Organized Religion

[Guest SP-1]

Paul was converted by the risen Christ. He didn't meet him during his normal life on Earth, but he was confronted by Christ on the road to Damascus.

 

There's too much hostility and misconstruing of verses in this thread. And AoO, I meant the thread where it comes up in the Love, Sex, and Dating folder. I wasn't a part of the other thread that I remember. My apologies for the mix-up.

 

Whomever brought it up: there has actually been the discovery of a layer in the crust that indicates a catostrophic flood occoured at some point. I remember learning somewhere that the Bible does mention great lizards or something of some sort. And to whomever attempted to dismiss the mention of the Leviathan, it is an indication of Dinosaur-like creatures, namely dragons.

 

It's interesting how the non-Christians start yanking verses out of the blue to try and prove a point without taking into account the historical and spiritual intent and context of them.

 

Tom, I'll sit down and write out my experiences sooner or later. I don't have the time to do it at this moment and the ravings of the militant atheists here have killed my desire to continue participating here. When it can be discussed like adults by all involved, I'd be happy to. Otherwise it's wasted experience and time to post it here because it will fall on ears that aren't truly itnerested anyway.

[Guest MrRant]

SP.... remember that a good majority of the people here are not adults.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

Paul was converted by the risen Christ. He didn't meet him during his normal life on Earth, but he was confronted by Christ on the road to Damascus.

Yeah, I remember that now... in Acts. I remember there was a thing about choosing an apostle to replace Judas, which I suppose is generally considered to be Paul (he's commonly refered to as the Apostle Paul anyway), but the other 11 had originally chosen someone else, which might have been on the basis of that deal with the flaming tongues, or something else... I should probably read that again. I remember wondering if they were just wrong or what, because the Holy Spirit was supposed to have directly influenced their decision.

[Guest SP-1]

The flaming tongues was the first direct coming of the holy Spirit. Saul was a member of the Sanhedrin (cream of the Jewish authoritave crop), IIRC, and was on his way to Damascus when Christ met Him and struck Him blind (remember, Paul had actively pursued the murder of Christians up to this point, and is even mentioned as having been around for a specific person's death earlier in Acts). He was instructed to go on to a town where God would have someone meet him. There, this person returned his eyesight, and Saul believed and his name was changed to Paul. The Apostles later prayed and voted that Paul be recognized as an Apostle, but he wasn't ever accepted as one of the 'Twelve'. There was someone else chosen to replace Judas.

 

Part of the reason is, I believe, because Paul was called to go take the message of Christ to the Gentiles, not the Jews. The flaming tongues to signal the arrival of the Holy Spirit occoured before Saul's conversion, I believe.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

why is it such a big deal to you or anyone else if someone choses to not believe in evolution

Eh. I don't care if someone says he doesn't believe in evolution. That just means he's ignorant; evolution is a well-documented fact, not an article of faith. But I won't start a debate over it. If someone claims there's scientific evidence against the fact of evolution, however, or if someone claims that the Bible contains references to dinosaurs when I know damn well it doesn't since I've actually READ it, I will call him on the carpet. Because either he's stupid or he's a liar. Stupidity is the one crime that never goes unpunished and I just have a personal thing against liars. They annoy me.

Evolution, as a process, over a long period of time is not fully understood. Much of what is believed is based upon differences at species or sub-species level. Evolution of seperate higher taxa or of important features is not fully understood, as it requires a leap of faith in genetics. So, pretty much what we are taught about that is based on half-truths and bullshit. For example, no-one really knows the method of origin of life.

 

So yeah, its not really the truth, but is far more likely than creationism.

[Guest SP-1]

Also: DrTom, come to think of it, you're one of the people I wouldn't mind chatting with over AIM. My SN is "TheBardKnight", but I probably won't be one until late tonight due to the NWA show (my first ever~!).

