Evidence

[JGG]

I don't see where he was insincere.

That's because you expect evidence that he was insincere.

 

[Davian]

I'm not convinced that there is a game to play. The rules of this "game" allow you to play it however you want to. You can pretend to have "won" the game, if you want. The rules allow that.



Yes, science grows in knowledge. What does religion grow in?

Dogma.

 

[JGG]

I'm not convinced that there is a game to play. The rules of this "game" allow you to play it however you want to. You can pretend to have "won" the game, if you want. The rules allow that.

Let's take for instance, our host Kristina, and Colter: Their specific, individual belief systems, it seems are different in many aspects (knowing what I do of Colter, and making broad assumptions about Kristina). It's safe to assume that one of them (or their religious ancestors) has added falsehood to truth, or discarded portions of truth.

How would I know which of you (if not both) is preaching a distorted truth or outright lie if I do not demand evidence that yours is actually is truth? How would I know what part is distorted, false, or absent if I did not scrutinize your respective claims? I can't do it based on "trust me, I'm right." Then let's add in hundreds of thousands of other belief systems, and millions of additional claims and do it again.

We need structured rules for this "game", and "Because I'm special, and I said so!" doesn't cut it.

 

[variant]

That's because you expect evidence that he was insincere.

Looking at our Christian friends posts, the thread seems to be an argument against the expectation of evidence.

We need structured rules for this "game", and "Because I'm special, and I said so!" doesn't cut it.

That is a rule of sorts, it just allows some people to make up the rules (and the "truth") as they go.

 

[JGG]

That is a rule of sorts, it just allows some people to make up the rules (and the "truth") as they go.

Well that, and it doesn't work if more than one person wants to exercise it.

 

[variant]

Well that, and it doesn't work if more than one person wants to exercise it.

It works fine if the two of them ignore their differences and continue the epistemological free for all.

It just doesn't work for any of the rest of us, but I am not sure that is the point.

If only we would have already evolved as a society to the point where special pleading was considered rude by all.

 

[TillICollapse]

That's because you expect evidence that he was insincere.

Indeed.

We need structured rules for this "game", and "Because I'm special, and I said so!" doesn't cut it.

This game also apparently has goalposts that can't stay put.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It works fine if the two of them ignore their differences and continue the epistemological free for all.

It just doesn't work for any of the rest of us, but I am not sure that is the point.

If only we would have already evolved as a society to the point where special pleading was considered rude by all.

I think AntiCitizenX said it well. This isn't just a debate over whether one ought to play the religious game. It's a conversation on how it is played and the epistemological playing field in which the game unfolds.

 

[TillICollapse]

I think AntiCitizenX said it well. This isn't just a debate over whether one ought to play the religious game. It's a conversation on how it is played and the epistemological playing field in which the game unfolds.

I just glanced at that site ... interesting.

My immediate question, is what is being protected at the core of "Christianity" ? If it were to unravel and lose influence and power, what would be lost at it's core ?

 

[variant]

I just glanced at that site ... interesting.

My immediate question, is what is being protected at the core of "Christianity" ? If it were to unravel and lose influence and power, what would be lost at it's core ?

It always seems to me that believers are mainly protecting a world view in which they feel safe, have their metaphysical questions answered, and the purpose and meaning of their lives is mapped out for them.

 

[TillICollapse]

It always seems to me that believers are mainly protecting a world view in which they feel safe, have their metaphysical questions answered, and the purpose and meaning of their lives is mapped out for them.

Hmm ... excellent points.

 

[JGG]

It always seems to me that believers are mainly protecting a world view in which they feel safe, have their metaphysical questions answered, and the purpose and meaning of their lives is mapped out for them.

Not only that, but all other answers are wrong, everyone else is an unethical wolf stalking innocent sheep, and as we've learned elsewhere, those who disagree lead purposeless, meaningless lives.

I do wonder, if not for indoctrination of youth, social pressure, the coercion of afterlife punishments and rewards depending on unquestioning obedience, and the (occasionally literal) demonization of non-believers, would any religion be relevant today? Would any survive on merit alone?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not only that, but all other answers are wrong, everyone else is an unethical wolf stalking innocent sheep, and as we've learned elsewhere, those who disagree lead purposeless, meaningless lives.

I do wonder, if not for indoctrination of youth, social pressure, the coercion of afterlife punishments and rewards depending on unquestioning obedience, and the (occasionally literal) demonization of non-believers, would any religion be relevant today? Would any survive on merit alone?

The fear that they won't survive on merit alone leads many to resist even the attempt to examine them critically.

 

[kristina411]

Let's take for instance, our host Kristina, and Colter: Their specific, individual belief systems, it seems are different in many aspects (knowing what I do of Colter, and making broad assumptions about Kristina). It's safe to assume that one of them (or their religious ancestors) has added falsehood to truth, or discarded portions of truth.

