Logic behind Christianity?

[Foxi4]

No idea where you're livin', but we don't really have any laws of the sort. Any religious institution pays the same taxes, regardless of which religion it represents. I can't see how they're trying to "control" my life either, and they surely never "took money away from me" or "limited the ammount of phone calls I can do", nor did any religion "tap my phone". Such instances are taking place in Scientology Institutes though.

If you're trying to pull out the "Christianity's naughty too" argument, that's fair and I agree, the church made mistakes in the past and it still does. Yes, I'm anti-clerical.

If you're trying to say that "Scientology is okay" though, I disagree and that's about it.

I think the best description of Scientology would be a "Mainly bad SciFi writers confidence trick".

L. Ron Hubbard...

...you magnificent bastard!

 

[TGBoy]

Hail Kratos!

Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ is a good read for the O.P. Not saying it is a must but a "good read"

 

[impizkit]

Hell, I've been technically dead for a few minutes and I have a hazy recollection of a voice (in case you're wondering, a female voice I didn't recognise, very soft sounding, telling me my time wasn't up yet and that I still had a task to attend to, and I do recall the faint smell of flowers), but even I refuse to place my faith in something that cannot be proven to exist. Even if there IS an afterlife, I'll deal with it when I get there. Simple fact is that I don't know for sure that there is anything else waiting for me at the end of it all. I DO know that I'm alive now. I'd rather worry about something real than something that could just be a load of old bollocks.

You experienced this and still dont believe? That is something. I have had several experiences where I should have died, no explanation why I didn't accept it wasn't my time and God wanted me to live. If I wasn't a strong believer before(I was) then my close encounters strengthened my belief. And I dont believe if religion or follow a religion. I believe that the bible is telling truths, or stories to explain the truth. There is a God, as far as Im concerned.

This will get long, so dont read if you dont want to hear a testimony(I strongly suggest you do):

The day before my Junior Prom, I was on my way to work. This was after school and I never really slept alot in High School. I started to doze off and before I knew it, I was on a corner that is suggested to be taken at 35 MPH, but can easily be taken at 60 with no trouble. This particular day, my cruise control was set at 58 (digital speedo) and as I approached the turn I nodded off and fell off the side of the road. I quickly woke in time to work around the corner. I was almost in the clear until my back passenger tire fell off the rim and the car started to flip. That was the last thing I remember. The ditch I ended in was about 75-100 feet away from the road when I landed. It landed on the roof. A farmer happened to see the accident and new someone was dead. He claimed that my car flipped 8 times only hitting the ground 3 times. I was woken up by the paramedics who had to cut me out of my seat belt. The mere fact that I survived is not the difficult part to understand. The fact that I flipped as much as reported, all windows were broken including my moonroof and only a small scratch on my elbow, twisted ankle as it got caught between the clutch and break and a minor concussion are not even the most convincing. That all could have happened to anyone. Where I truly believe God kept me alive is the fact that I had a bible in my trunk that had my name engraved on it and a bumper sticker on my back window that said Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit was a local band in my area, but I had it because I believe in the Holy Spirit. As I mentioned, all windows were broken, the bumper sticker was found by my dad the next day some yards away from the final destination of the car, completely intact. The glass was all still stuck to the back, but shattered in the exact shape of the bumper sticker. Also, it rained that night and the following day and the trunk lid was badly mangled leaving the trunk open to the elements in the tow yard. When my dad went to get my personal belongings out of the car, the bible was not only dry in the trunk, but very dusty. There were even puddles surrounding the bible. Granted, I wasn't treating my bible very well, but there was a reason it was in my trunk. To show me that there is a reason I was still alive.

All that said, Blaze, you still had more convincing reasons to believe in a higher power than this one incident I had and still dont believe. That is your choice, but what you have said shows that you are here for a reason and God has a plan for you.

Sorry if this got preachy, that was not my intent. Only to show the shock I felt with Blazes story and still disbelief.

Please feel free to PM me if anyone has questions or wants to chat.

 

[Magmorph]

No idea where you're livin', but we don't really have any laws of the sort. Any religious institution pays the same taxes, regardless of which religion it represents. I can't see how they're trying to "control" my life either, and they surely never "took money away from me" or "limited the ammount of phone calls I can do", nor did any religion "tap my phone". Such instances are taking place in Scientology Institutes though.

