Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

Roq said:

Maybe I'll just get drunk or take some hallucinogenic drugs - that's at least a much more honest approach than fooling myself that I'm going to live with baby jesus for eternity.

Click to expand...

Roq said:

That's why we need evidence in order to narrow down those ideas we should take seriously, as possibly existing in the universe we are actually in.

Click to expand...

You've clearly made your decision without a thought to the possibility that the "lack of evidence" you're so excited about might be attributable to insufficient measuring techniques, even when shown that things *you* feel confident about would have fallen under the exact same problem years ago.

That's why I'm an open minded atheist. Right now there is no room for god (or deity) in my picture of the Life, the Universe and Everything but, unlikely as it seems, one day I might find myself on the road to Damascus. There very few certainties in this life…

I doubt there will ever be objective evidence in our day on par with science, but who knows? It's not something I would base any important decisions on, that's for sure.

dteowner said:

OK, so did atoms suddenly come into being in the past hundred years? No, they existed all along and it only was a question of developing a way to *see* them. "There is nothing smaller than the atom". Oh, well maybe not.

Click to expand...

Atoms come into being in the past hundred years mostly. Atoms are abstracted models used to understand the physical world. The physical world knows no atoms. The physical world is. All those models have been evolving and will keep evolving.

OK, did invisible fairies suddenly come into being in the past hundred years? No, they existed all along and it only was a question of developing a way to *see* them. "There is nothing like 'God' out there." How sure are you, perfesser?

Engage brain before posting, indeed.

Click to expand...

They could as well. It might not be a way to perceive rather their absence. When they pop in, suddenly, everybody will see them.

But somehow, this looks as a funny way to do.

Lets try it. 'Man' made global climate change exists. It is just a matter of time before developping the required apparatus to exhibit it.

Oh, wait, this one should not work.

Grangokhan said:

Asides for there being archaeological evidence (and even genetic evidence in one instance) of events in the Bible there are the fulfilled prophecies to support the divine inspiration.

http://www.equip.org/articles/bibli...ence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/07/science/finding-genetic-traces-of-jewish-priesthood.html

http://phys.org/news/2012-05-archaeologist-evidence-cult-judah-king.html

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3557916?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103227160833

http://www.cojs.org/jh.php?id=assyrian&content=content/tiglath_pileser

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ev...t-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533

http://www.reasons.org/articles/art...ecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

"Those prophecies were written after the events occurred!"

Not according to the Dead Sea Scrolls which have been carbon dated.

But the fundamental part of Christianity is the existence of Jesus which has been proven.

http://www.ucg.org/youth/extrabiblical-evidence-jesus-christ/

"But that's a Christian site!"

Okay, here's one from a secular university:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/nonchristianaccounts.html

Click to expand...

After checking those links, none of them brings any evidence toward the existence of the christian god.

Only cultural bias. Dozen of human tales report a big flood. Why shoud archelogical evidences work only for christianity?

And so for the rest.

The secular university page shows a quote known to be extracted from a forgery. Flavius Josephus's quote.

dteowner said:

You've clearly made your decision without a thought to the possibility that the "lack of evidence" you're so excited about might be attributable to insufficient measuring techniques, even when shown that things *you* feel confident about would have fallen under the exact same problem years ago.

Click to expand...

No, you are missing the point again. Our measuring techniques *are* by no means perfect, but the point is that we have no idea what we would measure if they were! And it probably wouldn't be the baby jesus, just because there are so many other equally improbable things that might be the truth and we might be able to measure if we were more able, such as unicorns and spaghetti monsters… Until we can detect something, it just exists as a single possibility in a vast sea of uncertainty. Now can you see why evidence is so crucial to any possible understanding of the world we actually live in, as distinct from the huge number of possible realities we could conceivably (logically) be in?

So, you choose not to accept anything that hasn't been demonstrated to you first because there's simply too many possibilities. First, you understand that if everyone took that approach, the "frontier" of science would never move, right? Your worldview is based on a logical "all stop". Ironic since that's much like what you're accusing the bible thumpers of doing. Second, since that approach was merely your choice, what makes it sufficiently valid to call people that don't blindly follow your choice all sorts of naughty names? You're asking for quite a bit of faith, don't you think?

