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

 

[Boston tiger]

would the various contributors to the bible have imagined nothing would have been found

and lots of things which seemed supernatural back then now have natural explanations

Would love to see more resolved in my lifetime but that’s probably ambitious. Genetics is the key

Nothing has been resolved .. nothing has been found .
“ There is stuff (existence) and it is motion . That’s always been the cornerstone of spirituality . Humans get it what that entails and we got it along time ago.
We are spiritual beings ..we have come from nothing or we have come from infinite regression.

 

[Pessimistic]

So religion is merely 'Branding'? or re-branding of an already well known concept

 

[freo99]

That's a philosophical argument. Science doesn't purport to make that claim.

The point of bringing up that particular link was that you are actively moving the goalposts. Where before we had definitive proof that heaven was not on Mars/Venus/Jupiter and that was where the angels lived, now we know that is not the case and angels and heaven are incorporeal. This isn't something you always believed; this is something that is only true because someone demonstrated you were wrong, and you've moved to maintain your position of faith.

In short, God of the Gaps, defaulting to something currently unknown or undemonstable to avoid having to question your faith.

Can you be a little clearer, these goal posts that have moved are you saying Christianity in general
has moved them or someone in this thread.

Are you taking umbrage at the view that God, spirits, the demonic etc are incorporeal, and saying that
this something new.

 

[Gethelred]

Can you be a little clearer, these goal posts that have moved are you saying Christianity in general
has moved them or someone in this thread.

Are you taking umbrage at the view that God, spirits, the demonic etc are incorporeal, and saying that
this something new.

You didn't read the link then, or you didn't understand it.

For argument's sake, this is the analogy Sagan makes:

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[4]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The point of asserting this is that you were pontificating on the incorporeality of God and Heaven in your post, two positions that only became a thing after scientists discovered the reality that neither Heaven nor God lived on the moon, or on Venus or Jupiter.

Which is why I take issue with your saying this:

I’m not giving you a hard time, here’s the but, most people (in modern society) don‘t seem to be able
to discern between the natural + supernatural.

... because the thing that 'most people (in modern society) don't seem to be able to discern' wasn't a theological concept until it became absolutely necessary for it to be.

 

[freo99]

You didn't read the link then, or you didn't understand it.

For argument's sake, this is the analogy Sagan makes:

The point of asserting this is that you were pontificating on the incorporeality of God and Heaven in your post, two positions that only became a thing after scientists discovered the reality that neither Heaven nor God lived on the moon, or on Venus or Jupiter.

Which is why I take issue with your saying this:

... because the thing that 'most people (in modern society) don't seem to be able to discern' wasn't a theological concept until it became absolutely necessary for it to be.

Good at least you clarified it.

This is nothing new, clearly Sagan did not do his homework.

Jn 4:24 clearly + unambiguously says that God is spirit, this was nothing new then as John was
making the point from genesis.

 

[Osho]

incorporeal

Well, I haven't seen or heard this word since reading William Blake at university. Was it Mental Flight versus the corrupted corporeal, the corporeal war, that he was on about? Anyway, it is an interesting dichotomy posed by him that also poses mere existing (corporeal) with living (mental flight, spirituality). Kietkegaard also banged on about Subjectivity is Truth, and that truth may have been lost on most.

 

[Gethelred]

Good at least you clarified it.

This is nothing new, clearly Sagan did not do his homework.

Jn 4:24 clearly + unambiguously says that God is spirit, this was nothing new then as John was
making the point from genesis.

The New Testament says that God is flesh, or did I not understand the 'Jesus being born' bit?

There's a bit of tragedy to missing the point so wildly.

 

[Opine]

I don’t believe theists want to convert everyone they encounter into their faith. What is that the atheists actually want? Until reading this thread and others on this site with similar underlying intolerance, I wasnt aware of the depth of division that exists. WTF do anti-theists actually want?

 

[freo99]

.

The New Testament says that God is flesh, or did I not understand the 'Jesus being born' bit?

There's a bit of tragedy to missing the point so wildly.

God (the Word) became flesh + dwelt among us. Jn 1:14

The Word is Jesus, He emptied Himself Philippians 2:7 so that He could become human.

So when Jesus became flesh, God did not cease to exist as a Spirit. You still have God the father
+ the Holy Spirit.

 

[Osho]

The New Testament says that God is flesh, or did I not understand the 'Jesus being born' bit?

There's a bit of tragedy to missing the point so wildly.

???
The world we abide in is material - flesh, what's the contradiction if one is religious and believes in transcendence between realms?

 

[Rusty Brookes]

I don’t believe theists want to convert everyone they encounter into their faith. What is that the atheists actually want? Until reading this thread and others on this site with similar underlying intolerance, I wasnt aware of the depth of division that exists. WTF do atheists actually want?

True. But there are many theists that expect the rest of society to live by their rules. I've lived through it. No shops open on Sundays. No football on Good Friday. No KISS records - they're evil. No Dungeons and Dragons - that's Satanic. And so on, and so on.

Now for me that doesn't mean much. But for a gay person trying to get married or a woman that needs an abortion, that means a lot. Now in Australia, we've systematically moved away from religion having a say in how a secular society is run, and we're better off for it IMHO. But that's not the case in many countries around the world.

As for atheists being intolerant? Well I've never seen atheists fill the streets in protest when someone insults Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. In fact, this video proves the exact opposite. NSFW by the way



And I've seen plenty of Christians and Muslims preaching at street corners. Never seen an atheist screaming at passer's by "Be Saved! Read the Origin of Species and don't live forever".