If you're trying to pull out the "Christianity's naughty too" argument, that's fair and I agree, the church made mistakes in the past and it still does. Yes, I'm anti-clerical.

If you're trying to say that "Scientology is okay" though, I disagree and that's about it.

I'm not saying Scientology is ok, I'm just saying that it is a religion too.

 

[cwstjdenobs]

impizkit, I think the problem is we can almost explain exactly why some people see strange things when close to death, and can fake the same results without having to almost/actually kill someone just by messing with targeted magnets on the head.

 

[Foxi4]

I guess I just have higher standards for the "Religion" basket. I'll say that it's a "belief" and anyone is free to believe it, however I have a negative opinion about it. How does that sound?

 

[nugundam0079]

I don't find anything logical in attacking one's hardened beliefs just because you want to act like some turtleneck-wearing intellectual douche.

Seriously, we just had that stupid ass furry issue, we don't need another dumb thread where people get riled up over nothing.

I agree

 

[nugundam0079]

Nobody's getting rilled up yet, can't see a problem. The discussion is on a civilized level...whaaat!?! CONVICT TEH FURRIEZ! CRUCIFY ZEM! AND THEN SHOOT JUST TO MAKE TEH SUREZ!

Speak for yourself I was hanging with Maria back in the day.

 

[Magmorph]

...You know, it's really not cool to be ignored. Particularly after I wrote all that about faith being contradictory to human essence and progress. Yeah, I wish people would actually read my stuff.

Sheesh.

I read your post and I'm sure other people did too. I just didn't have any response to it.

 

[impizkit]

I wont ignore you Wolvenreign, it almost sounds like you are saying anyone that believes cannot be intelligent. That is pure ignorance. Everyone is able to have their own views and beliefs, but do not try to say that everyone that believes in God or religion is not of the same intellect as those that do not believe. You think that no scientists believe in God. Science and God can both exist. If not, explain why? We could go round and round all day. I just dont want you saying we believers are not as smart as those of you that dont.

 

[Wolvenreign]

I wont ignore you Wolvenreign, it almost sounds like you are saying anyone that believes cannot be intelligent. That is pure ignorance. Everyone is able to have their own views and beliefs, but do not try to say that everyone that believes in God or religion is not of the same intellect as those that do not believe. You think that no scientists believe in God. Science and God can both exist. If not, explain why? We could go round and round all day. I just dont want you saying we believers are not as smart as those of you that dont.

You did not read it properly.

What I said was that science is the antithesis of faith. A scientist happens to be one that practices science, and any intelligent person had become intelligent through scientific reasoning of their environment. Intelligence is, by definition, the ability to sort what is from what is not.

It is entirely possible, however, for someone intelligent and/or scientific to...shall we say...overlook aspects of reality which are already covered or predefined by their faith. There are some parts of their worldview which they they can place a foundation on, and never do they dare to undermine that foundation. However, if the foundation is false, what good is it? It does not help to determine the truth. Of course, that's IF the foundation is false.

Now, what is the only way to determine whether or not the foundation is false? Well, the only tools we have are examination, experimentation, and a generally scientific, methodical approach. Once again, this assumes you are willing to do so.

What I'm getting at here is that you can't assume something and still call it scientific. Scientists and generally intelligent people sacrifice curiosity and science when they do so. So are you less intelligent when you have faith? Maybe, I don't have the raw answer to that. What you are is less scientific, because you willingly blind a small, but important part of yourself.

It is also true, however, that you entirely missed the whole point of that writing. My intent there was to prove a vital contradiction between the writings of the bible and the reality of the human race.

 

[Foxi4]

I wont ignore you Wolvenreign, it almost sounds like you are saying anyone that believes cannot be intelligent. That is pure ignorance. Everyone is able to have their own views and beliefs, but do not try to say that everyone that believes in God or religion is not of the same intellect as those that do not believe. You think that no scientists believe in God. Science and God can both exist. If not, explain why? We could go round and round all day. I just dont want you saying we believers are not as smart as those of you that dont.

You did not read it properly.

What I said was that science is the antithesis of faith. A scientist happens to be one that practices science, and any intelligent person had become intelligent through scientific reasoning of their environment. Intelligence is, by definition, the ability to sort what is from what is not.

