Total Posts:104|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why is it?

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 11:45:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The recent thread in which I questioned the crucifixtion has underlined something that annoyed me for some time.

Should a creationist join this site and say something like... "dur... if evolution is true how come no croco-duck".

He will be roundly mocked and sneered at... but he will also get half a dozen explanations of the basic theory of evolution. His questioned will be awnsered.

Should an atheist post a valid question on theology, or question a core tenet of Christianity he MAY get a valid awnser or at least an attempt to awnser... but someone will almost certainly react with intense anger and will do everything that can be done to actually avoid the issue.

The only way I can explain this is to simply assume that these 'Christians' are fakes. They do not truly believe. Their faith to them is a social fact, a tribal expression. They don't actually believe that one day Jesus will stand in judgement over them, instead they have just adopted a label to define their social identity. Akin to race, nationality or what football team they support.

If they truly believed they would delight in teaching people about their faith, because they are bearers of supremely wonderful factual information.

The other, possibly more vexing issue is that these fake Christians are probably a minority, but they stand out that it almost seems like normal Christian behaviour. That would be bad enough, but the intelligent majority does not call them up about it.

As an atheist if I see a BS argument against God I'll rip it to shreds, that is because atheism is an (undesired) intellectual position. Not a statement of my personal, social, tribal identity. I am also intelligent enough to understand tribalism as a human weakness and to resist it. If an atheist sends me a message of support for bashing someone like DATCMOTO is makes me feel uncomfortable.

Christians however often seem to think differently, they often won't call up another Christian for posting a false theological argument argument ladened with personal attacks. So often in the middle of an argument with someone a troll will pop up... who clearly has not read any part of the exchange but will simply respond mindlessly to what he thinks the argument is. When you check their profile the motivation becomes clear.

Can't everyone regardless of creed just simply argue as individuals employing logic and evidence?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2010 9:59:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Because to question a Christian's core tenet or theological given is the same as a Christian going to a scientist and asking why "A=A" or why things can't be different in the same way at the same time.

When Christians "know" God, they don't "know" God through logical deduction or the scientific process. They "know" God through faith and feeling. Their knowledge feels different from, but is equal in force to the knowledge that 1+1=2.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2010 10:30:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I agree C_N.
I'm disappointed by the lack of Theist on Theist debate.
We have some highly intelligent Christians on this site but FMPOV they seem to ignore rather than debate YEC creationists.
(Having said that, I'm sure it HAS happened and probably a significant amount, but it seems to mostly be Atheist on Theist.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2010 10:43:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/23/2010 10:30:47 PM, tvellalott wrote:
I agree C_N.
I'm disappointed by the lack of Theist on Theist debate.
We have some highly intelligent Christians on this site but FMPOV they seem to ignore rather than debate YEC creationists.
(Having said that, I'm sure it HAS happened and probably a significant amount, but it seems to mostly be Atheist on Theist.

Debating Young-Earth creationists is an exercise in futility. Any attempt to change their minds would end up as more of a lecture than an actual debate. I've debated YEC's twice, basically just for the experience of it. I don't plan on doing it again.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2010 11:00:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/23/2010 10:30:47 PM, tvellalott wrote:
I agree C_N.
I'm disappointed by the lack of Theist on Theist debate.
We have some highly intelligent Christians on this site but FMPOV they seem to ignore rather than debate YEC creationists.
(Having said that, I'm sure it HAS happened and probably a significant amount, but it seems to mostly be Atheist on Theist.

There IS no debate between atheist and theist. There CAN be no debate >.>
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2010 11:20:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/23/2010 9:59:51 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Because to question a Christian's core tenet or theological given is the same as a Christian going to a scientist and asking why "A=A" or why things can't be different in the same way at the same time.

When Christians "know" God, they don't "know" God through logical deduction or the scientific process. They "know" God through faith and feeling. Their knowledge feels different from, but is equal in force to the knowledge that 1+1=2.

Okay, but why aren't they confident in that knowledge?
A scientist does not actually know anything (a bit of creative licence there, but you get what I mean science being about doubting and iconaclasm) but should express no anger at stupid questions regarded his theories.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 6:14:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't see very much modulation of intelligence on this website.

