Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Blight
Social climber
|
|
Is Bush a "Christian in Name Only" or a real one?
I don't know and I don't care.
It's not up to me to judge President Bush's relationship with God. I have compassion for him just as I have for everyone; whether he's a "real" christian has no bearing at all on that.
Why do you care?
|
|
426
Sport climber
Buzzard Point, TN
|
|
You say Hitler used religion to do his bidding, correct?
I can even abide by the fact that whether Hitler was Xian is not particularly relevant, but how he used Xianity to "rid liberal excess" (verbatim) is...
I should've guessed you wouldn't know or care.
My apologies...just don't count me in on the "Crusade"...to me, a Christian (PBUH) turns the other cheek...and that's why "I care"...
But I bet someone can pull a quote from the bible that refutes that whole "turn the cheek" notion....
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
I belive that christianity is good for people that want something to belive without having to think.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
You haven't even stirred yourself to search the web. Christians go to church, attend study groups, read their bible and concordance and organise discussions, research courses and guest speakers.
You're really not suited for christianity; learning is an integral part of it. All you're doing is spouting your pathetic prejudices without bothering to check whether they're right.
Blight is it difficult to understand that people dont belive that the bible is evidence for God?
Again, you only show your ignorance. If you try looking for evidence you'll find that the bible is only one small part of it - there are entire libraries full of other evidence which has nothing to do with the bible.
Ok, you had a bad life as an atheist but you still have no clue about other peoples life.
I had an excellent life as an atheist, actually, and I enjoyed it a great deal. But it never came close to my quality of life as a christian.
The authors of the bible might have realised that religion was a good way to control the masses.
No, as I said, christians learn, discuss and debate all the time. Look at almost any church's schedule and you'll find dozens of studies, sermons, lectures, forums, groups and newsletters which they use in addition to their own private learning.
But as I also said, I don't think you're cut out for that. You should really just forget about it - go back to trying to convince yourself that you're doing okay and your incessant questioning about God doesn't mean you're at all interested.
|
|
Crag
Trad climber
|
|
Why?
Becasue when evil stands before a group of children bound at the feet with a gun pointed directly at the backs of their head.....
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
"You haven't even stirred yourself to search the web. Christians go to church, attend study groups, read their bible and concordance and organise discussions, research courses and guest speakers."
Yes and so what? You haven't answered my questions. You haven't showed we to a single proff of God. You haven't answered me why religion seems to be very dependent on where (and when) you live. You might be interested in talking and discusing details in the bible and equal things. But I still have the feeling that the main questions is not open for questions. My girl friend attended a christian school and sayes the same thing.
Talking about for example moral issues is not only for christians. A lot of philosophers have thought about this outside religion. Jesus definitely has some good points and it is a pity that bad things happens in his name.
"You're really not suited for christianity; learning is an integral part of it."
I have read more books than most people an a lot of different subjects. You just assume that I dont care (as usual).
"All you're doing is spouting your pathetic prejudices without bothering to check whether they're right."
You are the one with most prejudice in this case.
"Again, you only show your ignorance. If you try looking for evidence you'll find that the bible is only one small part of it - there are entire libraries full of other evidence which has nothing to do with the bible."
For the probably 198328943 time. Cant you show me a single one of these?
""The authors of the bible might have realised that religion was a good way to control the masses."
No, as I said, christians learn, discuss and debate all the time. Look at almost any church's schedule and you'll find dozens of studies, sermons, lectures, forums, groups and newsletters which they use in addition to their own private learning."
Your comment doesn't have anything to do with my question.
I know about religous dogma. How people discuss and try to make everything add toghether. That parts of the bible have dissapeared. I consider this as a philosopical system with some underliying dogmas that cant be questioned. The importance of different parts change with time. How many different version of the christian faith do it exist now? 1478783 maybe? Which one is correct?
Just becuase people discuss some parts doesn't prove the underlying dogmas.
"But as I also said, I don't think you're cut out for that."
No, I cant by the underlying dogmas without any evidence. I see no reason to belive in them. I am much more interested in learning about more open minded peoples theories.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
You haven't showed we to a single proff of God.