It is entirely possible, however, for someone intelligent and/or scientific to...shall we say...overlook aspects of reality which are already covered or predefined by their faith. There are some parts of their worldview which they they can place a foundation on, and never do they dare to undermine that foundation. However, if the foundation is false, what good is it? It does not help to determine the truth. Of course, that's IF the foundation is false.

Now, what is the only way to determine whether or not the foundation is false? Well, the only tools we have are examination, experimentation, and a generally scientific, methodical approach. Once again, this assumes you are willing to do so.

What I'm getting at here is that you can't assume something and still call it scientific. Scientists and generally intelligent people sacrifice curiosity and science when they do so. So are you less intelligent when you have faith? Maybe, I don't have the raw answer to that. What you are is less scientific, because you willingly blind a small, but important part of yourself.

It is also true, however, that you entirely missed the whole point of that writing. My intent there was to prove a vital contradiction between the writings of the bible and the reality of the human race.

The problem in your line of logic is that you want to check this "foundation" of human life via scientific means, and you yourself stated that faith is the antithesis of science. Much like matter that collides with anti-matter results in nothingness, science colliding with religion on this scale also returns no results.

Science reffers to the rules of the world that are entirely explainable, factual events. Religion is for abstract ideas, like the existence of the soul or the afterlife. You can't "extract" a soul but you can't prove it's not there either, you can't scientifically prove me wrong saying there is no heaven, seeing that there is an infinite ammount of parallel universes, you can't prove that conciousness ends the moment you die - nobody died and returned to tell the tale yet, except Jesus and Lazarus, I suppose XP.

This is why Science should only be applied to the natural world while Religion should be applied to the spiritual plane of existence.

Sorry for "not replying" earlier, I was sort of occupied with different discussions.

 

[Wolvenreign]

I wont ignore you Wolvenreign, it almost sounds like you are saying anyone that believes cannot be intelligent. That is pure ignorance. Everyone is able to have their own views and beliefs, but do not try to say that everyone that believes in God or religion is not of the same intellect as those that do not believe. You think that no scientists believe in God. Science and God can both exist. If not, explain why? We could go round and round all day. I just dont want you saying we believers are not as smart as those of you that dont.

You did not read it properly.

What I said was that science is the antithesis of faith. A scientist happens to be one that practices science, and any intelligent person had become intelligent through scientific reasoning of their environment. Intelligence is, by definition, the ability to sort what is from what is not.

It is entirely possible, however, for someone intelligent and/or scientific to...shall we say...overlook aspects of reality which are already covered or predefined by their faith. There are some parts of their worldview which they they can place a foundation on, and never do they dare to undermine that foundation. However, if the foundation is false, what good is it? It does not help to determine the truth. Of course, that's IF the foundation is false.

Now, what is the only way to determine whether or not the foundation is false? Well, the only tools we have are examination, experimentation, and a generally scientific, methodical approach. Once again, this assumes you are willing to do so.

What I'm getting at here is that you can't assume something and still call it scientific. Scientists and generally intelligent people sacrifice curiosity and science when they do so. So are you less intelligent when you have faith? Maybe, I don't have the raw answer to that. What you are is less scientific, because you willingly blind a small, but important part of yourself.

It is also true, however, that you entirely missed the whole point of that writing. My intent there was to prove a vital contradiction between the writings of the bible and the reality of the human race.

The problem in your line of logic is that you want to check this "foundation" of human life via scientific means, and you yourself stated that faith is the antithesis of science. Much like matter that collides with anti-matter results in nothingness, science colliding with religion on this scale also returns no results.

Science reffers to the rules of the world that are entirely explainable, factual events. Religion is for abstract ideas, like the existence of the soul or the afterlife. You can't "extract" a soul but you can't prove it's not there either, you can't scientifically prove me wrong saying there is no heaven, seeing that there is an infinite ammount of parallel universes, you can't prove that conciousness ends the moment you die - nobody died and returned to tell the tale yet, except Jesus and Lazarus, I suppose XP.

This is why Science should only be applied to the natural world while Religion should be applied to the spiritual plane of existence.

Sorry for "not replying" earlier, I was sort of occupied with different discussions.

You assume that religion should be applied to that which we cannot yet explain.

Assumption is true evil.

I do not understand why we must simply make things up about that which we do not know. Why does it have to be so hard to just say, "We don't know. We can't know right now, but a day may come in the future when we have the capacity to understand these things." That is the very definition of science, and it is perfectly applicable to the unknown.