I do see a similar degree of dogmatism for each person's respective beliefs.

If there weren't, there'd be a lot more consensus where there is almost none.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 7:53:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/23/2010 11:20:51 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Okay, but why aren't they confident in that knowledge?

The actual Christians *are* confident in that knowledge. It's just that a good number of them get confused when you ask them to prove it. It's like trying to get someone to prove their skill in roulette by explaining it in poker terms.

That's why it may seem that they hem and haw when they try to "speak science".

A scientist does not actually know anything (a bit of creative licence there, but you get what I mean science being about doubting and iconaclasm) but should express no anger at stupid questions regarded his theories.

And what of anger at questions regarding axioms?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 2:25:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 6:14:06 AM, Ren wrote:
I don't see very much modulation of intelligence on this website.

I do see a similar degree of dogmatism for each person's respective beliefs.

If there weren't, there'd be a lot more consensus where there is almost none.

I attack all dogmatists, but in doing so I find that atheist dogmatics are a stark minority, theistic dogmatics much more common.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 3:32:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Its been requested of me before by other theist that we should not argue in front of others but keep it to private PM's (DATC was the first to ask this of me, I did not see the point at the time but have since learned to just roll with it). It's a general concern that showing division among us on little issues causes criticisms from the atheist/agnostic side.

It would be wrong to criticize us though for arguing on theological issues as being 'divided'; In the core basic tenets we are united. Any arguing logic points we would like to bring up to other Christians is usually done in PM's, It sometimes happens here in open forums because sometimes I just don't care.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 3:42:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 3:32:31 PM, Marauder wrote:
Its been requested of me before by other theist that we should not argue in front of others but keep it to private PM's (DATC was the first to ask this of me, I did not see the point at the time but have since learned to just roll with it). It's a general concern that showing division among us on little issues causes criticisms from the atheist/agnostic side.

It would be wrong to criticize us though for arguing on theological issues as being 'divided'; In the core basic tenets we are united. Any arguing logic points we would like to bring up to other Christians is usually done in PM's, It sometimes happens here in open forums because sometimes I just don't care.

Thank you for your honesty, your whole post proves my point.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 3:38:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I can't help but point out that this post is completely unfounded.

A great deal of questions posited by theists about evolution have remained unanswered and some of the atheists who have argued in favor of evolution have conducted themselves in a haughty, insulting, emotional, counterproductive way without actually presenting any support for claims or background information that solidifies perspectives.

Rather, more often than not, just like with most other subjects on this website, people reply to one another by taking several individual statements out of context, playing semantic games, and giving one-line or single-phrase responses meant to be, in some esoteric way, clever.

I'm just saying that both "sides" are guilty of this behavior; you can't really isolate a group of people.

Personally, I find it interesting that no one ever discusses the actual physical manifestation of these religions--only the concepts behind them. I mean, how do these things affect us? What is the reality of these religions, or the rejection thereof? What is the purpose of religion, is it essential, and could anything else fulfill that purpose?

I don't know. To be honest, it seems that 90% of the regulars on this site are more concerned with being intelligent or correct than discovery, learning, and expansion.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 3:53:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 3:38:42 AM, Ren wrote:
I can't help but point out that this post is completely unfounded.

It is my personal experience from over a year of being here, I could dig up numerous examples.

A great deal of questions posited by theists about evolution have remained unanswered and some of the atheists who have argued in favor of evolution have conducted themselves in a haughty, insulting, emotional, counterproductive way without actually presenting any support for claims or background information that solidifies perspectives.

I am very active on evolution themed threads and though some of what you state is true, and mentioned in the OP your overall message does not tally with what I have observed. Do you have links to these unanswered questions or to unsupported claims?


Rather, more often than not, just like with most other subjects on this website, people reply to one another by taking several individual statements out of context, playing semantic games, and giving one-line or single-phrase responses meant to be, in some esoteric way, clever.

I'm just saying that both "sides" are guilty of this behavior; you can't really isolate a group of people.

