Author Topic: Christianity Debunked??? (Read 2772 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #90 on:** March 22, 2004, 08:19:32 AM »

meditation is boring.

I find that I agree with sandie on this in that I am tolerant of all beliefs so long as they don't affect me. I would not want any church to be so powerful that it controled more than 50% of the vote.

lazs

midnight Target · « **Reply #91 on:** March 22, 2004, 08:51:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by LAWCobra
No there called masianic Jews

Messianic. Interesting sect. Do you belong to a Messianic Synagog?

AKIron · « **Reply #92 on:** March 22, 2004, 09:06:37 AM »

I said it before but I think it bears repeating. In the USofA folks have the freedom to believe/worship as they want. I wouldn't want it any other way. However, folks shouldn't assume that simply because they have that freedom there is no wrong or right way to believe. In the end, there either is a God/Creator or there isn't. If there is then He will probably hold you accountable to his standards, not your's or Uncle Sam's. Choose wisely.

AKIron · « **Reply #93 on:** March 22, 2004, 09:55:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Belief is not something you can choose. You either believe or you don't. I was brought up with Christian values, and I don't think I would have led my life any differently if I had believed in God. If God condemns me to hell simply for not believing in him, then he's not a God I care to worship in the first place.

I have to disagree. I think you choose everything you believe. A belief unexamined isn't worth having.

AKIron · « **Reply #94 on:** March 22, 2004, 10:11:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Belief is an unconscious process AKIron.

I will admit that we all make assumptions based on the things we believe. While you may not say to yourself "I choose to believe this" I bet it's not unusual for you to hear or read something and think "I don't believe that".

All of us have a predisposition to believe or disbelieve a thing based on the many thousands of choices we have made in our lives in regards to what we believe. When we are very young we believed what our parents told us because we trusted and depended on them. It was nonetheless a choice, if not a completely cognizant one.

AKIron · « **Reply #95 on:** March 22, 2004, 11:04:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
I don't know about you AKIron, but I cannot force myself into believing something I don't believe. I can say "I choose to believe", that is a conscious decision, whether I actually believe is a completely different matter.

If I told you I'm the King of Norway, you may respond with "I choose to believe you" (a popular phrase in politics I might add), however you cannot force yourself to actually believe that.

I don't think you understand what I mean when I say "choose to believe". I choose (and I think you do too) to believe things that seem reasonable to me and there is insufficient evidence to contradict that belief. Sometimes (most times) my beliefs are conditional, I'll accept something as fact until it is disproven. Other times I'll believe something so fully that I don't believe it can be disproven. Something like the force we call gravity. I don't pretend to know what that force is, curved space, gravitons, etc... but I always feel it's pull. That doesn't mean that I won't listen to someone try to tell me that gravity doesn't exist but that they better have a pretty strong argument (stonger than 9.8m/s2) before my skepticism will waver.

My belief in God isn't so different from my belief in Gravity. I felt and feel the pull.

AKIron · « **Reply #96 on:** March 22, 2004, 11:17:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Well I don't feel the "pull" concerning God. You obviously do. Why are we different? I sure don't know.

The "pull" I mentioned is really nothing more than my need, and I've had plenty. Hard to need God if you have no needs, or at least don't recognize them. I think that's why Jesus said something like it's easier for a rich man to go through the eye of a needle than to enter heaven.

AKIron · « **Reply #97 on:** March 22, 2004, 12:15:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
So you need God and therefore you believe in him? I suppose that makes sense, but I have needed God on many occasions, but I have never believed because of that. Perhaps when I'm on my deathbed I'll believe in God, but that would really be desperation more than actual belief. Who knows.

I needed him and he met that need, that's why I believe. It was a spiritual need and not material in case you are wondering. Since, I have come to believe that everyone shares that need. Many try to satisfy it with material things including indulgence in all sorts of pleasures. I found that nothing else satisfied it.

I believes God calls us all to himself. No one can find God except that he hear or feel that call. Religion can't do it. In fact I find religion to be completely worthless if there is no God just as I would find life to be completely pointless if there were no God.

Sure, I could enjoy the finer things in life, friendships, family, for a few decades and might feel better knowing that my offspring are happy but then what? Eventually the stars will die or our universe will collapse and all things will cease to exist. I can't help but feel that there must be more. Believe what you will about why I feel this but I believe that it is because there is a part of me that recognizes there is more to us than what we can see or measure.

midnight Target · « **Reply #98 on:** March 22, 2004, 12:27:59 PM »

Blatantly cut and pasted...

Quote

It has been suggested that, since we know people exist, it's reasonable to assume that gods exist using a variation of the conceptual fallacy of redefinition (among others). Seems silly, doesn't it? It is. Here's how it goes:

1. Define humans as "creative intelligences."

2. Define gods as "creative intelligences."

3. Claim that, since we know creative intelligences exist, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that one more creative intelligence exists.

4. Restore original definitions, substituting "humans" for "creative intelligences" and "god" for "creative intelligence" in number 3 above.

Well, try this one. You see hoof prints on the beach. A unicorn is as likely an explanation for the source of the prints as a horse:

1. Define horse as "hoofed equine."

2. Define unicorn as "hoofed equine."

3. Claim that, since we know hoofed equines exist, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that one more hoofed equine exists.

4. Restore original definitions, substituting "horses" for "hoofed equines" and "unicorn" for "hoofed equine" in number 3 above.

Occam's razor still states that one should not multiply entities without cause. We know horses exist, so there's no reason to assume that unicorns exist where horses will serve as an explanation.

Moreover, the known existence of horses does not imply the existence of unicorns. Neither does the known existence of hippos imply the existence of invisible pink flying hippos. Neither does the known existence of humans imply the existence of gods. Such an assertion is ludicrous, lacking other evidence.

In point of fact, explanations which use entities known to exist are preferable over explanations using entities which are not known to exist, all other things being equal, according to Occam's razor (do not multiply entities _without reason_). To claim otherwise is to abuse the principle of parsimony without any reason other than blind (and silly) faith.

AKIron · « **Reply #99 on:** March 22, 2004, 12:49:29 PM »

"Moreover, the known existence of horses does not imply the existence of unicorns. Neither does the known existence of hippos imply the existence of invisible pink flying hippos. Neither does the known existence of humans imply the existence of gods. Such an assertion is ludicrous, lacking other evidence."

And I thought you were debunking Christianity, instead you've debunked Darwinism.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #100 on:** March 22, 2004, 01:49:27 PM »

This thread and the object website are a futile waste of time.

You cannot use logic to prove faith, and you cannot use faith to prove logic.

The reason you cannot successfully argue religion is that argument is an exercise in logic and faith is by definition not logic.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #101 on:** March 22, 2004, 02:19:38 PM »

Sure, wasting time is what the internet is all about.

cpxxx · « **Reply #102 on:** March 22, 2004, 02:32:24 PM »

You know what I wish? I just all the evangelical christians. muslims, etc etc would just leave us all alone. Stop trying to convert everyone to your wretched beliefs. Stop trying to introduce laws that suit your relligion and stop to make the rest of us live to your morality.

Just leave us alone. Believe what you like and live your life as you choose and let the rest of us get on with our lives as we see fit.

Torque · « **Reply #103 on:** March 22, 2004, 02:33:44 PM »

Do i get three guesses?

midnight Target · « **Reply #104 on:** March 22, 2004, 02:34:03 PM »

Will saying it 3 times make it come true?