How would I know which of you (if not both) is preaching a distorted truth or outright lie if I do not demand evidence that yours is actually is truth? How would I know what part is distorted, false, or absent if I did not scrutinize your respective claims? I can't do it based on "trust me, I'm right." Then let's add in hundreds of thousands of other belief systems, and millions of additional claims and do it again.

We need structured rules for this "game", and "Because I'm special, and I said so!" doesn't cut it.

I didn't learn from my ancestors. Just thought I would add that. And add to it, it's not my responsibility to convince you. If someone wants convincing or the knowledge I have, they have to do the work to get it, and I do believe Colter agrees on this part.

 

[kristina411]

That was not mockery, but a rhetorical device:

"In rhetoric, a rhetorical device or resource of language is a technique that an author or speaker uses to convey to the listener or reader a meaning with the goal of persuading him or her towards considering a topic from a different perspective, using sentences designed to encourage or provoke a rational argument from an emotional display of a given perspective or action."

Rhetorical device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rather than pointing out the poster's requirement that I jettison my intellectual integrity in pursuit of his "truth", I chose this tool to, in effect, hold a mirror up to him for him to see his position from a different perspective.

This discussion cannot be productive if you or he considers their position beyond reproach. Is that the case here?

Lol I expected nothing less from you. Take care Davian.

 

[kristina411]

I think AntiCitizenX said it well. This isn't just a debate over whether one ought to play the religious game. It's a conversation on how it is played and the epistemological playing field in which the game unfolds.

Yes.

But, I have come to the conclusion that this thread needs to end for me. Simply put, those who understand the above, and understand that their side is not perfect in this, has heard what I had to say. Maybe not agree but if you took a real look you would see the truth.
There is a difference between Christians and the radical Christians. There is a difference between atheists and radical atheists and often times in this section it seems the radical atheists "come out and play".
I dont think I will continue any conversation which follows the lines that I have outlined so in the future if I do not respond, that is why.
I simply have too much going on in my life to bicker with internet people all day.
For those who I said I would reply to, I will will keep my word, through pm if that is preferable since I will likely not return to this thread after today.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes.

But, I have come to the conclusion that this thread needs to end for me. Simply put, those who understand the above, and understand that their side is not perfect in this, has heard what I had to say. Maybe not agree but if you took a real look you would see the truth.
There is a difference between Christians and the radical Christians. There is a difference between atheists and radical atheists and often times in this section it seems the radical atheists "come out and play".

I'm not sure how you are defining 'radical' in both cases. I don't think anyone in this thread has displayed 'radical' behaviour. In fact, the interactions here seem to be in keeping with the general tone of this subforum. The tone varies from time to time, ranging from congenial to combative, but it rarely crosses into uncivil terrain.

I dont think I will continue any conversation which follows the lines that I have outlined so in the future if I do not respond, that is why.
I simply have too much going on in my life to bicker with internet people all day.

I understand that. I do hope, however, that your experience here hasn't soured your interest in having conversations with people on philosophical matters. Even argumentative conversations can be edifying at times.

 

[Colter]

I'm not convinced that there is a game to play. The rules of this "game" allow you to play it however you want to. You can pretend to have "won" the game, if you want. The rules allow that.



Yes, science grows in knowledge. What does religion grow in?

Completely untrue! Religionists are challenged to seek the will of God and are subject to the values of their respective religion. Just because you failed at it doesn't hold true for others.

Religion grows in enlightenment, but true to form, the carping critics continue to hold contempt prior to investigation guaranteeing a life of perpetual ignorance.

 

[Colter]

I don't see where he was insincere.

This isn't the first dance I have had here with Freodin. If you go back to post #160 you will find that this particular line of phony inquiry started with an admission that he had an agenda to begin with, to try another avenue to make a point. Like those spies sent in to trip up Jesus but ended up hearing the truth and finding God.

Freodin said: "Let's try something else..."

His thesis was exposed at the end of the exchanges: "If all we have to find out the truth is our differing experiences, we are stuck. That's were this pesky concept of evidence comes in."

Atheist hide behind the demand for evidence of the inner spiritual life of believers because they know from the outset that it can't be proven in their fictitious science lab. So they take believers down paths of confusion while getting a sick sense of self satisfaction out of peppering one with more and more artfully insincere questions.

You are dealing with Lucifers meme with this bunch.

 

[kristina411]

I didn't intent for that courtroom example to be a direct comparison of "becoming a Christian" or liken religion to a crime or any kind of loss. I think you are a little overreacting here... perhaps showing how negative and inaccurate your views of, well, me, are. ( No offense meant, just a little light banter.)