Indeed, why shouldn't we say, "We don't know."? It is the most perfectly honest answer that we have as limited, finite beings. We don't need some fantastical placeholder or some bizarre set of rules. I, for one, find it entertaining to stare into the void, to consider the possibilities of the future. The world is entirely too complex for assumption.

 

[Foxi4]

It should not be applied to things we cannot YET explain, it's to be applied to things that we will NEVER explain. There's a difference.

Each "we don't know yet" is followed by theories, and those theories are like beliefs. They're not proven right or wrong yet, their followers just choose to find them more probable than others until further notice.

 

[Wolvenreign]

It should not be applied to things we cannot YET explain, it's to be applied to things that we will NEVER explain. There's a difference.

Each "we don't know yet" is followed by theories, and those theories are like beliefs. They're not proven right or wrong yet, their followers just choose to find them more probable than others until further notice.

Again, you assume that we will never explain them. Theories have a major difference from beliefs in that they are scientifically breakable. If someone were to show evidence against that theory that entirely mutes it, the theory itself is mute. Faith is unshakable by evidence, and entirely unreasoning. That is the very essence of it's concept.

The point is, to have a truly scientific foundation, you must say in your heart of hearts, "I don't know if we'll ever explain the things I don't know about, but because I'm human, I have the potential to try. I have the ability to experiment with reality, observe the results, and see how close I can come.".

Science is beautiful in it's emptiness, yet whole in it's honesty.

 

[Foxi4]

Heh, the point I'm clumsily trying to get across to you is that you cannot prove or disprove some theories because it's humanly impossible to do so, not now and not ever. You can't "die" and "come back a few days later" retaining memories of the process, you can't "find" a spirit because it's not in the mortal plane, you can't prove that there is no God, much like religious people can't prove that there is one. Those are "abstract" theories, they're uncompatible with experimenting.

 

[Magmorph]

Heh, the point I'm clumsily trying to get across to you is that you cannot prove or disprove some theories because it's humanly impossible to do so, not now and not ever. You can't "die" and "come back a few days later" retaining memories of the process, you can't "find" a spirit because it's not in the mortal plane, you can't prove that there is no God, much like religious people can't prove that there is one. Those are "abstract" theories, they're uncompatible with experimenting.

A theory that is not refutable is not a theory at all. A scientific theory has to be refutable or it is nothing more than an idea.

 

[lex luthor]

zzz.....zzzz......

 

[Wolvenreign]

Heh, the point I'm clumsily trying to get across to you is that you cannot prove or disprove some theories because it's humanly impossible to do so, not now and not ever. You can't "die" and "come back a few days later" retaining memories of the process, you can't "find" a spirit because it's not in the mortal plane, you can't prove that there is no God, much like religious people can't prove that there is one. Those are "abstract" theories, they're uncompatible with experimenting.

A theory that is not refutable is not a theory at all. A scientific theory has to be refutable or it is nothing more than an idea.

Indeed, and one must ask the necessity of an idea which imaginarily explains something we do not know yet. (Again, there is no actual difference between what we do not know and what we "cannot" know, because we do not know whether or not we cannot know it.")

The most perfectly honest thing we can do as human beings is to say, "We don't know.". That is the intellectual, scientific thing to do. Those that fail to do so sacrifice their human curiosity in the name of faith.

 

[mcp2]

Indeed, and one must ask the necessity of an idea which imaginarily explains something we do not know yet. (Again, there is no actual difference between what we do not know and what we "cannot" know, because we do not know whether or not we cannot know it.")

The most perfectly honest thing we can do as human beings is to say, "We don't know.". That is the intellectual, scientific thing to do. Those that fail to do so sacrifice their human curiosity in the name of faith.

Strong tripe. You've wrapped your warped ideas in the most convoluted way possible. Have you ever read any religious books? Religious people don't know everything either, they do say "We don't know". Of course everything isn't known. To go as far as to say it's the "intellectualy scientific thing to do" and not give a reason is even worse than these religious arguments. Oh and the Venus Project is utter shit, stopped reading at "Earth has plentiful resources" and it doesn't even take into account the other uses of money apart from it being a system of barter such as a method of controlling demand and supply via various means (detached from it's bartering value).