Personally, I find it interesting that no one ever discusses the actual physical manifestation of these religions--only the concepts behind them. I mean, how do these things affect us? What is the reality of these religions, or the rejection thereof? What is the purpose of religion, is it essential, and could anything else fulfill that purpose?

I would love that, however atheists have generally asked those questions and theists generally get offended. Not always, I am talking about correlations.

I don't know. To be honest, it seems that 90% of the regulars on this site are more concerned with being intelligent or correct than discovery, learning, and expansion.

It's about 50/50 I think.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 3:59:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 3:53:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It is my personal experience from over a year of being here, I could dig up numerous examples.
I am very active on evolution themed threads and though some of what you state is true, and mentioned in the OP your overall message does not tally with what I have observed. Do you have links to these unanswered questions or to unsupported claims?

Particularly given the bolded portions, why would either of us want to do that?

I would love that, however atheists have generally asked those questions and theists generally get offended. Not always, I am talking about correlations.

I don't remember having ever seen that, despite the very many religion-based threads I've encountered. Perhaps you could try again? From the theists I've seen on this site, there are some that behave the way you describe, but they're a minority.

It's about 50/50 I think.

Perhaps.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 4:19:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 3:59:58 AM, Ren wrote:
At 10/25/2010 3:53:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It is my personal experience from over a year of being here, I could dig up numerous examples.
I am very active on evolution themed threads and though some of what you state is true, and mentioned in the OP your overall message does not tally with what I have observed. Do you have links to these unanswered questions or to unsupported claims?

Particularly given the bolded portions, why would either of us want to do that?

I don't understand the question.


I would love that, however atheists have generally asked those questions and theists generally get offended. Not always, I am talking about correlations.

I don't remember having ever seen that, despite the very many religion-based threads I've encountered. Perhaps you could try again? From the theists I've seen on this site, there are some that behave the way you describe, but they're a minority.

They make themselves seem like the majority, and other theists do not turn on them.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 4:30:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 4:19:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
They make themselves seem like the majority, and other theists do not turn on them.

Do not "turn on them?"

Why should people run around policing people that share their same belief system?

What kind of oppressive nonsense is that?

Whatever, dude.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 5:31:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 4:30:28 AM, Ren wrote:
At 10/25/2010 4:19:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
They make themselves seem like the majority, and other theists do not turn on them.

Do not "turn on them?"

Why should people run around policing people that share their same belief system?

What kind of oppressive nonsense is that?

Whatever, dude.

See what I mean, tribalistic ways of thinking, tribalistic responses.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 5:45:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 5:31:59 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
See what I mean, tribalistic ways of thinking, tribalistic responses.

I really shouldn't dignify this with a response.

But, let me rephrase.

I think it's absurd that you believe that people on this website should police the posts of other people based on the merit of the fact that they share a belief system.

That should ring as an obviously factual statement given that no one should go around policing threads at all.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 5:52:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 5:45:38 AM, Ren wrote:
At 10/25/2010 5:31:59 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
See what I mean, tribalistic ways of thinking, tribalistic responses.

I really shouldn't dignify this with a response.

But, let me rephrase.

I think it's absurd that you believe that people on this website should police the posts of other people based on the merit of the fact that they share a belief system.

That should ring as an obviously factual statement given that no one should go around policing threads at all.

I really shouldn't dignify this with a response.

But, let me rephrase.

I think it's absurd that you believe that people on this website should become Morris Dancers on the merit of the fact that they share a belief system.

In addition I absolutely refute your claims that cheese causes syphilis.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 8:38:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 11:45:26 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

The only way I can explain this is to simply assume that these 'Christians' are fakes. They do not truly believe. Their faith to them is a social fact, a tribal expression. They don't actually believe that one day Jesus will stand in judgement over them, instead they have just adopted a label to define their social identity. Akin to race, nationality or what football team they support.

Are you being disingenuous in order to provoke a desired response? Or are you truly unable to comprehend actual faith in another, and why there would be is less rancor when questioned? - A little of both?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 9:32:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 8:38:25 AM, innomen wrote:
At 10/22/2010 11:45:26 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

The only way I can explain this is to simply assume that these 'Christians' are fakes. They do not truly believe. Their faith to them is a social fact, a tribal expression. They don't actually believe that one day Jesus will stand in judgement over them, instead they have just adopted a label to define their social identity. Akin to race, nationality or what football team they support.

