Science supporting religious beliefs...

[cubinity]

I welcome commentary any other behaviors you also think hurt or help a person's argument regarding their religion or religious perspective; if any come to mind, that is...

 

[AV1611VET]

I welcome commentary any other behaviors you also think hurt or help a person's argument regarding their religion or religious perspective; if any come to mind, that is...

Some things that hurt the atheist philosophy with me is:

1. Automatically accepting something as fact, then expecting us to; (Pluto).

• No questions. No probation period. No informing us what other scientists who disagree say. It's in Scientific American, so it had better be taught in our churches as well.

2. Automatically disagreeing with Bible Truths.

• Worldwide Flood didn't happen. No such thing as the Trinity. God doesn't exist. Jesus didn't walk on water. Matthew didn't write Matthew. Jews didn't wander in the wilderness, etc. They will even use Strong's Concordance, considered by some (not I) to be a definitive Biblical tool, to make a point against a passage being literal.

3. Using us to vent.

• Asking us a serious question, then using our answer to vent some pent-up feeling toward God, his family, or the Bible.

4. Automatically disagreeing and/or ridiculing deep theology.

• Asking a question, getting a deep answer, then coming back w/i 5 minutes with a cheap dismissal is a real pet peeve of mine. Dismissing an answer within minutes that is using dispensation theology, ontological subordination, or covenant theology in its point usually throws up red flags.

5. Ridiculing and false accusations.

• Laughing at an answer and/or saying it isn't basic doctrine. Calling a person everything but what's in their profile, ridiculing a person posting in subforums that have nothing to do with theology, and/or putting tags on their threads is nothing short of bullying.

6. Being ... ironic.

• Netiquette violators, or persons who have been moderated themselves, have no business telling others they are necrobumping threads. If someone tells me I have necroed a thread, then later I see that same person harassing or ridiculing someone, I tend to lose respect.

Just some of my personal observations.

 

[Cabal]

Some things that hurt the atheist philosophy with me is:

Some things that hurt the Christian religion when discussing the atheist religion are:

1. Automatically accepting something as fact, then expecting us to; (Pluto).

1. Presuming we automatically accept things when that is not the case. Applies to 2 and 4 too. I could probably append 1a: Not listening, or in many cases, outright ignoring (automatically, even) counterarguments presented as to why Bible "Truths" and "deep theology" are not what those presenting them think they are.

3. Using us to vent.

• Asking us a serious question, then using our answer to vent some pent-up feeling toward God, his family, or the Bible.

3. Being blind to one's own double standards.

4. Automatically disagreeing and/or ridiculing deep theology.

• Asking a question, getting a deep answer, then coming back w/i 5 minutes with a cheap dismissal is a real pet peeve of mine. Dismissing an answer within minutes that is using dispensation theology, ontological subordination, or covenant theology in its point usually throws up red flags.

4. Thinking theology, especially the kind that is little more than excuse-making for God when the last *ahem* divinely-inspired-and-obviously-true personal interpretation didn't work out, is "deep".

5. Ridiculing and false accusations.

• Laughing at an answer and/or saying it isn't basic doctrine. Calling a person everything but what's in their profile, ridiculing a person posting in subforums that have nothing to do with theology, and/or putting tags on their threads is nothing short of bullying.

5. Thinking you and your backwater church get to define what "basic doctrine" is when you're one of several hundred denominations, and one which is a small fish in a big sea; thinking that posting theology in a science forum is relevant; picking on non-believers for behaviour done by people with the same faith icon as you - I've seen plenty of snarky tags put down by Christians, but that doesn't seem to stop them going BAWWWWW when a non-believer does it.

6. Being ... ironic.

• Netiquette violators, or persons who have been moderated themselves, have no business telling others they are necrobumping threads. If someone tells me I have necroed a thread, then later I see that same person harassing or ridiculing someone, I tend to lose respect.

6. Being blind to the notion that one can be a hypocrite and still make a valid point about the rules of the board - unless a murderer saying "murder is wrong" somehow validates murder now.

 

[cubinity]

While those who disagree may never see eye to eye, I believe that discussing things like how our behaviors and tactics help or hurt our arguments really helps everyone learn and grow.

This criticism is very constructive. Does anyone have anything to say about behaviors and tactics that have actually helped the presentations of the argument?

 

[AV1611VET]

While those who disagree may never see eye to eye, I believe that discussing things like how our behaviors and tactics help or hurt our arguments really helps everyone learn and grow.

This criticism is very constructive. Does anyone have anything to say about behaviors and tactics that have actually helped the presentations of the argument?

I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity with this thread.

One reply to your last question, followed by a QED from the peanut gallery without your saying anything to him, and you move on with yet another question.

Are you asking questions so your buddies can vent anyone who answers?

 

[Cabal]

I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity with this thread.

Irony meters just imploded in a large radius.....

QED to my point 3....

followed by a QED from the peanut gallery

So that's pretty much a QED for point 1a in my last post then.

Are you asking questions so your buddies can vent anyone who answers?