I can only speak for myself when I say I don't give a rats what someone believes. I have religious friends and family - I think they're dead wrong and haven't thought through what they believe in but whatever. I do care how people act though. If you are religious and want to live by those rules - go for it. But don't expect the rest of us to live by those rules. That's where we get our backs up.

I recently signed to be a member of the Noose Temple of Satan - not because I worship Baelzebub or Moloch. It's because they are exposing the hypocrisy of Australian governments allowing chaplains to hold positions in State run schools - only religious people may apply and people identifying as Satanists aren't allowed to apply. Of course it's a big joke but they make a great point.

History and indeed, current events, shows that theocracies are hell on earth. I want to live in a society that is driven by science and logic, not supernatural myth.

 

[Opine]

True. But there are many theists that expect the rest of society to live by their rules. I've lived through it. No shops open on Sundays. No football on Good Friday. No KISS records - they're evil. No Dungeons and Dragons - that's Satanic. And so on, and so on.

Now for me that doesn't mean much. But for a gay person trying to get married or a woman that needs an abortion, that means a lot. Now in Australia, we've systematically moved away from religion having a say in how a secular society is run, and we're better off for it IMHO. But that's not the case in many countries around the world.

As for atheists being intolerant? Well I've never seen atheists fill the streets in protest when someone insults Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. In fact, this video proves the exact opposite. NSFW by the way



And I've seen plenty of Christians and Muslims preaching at street corners. Never seen an atheist screaming at passer's by "Be Saved! Read the Origin of Species and don't live forever".

I can only speak for myself when I say I don't give a rats what someone believes. I have religious friends and family - I think they're dead wrong and haven't thought through what they believe in but whatever. I do care how people act though. If you are religious and want to live by those rules - go for it. But don't expect the rest of us to live by those rules. That's where we get our backs up.

I recently signed to be a member of the Noose Temple of Satan - not because I worship Baelzebub or Moloch. It's because they are exposing the hypocrisy of Australian governments allowing chaplains to hold positions in State run schools - only religious people may apply and people identifying as Satanists aren't allowed to apply. Of course it's a big joke but they make a great point.

History and indeed, current events, shows that theocracies are hell on earth. I want to live in a society that is driven by science and logic, not supernatural myth.

In one sentence please

 

[Rusty Brookes]

In one sentence please

OK - I'm not religious - therefore religion should have no say in how I live my life.

 

[Opine]

OK - I'm not religious - therefore religion should have no say in how I live my life.

So what do you want ?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I don’t believe theists want to convert everyone they encounter into their faith. What is that the atheists actually want? Until reading this thread and others on this site with similar underlying intolerance, I wasnt aware of the depth of division that exists. WTF do anti-theists actually want?

For starters, for theists to stop ramming their beliefs down everyone else's throats. (Not all theists do that, but there is no denying the proselytising imperative of Christianity and it's frankly a pain in the butt).

Secondly, to stop pleading special needs for their beliefs. You choose to believe something, rather than act on provable fact, I don't see why you should expect any sort of kid-glove treatment.

And the big one for me, as an Australian with a passionate drive for equality and fairness - stop putting your hands out for taxpayers' money for your private school bastions of obscene privilege.

 

[Opine]

For starters, for theists to stop ramming their beliefs down everyone else's throats. (Not all theists do that, but there is no denying the proselytising imperative of Christianity and it's frankly a pain in the butt).

Secondly, to stop pleading special needs for their beliefs. You choose to believe something, rather than act on provable fact, I don't see why you should expect any sort of kid-glove treatment.

And the big one for me, as an Australian with a passionate drive for equality and fairness - stop putting your hands out for taxpayers' money for your private school bastions of obscene privilege.

And what do you want precisely ?

 

[Opine]

OK - I'm not religious - therefore religion should have no say in how I live my life.

So what is it precisely that you want Rusty?

 

[Opine]

For starters, for theists to stop ramming their beliefs down everyone else's throats. (Not all theists do that, but there is no denying the proselytising imperative of Christianity and it's frankly a pain in the butt).

Secondly, to stop pleading special needs for their beliefs. You choose to believe something, rather than act on provable fact, I don't see why you should expect any sort of kid-glove treatment.

And the big one for me, as an Australian with a passionate drive for equality and fairness - stop putting your hands out for taxpayers' money for your private school bastions of obscene privilege.

How about you SBD, what do you want; without the qualifiers and disclaimers?

 

[Opine]

How about you Roy, what do you want?

 

[Roylion]

How about you Roy, what do you want?

Is there a point to your question?

When claims are made to truth without supporting evidence on a public forum then those claims will be challenged. Is it really that difficult for you to understand?

 

[Opine]

Is there a point to your question?

When claims are made to truth without supporting evidence then those claims will be challenged. Is it that really difficult to understand?

I understand more than you think

 

[Roylion]

I understand more than you think

So you ask a pointless question anyway.

 

[Opine]

Yet you ask a pointless question anyway.

No Roy I asked a pertinent question.

 

[Roylion]

No Roy I asked a pertinent question.

No you didn't. You asked a pointless question where, if you had done a modicum of reading in this thread, the answer was already blindingly obvious. But in case you've missed it again, re-read what I said.

 

[Opine]

No you didn't. You asked a pointless question where, if you had done a modicum of reading in this thread, the answer was already blindingly obvious. But in case you've missed it again, re-read what I said.

I don’t give a shit what you said.