Are you being disingenuous in order to provoke a desired response? Or are you truly unable to comprehend actual faith in another, and why there would be is less rancor when questioned? - A little of both?

I attack the lunatic fringe and their rational cousins leap to their defence. That is tribalism, it seems that all the theists who have replied to this thread have confirmed my observations.

No I am not being disingenuous, I never stated that I am unable to comprehend faith the last part of your reply makes no sense.

To clarify, one might assume that those with faith would be more secure in their stances than someone with a scientific viewpoint as science is a matter of doubt.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 10:00:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 9:32:11 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/25/2010 8:38:25 AM, innomen wrote:
At 10/22/2010 11:45:26 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

The only way I can explain this is to simply assume that these 'Christians' are fakes. They do not truly believe. Their faith to them is a social fact, a tribal expression. They don't actually believe that one day Jesus will stand in judgement over them, instead they have just adopted a label to define their social identity. Akin to race, nationality or what football team they support.

Are you being disingenuous in order to provoke a desired response? Or are you truly unable to comprehend actual faith in another, and why there would be is less rancor when questioned? - A little of both?

I attack the lunatic fringe and their rational cousins leap to their defence. That is tribalism, it seems that all the theists who have replied to this thread have confirmed my observations.

No I am not being disingenuous, I never stated that I am unable to comprehend faith the last part of your reply makes no sense.

To clarify, one might assume that those with faith would be more secure in their stances than someone with a scientific viewpoint as science is a matter of doubt.

It is the nature of science to test and retest. To be perfectly honest i have always wondered how atheists can be so free of doubt within their conclusion, and never wander into periods where they may have less conviction. Most people that i know who are serious in their faith, thinking people, do indeed go into periods where their faith is tested and they are a little thin in their faith. In fact more people that i know personally who are of faith have had these periods than not. You are comparing two different things, in fact you are almost equating them. You constantly speak of faith as being a belief in facts. It says xyz in the bible - therefore you must believe it if you are a Christian, and if i can prove to you that it is false, your faith is bankrupt. Do you truly think that's how it works? You don't understand why - that which you find to be crucial evidence of a complete bankruptcy of faith is a triviality, an irrelevance to what one believes?
I see your other thread and it simply mystifies me that someone can operate at a level of almost mathematical existence.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 10:12:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 10:00:56 AM, innomen wrote:
It is the nature of science to test and retest. To be perfectly honest i have always wondered how atheists can be so free of doubt within their conclusion, and never wander into periods where they may have less conviction.

I am not free of doubt, I don't have much doubt, and my periods of questioning cause me no stress so it's not much of a big deal.

Most people that i know who are serious in their faith, thinking people, do indeed go into periods where their faith is tested and they are a little thin in their faith. In fact more people that i know personally who are of faith have had these periods than not.

That to me suggests that faith is little more than wishful thinking, I always thought it was something more.

You are comparing two different things, in fact you are almost equating them. You constantly speak of faith as being a belief in facts. It says xyz in the bible - therefore you must believe it if you are a Christian, and if i can prove to you that it is false, your faith is bankrupt. Do you truly think that's how it works?

Not entirely, the bible is full of so many inconsistencies and uncertainties that something has to be ignored or assumed. However I've not really seen a convincing criteria on how this is determined, it does seem like a faith built on weak foundations sometimes.

You don't understand why - that which you find to be crucial evidence of a complete bankruptcy of faith is a triviality, an irrelevance to what one believes?

I make the mistake of assuming that everyone is rational, if someone believes that Jesus is the gate to an afterlife I will assume that they have reasons for doing so. Simple questions should actually make them happy, if they believe that is.

I see your other thread and it simply mystifies me that someone can operate at a level of almost mathematical existence.

Who... me? Thats not me at all. You mean the morality thread?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 11:07:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
C_N, go to your local church next Sunday.

I understand what you mean but there are legitimate Christians, you're making a vast generalization.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 11:33:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 10:12:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Most people that i know who are serious in their faith, thinking people, do indeed go into periods where their faith is tested and they are a little thin in their faith. In fact more people that i know personally who are of faith have had these periods than not.