Ah yes, we don't agree with your approach of ignoring points while accusing everyone else of ignoring points or dismissing points from people rightly sick of that attitude with accusations of "venting", so we must all be in cahoots.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah yes, we don't agree with your approach of ignoring points while accusing everyone else of ignoring points or dismissing points from people rightly sick of that attitude with accusations of "venting", so we must all be in cahoots.

I was just surprised he moved on to the next question, and that without commenting on my fan mail that came in.

 

[Curtis.Hilliker]

Are God's creations simply amazing or what? I saw a photo of some green blob galaxies away that was giving birth to a star or something...incredible. This article I read showed a picture of a storm on Saturn that was the size of Earth...fairly cool if you ask me.

 

[Cabal]

I was just surprised he moved on to the next question

Well, it is a discussion board, with all posts laid out for anyone to comment on as and when they desire. And the thread starter can ask questions as and when they choose - I'm sure asking a second question doesn't mean the first one is done and dusted, hmmm?

and that without commenting on my fan mail that came in.

Why, because a serious Christian would join in with your strawman diatribe of how horrible us mean atheists are to you poor, persecuted basic-doctrinists? Time for a sons-of-Sceva moment?

 

[Simply_Amazing]

Oh, yeah, I have no problem with religion adopting science. As I was saying in another post, and was encouraged by Non sequitur, that whenever it happens, it should be done consistently and reasonably, not just selectively to suit an agenda.

In this example, you would definitely say the behavior hurts whatever argument he may be making, right?

Not really. He went from making a bad argument to illustrating said bad argument with exhibits for children. I wouldn't say the argument itself was hurt, but making it in such a manner doesn't help it in any way.

 

[Curtis.Hilliker]

Just curious Cabal; have you ever thought of giving faith a chance (and no, I'm not talking about my ex-girlfriend) ? ? ?

 

[AV1611VET]

- I'm sure asking a second question doesn't mean the first one is done and dusted, hmmm?

Try third, ehhh?

In any event, I'll vacate this thread before it gets buried in my fan mail.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just curious Cabal; have you ever thought of giving faith a chance (and no, I'm not talking about my ex-girlfriend) ? ? ?

Oh, boy.

Here comes a I-been-a-Bible-thumper-for-50-years-till-I-saw-the-electromagnetic-spectrum moment.

 

[Non sequitur]

Oh, yeah, I have no problem with religion adopting science. As I was saying in another post, and was encouraged by Non sequitur, that whenever it happens, it should be done consistently and reasonably, not just selectively to suit an agenda.

In this example, you would definitely say the behavior hurts whatever argument he may be making, right?

Not really. He went from making a bad argument to illustrating said bad argument with exhibits for children. I wouldn't say the argument itself was hurt, but making it in such a manner doesn't help it in any way.

What did I do?

 

[Non sequitur]

Some things that hurt the atheist philosophy with me is:

1. Automatically accepting something as fact, then expecting us to; (Pluto).

• No questions. No probation period. No informing us what other scientists who disagree say. It's in Scientific American, so it had better be taught in our churches as well.

2. Automatically disagreeing with Bible Truths.

• Worldwide Flood didn't happen. No such thing as the Trinity. God doesn't exist. Jesus didn't walk on water. Matthew didn't write Matthew. Jews didn't wander in the wilderness, etc. They will even use Strong's Concordance, considered by some (not I) to be a definitive Biblical tool, to make a point against a passage being literal.

3. Using us to vent.

• Asking us a serious question, then using our answer to vent some pent-up feeling toward God, his family, or the Bible.

4. Automatically disagreeing and/or ridiculing deep theology.

• Asking a question, getting a deep answer, then coming back w/i 5 minutes with a cheap dismissal is a real pet peeve of mine. Dismissing an answer within minutes that is using dispensation theology, ontological subordination, or covenant theology in its point usually throws up red flags.

5. Ridiculing and false accusations.

• Laughing at an answer and/or saying it isn't basic doctrine. Calling a person everything but what's in their profile, ridiculing a person posting in subforums that have nothing to do with theology, and/or putting tags on their threads is nothing short of bullying.

6. Being ... ironic.

• Netiquette violators, or persons who have been moderated themselves, have no business telling others they are necrobumping threads. If someone tells me I have necroed a thread, then later I see that same person harassing or ridiculing someone, I tend to lose respect.

Just some of my personal observations.

If you swapped around "Christian religion" with "atheist religion" (whatever that is), the observation still stands...

 

[Cabal]

Oh, boy.

Here comes a I-been-a-Bible-thumper-for-50-years-till-I-saw-the-electromagnetic-spectrum moment.

Here's another piece of advice, cubinity: when dealing with non-believers who are former Christians, don't act the smart-alec like this.

 

[Cabal]

Just curious Cabal; have you ever thought of giving faith a chance (and no, I'm not talking about my ex-girlfriend) ? ? ?

I did. For most of my life so far, until about a year ago. Not about to pick it back up.

 

[Non sequitur]

I did. For most of my life so far, until about a year ago. Not about to pick it back up.

How about if there wasn't something I could show you?

 

[Cabal]

How about if there wasn't something I could show you?

 

[cubinity]

What did I do?

You? Nothing. We were referring to Ken Ham in those posts.