Not quite right. The frontier of science isn't based on fantasy. It's based on evidence that supports new hypotheses. People don't just invent science out of the air like a unicorn. Your demonstrating a sadly misinformed understanding of science. Tsk, tsk…

BTW, I don't see new frontiers in religion, particularly new theories about God and Jesus. Hard to convince the masses, I imagine, without new evidence. So not finding this relevant to the discussion, anyway.

dteowner said:

So, you choose not to accept anything that hasn't been demonstrated to you first because there's simply too many possibilities. First, you understand that if everyone took that approach, the "frontier" of science would never move, right? Your worldview is based on a logical "all stop". Ironic since that's much like what you're accusing the bible thumpers of doing. Second, since that approach was merely your choice, what makes it sufficiently valid to call people that don't blindly follow your choice all sorts of naughty names? You're asking for quite a bit of faith, don't you think?

Click to expand...

That's nonsense: just because I (and anyone else with their head screwed on) doesn't accept every passing fancy as gospel truth, doesn't mean that we can't formulate hypotheses (guesses) and then test them to see if they have any basis in reality. That's *exactly* how new science comes about in fact. And you have no idea what my worldview is, if your understanding is as simplistic as that...

I can justifiably call people who hold beliefs and systems of beliefs, without a shred of evidence delusional, because that's exactly what it means to hold delusions.

You appear to be one of those religious people who is trying to hide their beliefs under some kind of assumption of impartiality so you can snipe from the bunkers. That's disingenuous; at least the other believers in this thread have the honesty to come out and say what they believe, even if they are wrong...

He just likes to troll you. Not sure whether to take him serious or not.

Roq said:

You appear to be one of those religious people who is trying to hide their beliefs under some kind of assumption of impartiality so you can snipe from the bunkers. That's disingenuous; at least the other believers in this thread have the honesty to come out and say what they believe, even if they are wrong…

Click to expand...

Ah, your impressive intellect fails you yet again. I'm what I term "aggressively agnostic". I don't see any solid resolution to the debate and I do see a tremendous amount of frothy hate coming from both sides whenever the debate flares up so I prefer to avoid the topic entirely. Sort of a theological equivalent of "Don't ask, don't tell". I was raised nominally catholic but have avoided organized religion like the plague since I was old enough to make my own choices.

My role in this thread has been largely as a counterbalance to what's largely an athiest echo chamber. The smothering smug certainty, in spite of the questionable logic behind it, was sufficiently irritating to prod me to hold my nose and grudgingly participate. Corwin has been teasing me rather mercilessly for "donning the armor" on behalf of religious types.

dteowner said:

"aggressively agnostic".

Click to expand...

Term of the day ... if I had any artistic skills that wouldbecome a comic

dteowner said:

Ah, your impressive intellect fails you yet again. I'm what I term "aggressively agnostic". I don't see any solid resolution to the debate and I do see a tremendous amount of frothy hate coming from both sides whenever the debate flares up so I prefer to avoid the topic entirely. Sort of a theological equivalent of "Don't ask, don't tell". I was raised nominally catholic but have avoided organized religion like the plague since I was old enough to make my own choices.

My role in this thread has been largely as a counterbalance to what's largely an athiest echo chamber. The smothering smug certainty, in spite of the questionable logic behind it, was sufficiently irritating to prod me to hold my nose and grudgingly participate. Corwin has been teasing me rather mercilessly for "donning the armor" on behalf of religious types.

Click to expand...

Just trying to needle you into saying something committal for once. But, your position appears to be one of wishy washy ambivalence. Do you also half believe in fairies or is it just your catholic religion that you half believe in? And I've no idea what "aggressively" agnostic means, unless it implies that you spout off at the first opportunity about nothing in particular.

You don't seem to be doing a very good of avoiding the topic entirely (!?) and I don't see much hate coming from anyone; certainly I don't hate anyone here. We're just having a robust discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

Of course, it's nice to know that we have public spirited citizens, such as yourself, willing to pitch in and protect all those vulnerable believers that we are persecuting here with our horrible atheist moral degeneracy. Anyway, if you continue to adopt this role it might be helpful if you said something that makes some sense (if that's possible), otherwise those poor downtrodden believers aren't going to be very well served are they?

I'm wholly unsuited to the task, without question, but your crappy logic makes it far too easy. "I can't see it, so it doesn't exist. Oh, well since that fell apart, there's too many other possibilities for proper study but I know I'm right about this one. Oh, well since that fell apart, I'll just take a few personal swings and hope nobody notices." I mean, the bible thumpers do a better job selling a zombie story than your sad attempts to disprove it.

And, once again your impressive intellect has failed you. Perhaps you have trouble with that whole reading thing? (See, I can take a few personal swipes too when the mood strikes me) I would just assume that religion be pushed under the rug. I don't care what anyone chooses to believe or not believe since "proof" is fairly pointless for a subject openly based on "faith". I object to people from either side barking about it like they've got anything even approaching a definitive answer.

