. Anti-religion derivative/secondary.
All the others anti-religion primary, Atheism is derivative.

For all the snowflakes, that's not a criticism.
IMO it just demonstrates how religion/faith/God is the default fill of the void, for no reason other than that is the way we are wired...by the world we live in, how we are raised etc etc.

 

[Osho]

Kind of, but i don't subscribe to all of IIT. Let me explain why:

While I can understand them being useful as metaphores about mind, I can't help but point out the screaming fact that brain and mind work nothing like computers (Which IIT reckons it does) - memory for example, there's no addressable memory with ordered data and nowhere in the brain exists a data bank where an image of apple is stored...

I read a fascinating article once on the subject, damn that I can't remember where or find it within any browsers bookmarks... But the guy made a point that we are using computers as metaphor, because it's nearly impossible for us to describe how brain works without comparison to something we know, and microprocessors are currently the most complicated technological machinery for such purpose.
Further, this has been the case before information technology: in the past scientists have used comparisons to steam and clockwork technology, even to really old stuff, like ropes, pulleys, cogwheels & gears and a donkey ;D

He also asked a number of scientists studying brain/mind to come up with article on their "stuff", but without using ANY reference to IT, and while they happily agreed and many even thought that the idea off it being challenging was hilarious... And yet all, most the next day, came back saying they couldn't do it

It sounds like it may have some value, that IIT, even if it is an analogy, watching the thermometer level go higher tells me its getting hotter, but may not explain the mechanism for the heating.

But if consciousness depends on a biological substrate, then computers can multiply complexity forever and never have consciousness emerge. So maybe IITs information is a biological one, information preceded computers, and it is IT that borrowed "information" and is now handing it back?

 

[Evolved1]

Have you noticed how nearly all of the people that say they are Atheists do so by first framing it as/or justifying it with anti-religion?
The only person who hasn't is ChelseaCarlton.

ChelseaCarlton's anti-religion is derivative of his Atheism. Atheism primary. Anti-religion derivative/secondary.
All the others anti-religion primary, Atheism is derivative.

For all the snowflakes, that's not a criticism.
IMO it just demonstrates how religion/faith/God is the default fill of the void, for no reason other than that is the way we are wired...by the world we live in, how we are raised etc etc.

 

[Number37]

You are arguing against yourself.

It's by education and indoctrination. We're all born non-theists. "God" is taught.

It's not the default.

Name one person that hasn't gone through the teaching/education/indoctrination process?
There isn't anybody.

That's why it's the default. Everything points us to it. Everything. From birth.

 

[Osho]

You're an atheist if you don't believe in any deities. There's no rational middle ground called agnosticism inbetween believing and disbelieving fairytales.

Jumping in here, hope it's okay, the post made me think, isn't science agnostic, given it never reaches a final proof, and always awaits new better information. Is Atheism by this definition is contra-science?

 

[Number37]

That's what you say whenever your arguments fail.

You're arguing that, in the absence of evidence, belief and non-belief are equally as valid.

In doing so, you reject a reason-based worldview that demands evidence for statements.

I believe in the tooth fairy. You don't? I mean, there's no evidence that the tooth fairy exists, so I guess we call it even?

Your understanding of English is lacking.

If someone asks you "are you a Carlton supporter?" Answering "no, I'm not a Carlton supporter" or "no, I support Richmond"....doesn't say anything other than you're not a Carlton supporter.
Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? No I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy says nothing other than you don't believe in the Tooth Fairy.

That you don't understand that very simple thing, is your problem, not mine.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

So the question returns to what they actually believe. If they depart from any number of Christian orthodoxies, in what sense are they Christian?

In essence a Christian is anyone who believed Jesus Christ was the embodiment of God who came to earth and got executed on the cross and then rose from the dead. Now as a non-believer I can't honestly say which strand of Christianity is the 'right' one because I think they're all full of shit. Including catholicism.

Are they just culturally Christian? Or do they actually believe that their faith is the only true faith?

All Christian sects would believe that theirs is the True Faith, but most have resigned themselves into believing that those of other faiths have strayed, but still have a place in this world. It's hard to pin because there's so many divisions of Christianity these days.

I'd put it to you that if you're actually a devout Christian, the idea of religious pluralism doesn't really appeal. Why would it?

All others would be sinners, and there's a saying that goes 'hate the sin but love the sinner'. I think most divisions of Christianity hope that these various sinners will return to their particular division and not the others.

I don't accept that you can believe in the rapture and still be secular. If you think that judgement day is coming and everyone apart from your faith is going to hell, that's not a secular worldview. You think that divine judgement is on its way and you're on the winning team. That's not very secular.

Actually I think you're right. The belief might be heretical to Catholicism (we were never taught of the rapture growing up) or Eastern Orthodox Christianity but being heretical does not make it secular even if it does make it 'different'. I think it's only really big amongst the Pentecostals, the 'born again' mob.