If you really want it, you'd go get it yourself. But you don't go get it, do you? No, you sit and demand that I spoon feed you like a fat, spolied child,and you sulk when I don't.
I have read more books than most people an a lot of different subjects.
And yet mysteriously you refuse to read books about God. In fact you refuse point blank to learn for yourself; you demand that I provide you with what you want. Some intellectual you are!
For the probably 198328943 time. Cant you show me a single one of these?
And for the 198328943 time: go find it yourself if you're really interested. If you're not interested in genuine learning, quit asking.
I consider this as a philosopical system with some underliying dogmas that cant be questioned. The importance of different parts change with time. How many different version of the christian faith do it exist now? 1478783 maybe? Which one is correct?
Uh, if we weren't allowed to question doctrine, there would only be one version of christianity. There are many versions precisely because we're allowed to question anything about it and come to our own conclusions.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Salt Lake
|
|
Dear Gentlemen, Thank you for a stimulating and enlightening night in Friendship Land. (Lurkergirl needs to sleep now) Wish you all a deep sleep and a sweet dream when the long party's over.
Godspeed! (Yes, I'm still a believer)
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
:)
Heh.
And sweet dreams to you too.
|
|
phoolish
Boulder climber
Athens, Ga.
|
|
Blight:
A lot of the trouble is that things you take as evidence, lots of other people just take as mythology, same as you do with the Vedas or the Edda, for instance.
Generally, when you start thinking you've found the one true way, thinking you're special, you're probably wrong. That goes for just about everybody, regardless of belief system.
|
|
ewto
Mountain climber
My mommy's tummy
|
|
Holy cow... this got nasty, didn't it?
My simplistic position on it is this:
"Why do so many people believe in God?
Because He's THERE.
Every time I sit on top of a peak and look around me, I can see Him. Every time I look at something as "simple" as a tree growing in my front yard, I see Him. When I watch my children grow or my parents age, I see Him.
When I fell thirty feet and hit the deck, I damn near got to meet Him...
|
|
Anastasia
Trad climber
Near a mountain, CA
|
|
Would I cross the line if thought God didn't exist?
I probably would have a different definition of the "line" without my parents' religious teachings. Yet, there still will be a "line" I would not cross.
I wouldn't cross it for my own sanity. Having a line between what I think is bad and good is just a way of making life simpler. I need to feel comfortable with what I am doing and know that it causes no one else pain. I have a sense of empathy and fairness that has always guided me. It is something I've created out of dialogue and logic which is also one of my culture's traditions.
The line I live by is enforced by my own sense of responsibility towards doing what is right. When I am in the wrong, it is not the people that I hurt that injures me. It is the idea that I hurt people that trusted me to be better then that which makes me feel horrible.
I've been there, didn't like it, don't want to visit.
Plus, I do hear echoes of my father's teachings during such times and I am afraid of finding out what the road leads to if I stay on such a path. I won't need God's wrath to give myself a bad life. I can do that myself and that keeps me from crossing the line.
Now just add that with the idea of God also giving me a share of my own mistakes in my afterlife...
Yeah... It has me thinking... Who doesn't wonder about what happens after this existence?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
I can't believe that some people have actually posted lengthy tomes like I would normally write. I'm so pleased to see it.
BTW, I have read all the posts so far, so I'm up to speed on this NON-climbing thread.
Everything so far in this discussion is quite standard; same old arguments and presuppositions from both sides. Nothing particularly wrong with that, as far as it goes.
Rather than to wax "philosophical," I'll contribute just my own experience.
Studying philosophy, I found ample reason to doubt my earlier theism. I went through a period of many years as an agnostic. Intellectual honesty mattered (and matters) most to me, and I tried to adopt views according to the weight of evidence.
One of the main things of interest to philosophers is the nature of evidence itself. "Weight of evidence" is a pretty empty phrase without getting clear on what counts as evidence in different contexts. There is an amazing amount of presumption in the actual disciplines that employ "evidence" (religions are not alone in this morass).