Imagine how nice the world would be without discussions/debates/arguments/fights about religion. Simon and Akbar and Ravi and Billyjoebob and Perfesser could all have a beer and focus on getting laid. Then they can go home and believe/disbelieve whatever the hell they want on their own time. That's my position.

That's why I specifically add the term "aggressive" to my description. Agnostics in general are, as you paint it, wishy washy. I'm a little more confrontational about it. I'd just assume give a giant STFU to both sides without imposing on their individual choices.

Just a quick note...

As many famous "New Atheists" point out, Atheism isn't a "belief system", as such. It's a lack of one. It's sort of interesting that there's even a word for not believing in things for which no proof can possibly exist (like an all-knowing god who watches what you get up to when your clothes come off). We don't have a word for non-alchemists, or non-astrologers, but there's a commonly used word for nonbelievers, and it's used all the time.

I just thought it was interesting.

dteowner said:

I'm wholly unsuited to the task, without question, but your crappy logic makes it far too easy. "I can't see it, so it doesn't exist

Click to expand...

I think I see straw issuing from your bodily orifices again.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Roq, but he said he'd prefer in believing something for which there is evidence (science), vs. stuff with no evidence (religion).

Terribly rational, practical, and commonsensical for you, I'm sure.

You really want to demand logic from a resurrection story? I'm sorry, but that's absolutely fucking moronic. You might as well demand a rational explanation for my three-way with Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz. Rational has absolutely nothing to do with it and trying to force it into the equation where it doesn't belong just ruins the whole thing. Now leave me alone for a few minutes while I practice a little "blind faith".

I am not demanding anything, except a little honesty on your part. You are the one criticizing the lack of or poor "logic" for things he didn't even say, yet exhibiting no logic yourself. Thus, the perception of your tro-lo-lolling.

I guess I don't see it. To use your words, he prefers something that has evidence. Fine, but that would mean that there would have been a time when he didn't want to believe in atoms. Pure, undeniable logic. When faced with that prospect, he pulled out some babble about too many possibilities and choosing which ones he wanted to give credence. That's completely his choice, but treating that as some sort of "proof" with global application is ridiculous. Pointing that out is pure, undeniable logic. Faced with that, he pretty much punted. That's honest, me thinks.

See, I agree that there's not a lot of logic to a resurrection story. I doubt a 2000-year-old oral tradition is going to serve as scientific proof of jack shit, but I also acknowledge that we don't have proof that the stuff is false. We merely have a lack of proof that it's true. Equating the two positions is a rather elementary logical fallacy and I'm sure we can find someone to supply the appropriate impressive latin.

I'm glossing over the bits and pieces of biblical stuff that does sorta kinda fit into history, which isn't really fair to that side, but I'm not really knowledgible enough about them to make any legit use of them and I am decidedly anti-motivated (to create a word) to invest the time to properly study them.

Perhaps the confusion is that I don't really have a problem with Roq's choice. It makes good sense to me, in truth. My beef is his choice being presented as logical fact and his insults toward anyone that doesn't follow his choice.

Secondly, I come back to a point I tried to hit home earlier in this thread--logic is an inappropriate framework for a discussion of religion. If someone presented religion as a logically sound and empirically proven system, it would be appropriate to tear them a new asshole. I suppose there's a few wide-eyed zealots that might fit that category, but I don't see the vast majority of religious people fitting that description. Most religious folks will tell you that the foundation of religion is faith, not logic. Sure they'll try, with varying degrees of success, to justify that faith with a few patches of logic and historical evidence, but at the end of the day it's all about faith. It's a zombie story. Arguing about it is about the same as the people that argue about bad physics in Star Wars. Yep, they might be 100% correct, but that's simply not the point, and it imposes current day understanding on future events.

This thread is going in circles

Page 7

Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
My point is that using God as some sort of magic wand to wave away errors, inconsistencies and so on is problematic to reasoned dialogue.

Click to expand...

DTE :
Since the other side readily admits to a fundamental and foundational basis in "magic wand", why do you get to deny it from the conversation? You're guilty of the very problem you complain about.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
you're the only one demanding "logic and reason".

Click to expand...

Roq:
If you aren't going to require "logic and reason" you could just as well say that Grimm's fairy tales are the infallible doctrine of the king of the fairies and you'd be on equal ground. Logic and reason (and evidence) are the basis of any kind of language that can have any claim of being about what is actually true.

Click to expand...

Edit : I should go to bed instead of digging through threads ...