The example was meant to show one thing and one thing alone: that in some cases, it can be very important to have a better shot at "truth" than pure belief.

Yes, truth is often preferable when it is available. But in a court room, the evidence doesn't always point you where you think it is. Case in point: America thought the whole Casey Anthony trial outcome was set in stone before the trial. She was guilty to America without reasonable doubt. Despite the evidence that made us sure, she was found innocent.
It shows that all of the "evidence" may not be exactly what you thought originally. It could go either way. We are always searching for the truth but it doesn't always come in hard facts. Sure I may be wrong in my belief (my interpretation of the bible. I do not think I have the belief in God and Jesus wrong-you are free to believe as you do as well), the facts may change things as I learn more about my faith through study and prayer.
But i didn't just get here because I always knew it to be true. I spent a great deal of my teenage years asking these same questions. I spent a great deal of my early 20s believing nothing.

You said it yourself here: "We have [...] everything to lose in losing the faith."

Everything... that is important, isn't it?
So I should be aiming for the best way to find out the truth.

Yes! Please do all you can to find the truth, just remember that this is not some fairy tale to the believers. This is more important than our own lives, many Christians lay down their lives for their views. These aren't just the radicals. Once a person becomes truly committed to their faith (beyond the beginning stages of acceptance) ones life drastically changes. So to approach a person about their faith with mockery, manipulation, or condemnation for their faith (not saying you specifically) the person will become upset. Just as a homosexual would if a Christian started badgering them about their sexuality.

You believe. Your belief is important for you... not only subjectively, because it makes you feel good, but because you think that it has an objective result. You also think that unbelievers and non-Christians lose out on that objective result. (Yes, you might not go around and tell unbelievers that, but you do believe that, don't you?)

yes, I do believe that. I and many other Christians often pray for the unbelievers.
It isn't just about heaven or hell though. Faith changes your life in the here and now. Take AA or NA for example. It helps millions of people change their lives, and it is faith centered. The largest alcoholics and narcotics groups revolve around faith.
Faith creates change in the darkest corners of ones psyche. You can see this in anyone who converts. I could tell you how I converts and how the medical/scientific field failed mr but Christianity saved me. But I would prefer to do that through pm if you cared to know. It is very personal.

And I do not believe what you believe. But I understand that it is important for you... and I understand that you (if not you personally, then "you" as a huge number of theists) want it to be important for me as well.

I do want it to be important to others. I want it to be because i want them to have the amazing aspects that come with it. Not just heaven. That is merely a fraction. The best testimony one can give is through the life they live. I want to live a life so appealing-like my Grandmother was for me- that any unbeliever would second guess themselves. Just saying ��

But I do not believe! I don't have the slightest idea of how you do it, or how I am supposed to do it.

If you had true desire to have faith it is granted to you. It doesn't just happen because you want to believe. You (well I did it this way) recognize many things cannot be explained through science. And even what is explained through science doesn't explain why, just how. We know how the universe was likely to start, not the slightest idea of why. We know how we have life but not the slightest idea why. We only have a fraction if a fraction of the knowledge this universe has.
Once you have accepted that you can move on to prayer. Most people accept the fact that there are questions left unanswered. Most people have completed step one. Step two comes (if you have not been around the faith forever) more often by getting to a point in life where you humble yourself. You have to go to the Father humble. Most people get to this point after many trials and they fall on their knees begging for Him to save them. Some people see the fruit in another and see their own fruit is withered away and want more than anything to have what the other person has (look up fruit of the spirit to understand if you are not familiar).
Despite which way you go, eventually most converted Christians got to a point in their life where they ran out of answers, they were unsatisfied with the simplicity of this world and needed more than the every day mundane life. They need purpose more than superficial. This isn't speaking for every Christian but those who were far from the faith and found their way, these are the most common ways I have heard.
Once you humble yourself and realize we are dust in the wind compared to the big picture, and you feel a need for more than life as you know it to be, you pray. Even if you doubt your prayer being answered. You would pray to ask for eyes to see truth (I pray this every morning). Pray that your heart be touched (another daily prayer).
Or just read the bible, starting in the new testament. Jesus is the best example of how a Christian ought to be.
This isn't a "how to become a Christian" instruction sheet, just relaying what I have seen in the people around me and myself.

I am trying my best to follow the way that I know works. Why do you think I am unreasonable for doing so?.

I dont. What I think is unreasonable is trying to get someone stuck in a constant "show me proof for your proof for that proof", or the lack of opposing ideas, or the ignoring facts that you can not explain, or comments like "well maybe Santa can come visit". This is unreasonable. I'm not saying you specifically do this but this kind of talk is frequent in this board.

I think this is the post I said I would get back to? If not, please let me know. If I respond any further it will likely be through pm. Take care freodin