Asking for "proof" in a discussion like this is even nuttier than looking for "weight of evidence." PROVE to me that the floor is going to be there when you next go to step forward. PROVE to me that you have hands! One of the biggest confusions in a discussion like this is not getting clear about what SORT of evidence even counts, and how weighty that sort of evidence can even be.
Learning about what is "evidence" and what is "proof" is fundamental to thinking philosophically, and it was my early learning on this subject that led me to be an agnostic.
Entering grad school, the deep study of ethics was very revealing. Ethical anti-realism/subjectivism has fallen out of favor among philosophers for very good reasons. Most of us are after realistic/objective accounts now. I quickly found that authority-based accounts, and among them "divine command" theories, provide a host of advantages not enjoyed by secular theories. The "best explanation" in ethics seemed to me to favor theism (although not for the reasons I've heard so far in this thread).
Perhaps theoretical beauty isn't sufficient grounds for most, but many people, scientists included, rely upon this aspect of theories all the time (read Steven Wienberg, for example). For my part, I was suspicious of "running home to mama" by returning to theistic thinking without a fight. But on many fronts I found that, as Philip Quinn (past APA President) has said, "Theists have gotten the better of the argument."
In short, there are a host of phenomena ranging from consciousness to abstract objects for which a theistic account seems to provide the best range of approaches and answers. I've read Dawkins and Dennett (among many others) carefully and thoroughly, and I along with top philosophers (such as Saul Kripke) simply don't find their approach worse than a punt. About mind, for example, simply denying the phenomenon isn't on the same level of an "account" as acknowledging and explaining the phenomenon.
I could ramble on and on, but for now, I can say that intellectual honesty, employed in the setting of one of the top philosophy grad programs in the country, has brought me back to theism (with significant caution and resistence, btw). I don't think I'm being arrogant to say that my Ph.D. gives me some credence to assert that I've done a lot of looking around on the subject. I'm a philosopher first, a theist second, a Christian third, and a Seventh-day Adventist fourth. (Oh, btw, on the little survey linked to earlier, I scored 100% as a Seventh-day Adventist, so at least I answered as the site expected SDAs to answer, for whatever that's worth.)
I'll end with this thought. I hear a lot of the same sort of fallacy in this thread so far. It takes a form like this: "There is lots of disagreement about x. So, if you think you're right about x, then you are probably wrong." Another iteration of it is this: "There is lots of disagreement about x. So, there is probably no genuinely right answer about x."
Both iterations are appeals to ignorance. Nuff said.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
To address the thread-opening question: "Is it logical to believe in something that cannot be proved?" As I noted briefly earlier, this question is ABOUT the nature of evidence and proof. You "logically" (which in this context must mean "reasonably") believe in lots of things you can't "prove."
In fact, the vast majority of "knowledge" you have concerns things you can't prove. Do you have parents? Do you have a past? Do you have hands? Is water wet? Is grass green? Will your car turn left the next time you turn the wheel left? You have "knowledge" about the answers to all these questions, and you live and act as though that knowledge is reasonable and secure. But you can't PROVE that your ideas are correct on any of these subjects.
Believing in God is no more and no less an exercise in examining "weight of evidence" than any of the above questions. And in almost all cases, the weight of evidence could go numerous ways, depending upon what you emphasize as "weighty."
One thing I will vehemently resist, as a trained philosopher, is the hyperbolic sort of claim made by the likes of Dawkins to the effect that theists/Christians are simply ignorant or nutty. I am neither, I am both a theist and a Christian, and I have GOOD reason for my beliefs.
Of course, explaining those reasons is a multi-book-length project. So, tempted as I am to break my post-length record (which is already prodigious), I'll let that go.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
Whatever works for you.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Just a little food for thought:
Lets say you took a sample (assuming this was possible) of the most charismatic and special 4 year old kids from 1000 years ago and asked them if Romantic Love existed and what sex had to do with it.
What could they say? Would they really understand?
In a similar way, us humans are stuck here the darkness, living in piles of meat.