That to me suggests that faith is little more than wishful thinking, I always thought it was something more.


Have you ever heard of the "dark night of the soul"? EVERY serious Christian (probably every religious person) has goes through one, or two, or three.

Your response suggests to me you have the wrong conception of faith.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 12:36:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 10:12:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/25/2010 10:00:56 AM, innomen wrote:
It is the nature of science to test and retest. To be perfectly honest i have always wondered how atheists can be so free of doubt within their conclusion, and never wander into periods where they may have less conviction.

I am not free of doubt, I don't have much doubt, and my periods of questioning cause me no stress so it's not much of a big deal.

Most people that i know who are serious in their faith, thinking people, do indeed go into periods where their faith is tested and they are a little thin in their faith. In fact more people that i know personally who are of faith have had these periods than not.

That to me suggests that faith is little more than wishful thinking, I always thought it was something more.
And that to me suggests you don't have the slightest idea of what faith is. It isn't like a collection of doctrines as discussed here, but an actual experience.

You are comparing two different things, in fact you are almost equating them. You constantly speak of faith as being a belief in facts. It says xyz in the bible - therefore you must believe it if you are a Christian, and if i can prove to you that it is false, your faith is bankrupt. Do you truly think that's how it works?

Not entirely, the bible is full of so many inconsistencies and uncertainties that something has to be ignored or assumed. However I've not really seen a convincing criteria on how this is determined, it does seem like a faith built on weak foundations sometimes.

You don't understand why - that which you find to be crucial evidence of a complete bankruptcy of faith is a triviality, an irrelevance to what one believes?

I make the mistake of assuming that everyone is rational, if someone believes that Jesus is the gate to an afterlife I will assume that they have reasons for doing so. Simple questions should actually make them happy, if they believe that is.
You wonder why you don't get the responses that you desire from theists? For most here i would say there is little point. Other than a little mental dalliance with you there truly is no point. You have continually shown that you have little ability to be receptive toward a spiritual path. So tell me what point is there in engaging with you in this? To what end? All theists know well by this point and you are fairly predictable in your posts and threads. Not saying they are without value, but they no longer spark inspiration to engage. Same is probably true of Geo by the way, although he's more fun.

I see your other thread and it simply mystifies me that someone can operate at a level of almost mathematical existence.

Who... me? Thats not me at all. You mean the morality thread?
guilt ramble.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 12:49:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 7:53:51 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 10/23/2010 11:20:51 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Okay, but why aren't they confident in that knowledge?

The actual Christians *are* confident in that knowledge. It's just that a good number of them get confused when you ask them to prove it. It's like trying to get someone to prove their skill in roulette by explaining it in poker terms.

That's why it may seem that they hem and haw when they try to "speak science".

A scientist does not actually know anything (a bit of creative licence there, but you get what I mean science being about doubting and iconaclasm) but should express no anger at stupid questions regarded his theories.

And what of anger at questions regarding axioms?

This was not responded to, C-N :O
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:02:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Innomen has hit this on on the head. I avoid many of your threads, C-N, because of threads like this. You are way to wrapped up in yourself to have a very meaningful conversation.

And you phrase things very funny, to me anyway. I'll spent five minutes just trying to figure out what in the heck you said. The only reason I responded to that thread is because I was interested in the topic, and I thought I would give you another chance.

And I'm not done with that thread yet. I have been fishing all weekend, the weather turned bad and I wanted to get in as much as I could before a week of rain. And that topic is worthy of a thought out answer. I will work on it this evening and try to get back to it, if I don't go fishing. :)
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 1:07:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I do think that it's not entirely CN's fault. What he has seen may be young, fake Christians who don't understand faith. If a Christian needs to use science and logic to justify his faith in God, then this is a fake Christian.

I doubt that the real Christians would be swayed by any sort of scientific "proof" or logical argument against God. That's why I balked when he said that Christians don't seem "confident". You're asking a painter to explain painting as if though he were a plumber, and you get irritated when he seems to be saying things that aren't exactly like plumbing.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.