The existance of God and God's nature is not dependent on the opinion of purity or corruption of great men or the world religions or the fact that we can't see beyond our material world
Peace
Karl
|
|
Ed Bannister
Mountain climber
Victorville, CA
|
|
If you deny the reality of what you cannot perceive:
Does atomic structure exist?
Love?
we really do choose to believe, or not to, and persue info along our chosen course.
I remember a guy who worked for me, Brandon, we walked through the alter room under the huge boulder on the short hike to human sacrifice (the route) The feeling of darkness was so prevalent, he remarked, now I know there is a God, because now I know there is a Devil.
|
|
Hurricane
Trad climber
Eldorado Springs
|
|
Mungeclimber, you were right about faulty line of reasoning. I rechecked and modified my earlier post a bit as it related to consciousness.
After inspirtation from madbolter1 I remembered an argument I had with a friend that claimed "we can olny know things through science, and religion is about faith." By faith, he went wishing and hoping. I would say my faith is about "reasonable belief" and not wishing and hoping. If we only could know things through science, then we couldn't know or even make a claim about science unless we were using science-meaning philosophical statements about science are not science itself, so his claim is self-refuting.
Personally, I would much rather be a pantheist or believe that I am God or a god, so I can do whatever I want without guilt or shame. The problem is, I don't actually think pantheism is true. I am a Christian, not because I like it, it doesn't always resonate with me, it doesn't always make feel good, or give me a particular sense of comfort in fearing death. I am a Christian because I believe it is true. It might seem irrational that I put my trust in a man who claimed to be the Messiah and was slaughtered on a cross. But I believe he spoke to the human condition (suffering, sin, etc.) better then any other figure in history and offered the greatest love ever evidenced by anyone by living as a human being to pay the penalty we owed to God for us and offering us a rescue to our human plight. If you think Buddha, Mohammed, Vishnu, Krishna, or Richard Dawkins know and speak better to this issue and have evidence and good reasons to support what they calim is true, I would suggest you follow them as I would myself.
Jesus proved that what he said was true by raising himself from the dead. As far as I know, no other person has done that. I think it might be worthwhile to hear what he had to say about life and the kingdom of Heaven for that reason alone. Jesus asked his disciples once "who do say that I am?" I think that is the most important question you could ever ask and at the end of life if you miss Christ, you've missed the very source of life itself, and when you die you missed everything. There is lots of truth in other religions (golden rule, etc.) but only Christ offers a truth that will save us from death. He even showed that it possibble by raising Himself from the dead. Jesus, said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me" (John 14:6).
If He is wrong, eat, drink, be merry, beleive in whatever resonates with you or makes you feel good and then you die.
If He is right then what he said to Martha in John 11:25 is true.
"I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
Well, off to Eldo before the rain hits this afternoon, Cheers, AK
|
|
JuanDeFuca
Big Wall climber
Stoney Point
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 3, 2006 - 07:03pm PT
|
None of you have presented any evidence that God exists.
I have to start to think you are just wasting my time.
Juan
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Nor have you presented any that He does not. Surely you are not popping off with a negative existential claim. So, what is the nature of the evidence you want to see? What I mean is: of what SORT is the evidence you will admit?
|
|
Hurricane
Trad climber
Eldorado Springs
|
|
Juan,
If you have a Bible (whether you trust it is God's word or not, Romans 1 and 2 give a good explation that creation itsef is evidence of God's existence and power). Here is one of the more meaty passages, Romans 1:18-20.
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood by what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
I don't know you or moral character, so I don't know if you are suppressing or just questioning the truth, trolling, or honestly interested in the question.
I think a good question to ask, however, similar to madbolter1's, is what evidence would it take to prove to you that God exists. If it is miracles or rising from the dead, look at Jesus. From a Christian perspective you can check out www.str.org (Stand to Reason) and type in a questioon/topic in the search and ususally find a well written/researched article on a variety of religious questions which good reasons to believe in God.
However, if everyone could answer all your questions to your satisfaction, would you believe in God (become a theist) and/or follow Christ? If the answer is no, all the evidence "in the world" wouldn't matter. Let me know what you think.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!