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Whomever brought it up: there has actually been the discovery of a layer in the crust that indicates a catostrophic flood occoured at some point. I remember learning somewhere that the Bible does mention great lizards or something of some sort. And to whomever attempted to dismiss the mention of the Leviathan, it is an indication of Dinosaur-like creatures, namely dragons.

There are many layers like that in the Earths crust throughout geological history, but none that tie in with a global flood which destroyed all life. In fact, a 40 day flood like in the bible wouldn't be recorded in the Earths crust. Although, again, if you have a link, I would like to read it.

Also, if the original bible specifically mentions giant lizards at the time it was written, well over a millenium before the first dinosaurs were recorded, I would be more inclined to believe it as truth. So, reference please if anyone has it.

[Guest Retro Rob]

All of my usual points have been brought up already (thanks Tom).  But I just find it absurd the way people feel like they can consider themselves Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. and not follow the letter of the law.  If you don't want to follow all the rules or go to mass every week, then get the fuck out because you are only giving the entire religion you "belong" to a bad reputation.  Organized religion is full of hypocrites.  I would consider majority of my own family hypocrites for this same reason.  There is nothing wrong with just living your life as a good person and not sticking a specific religious label on yourself.

Being a Catholic that doesn't follow the letter of the law doesn't make me some sort of hypocrite since I have never said anything such as "only Catholics go to heaven" or "Go bible power". Because I am a member of a group doesn't not make the group my sole descriptive characteristic. I'm also a republican, but I would love to allow gay marriges... I guess I'm a hypocrite on that stance as well.

 

But if you do not agree with all of the points of an organized religion, why stick with it? Why not just separate yourself from that said group, follow your own beliefs and not label yourself as a Catholic?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Why leave the Church? Personally, I won't let some others misinterpretation of what the Catholic church is about drive me away.

[chaosrage 0]

militant atheists

Militant atheists? We must be reading different threads. This is one of the most laid back religion arguments I think I've ever seen.

[Guest Retro Rob]

Why leave the Church? Personally, I won't let some others misinterpretation of what the Catholic church is about drive me away.

Not a misinterpretation necessarily, that was not what I was originally talking about. My original point was made about people who will blatantly break the rules set forth by their religion, for instance pre-marital sex (last time I checked that was a no-no), but when the time comes they pull out the "I'm a good (whatever faith), so I'll go to heaven you will go to hell". That was what I was talking about at first.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Eh. Anyone who says "I'm a good (whatever faith), so I'll go to heaven and you will go to hell" has a swift kick in the groin coming, whether he actually does uphold all the religion's rules or not.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

militant atheists

Militant atheists? We must be reading different threads. This is one of the most laid back religion arguments I think I've ever seen.

I think SP's a little peevish at the fact that he's being slapped around like a redheaded stepchild in two different threads on essentially the same topic. Then again, maybe he isn't referring to me. I am, after all, a <gasp!> Christian. Just not a dumb Christian.

 

But I suppose educated Christians would seem like an unrelated and vaguely disturbing sect to people who gibber about homosexuality being "scientifically unnatural."

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

The atheist and the theist start with different axioms. Axioms, by definition, cannot be proven so the impasse always piles up in the same place everytime this debate comes up. It comes down to fundamentally different world views that cannot be reconciled. The only real solution is to agree to disagree and move on with your life.

 

This is going to be a long post.

 

The problem is it's not that easy to toss it off because it's such an emotionally charged issue for both sides with ad hominems, straw men, and rhetorical undermining that these things inevitably get ugly. Although I'm a relative n00b here I've been involved in other forums for lo these many years and have been in my share of religious debates. I learned long ago you simply can't argue rationally for the basis of one side or the other and "win" so to speak. I know this is skirting closely to "Atheism >> Faith OWNED" but the reality of it is those axioms, those damn axioms again, are not shared between the two parties and they lead directly to fundamentally different metaphysics, values (concerning both truth and human reasoning), and inquiry systems for both sides.

 

Another problem plauging these debates is no one can agree on a single definition for what are massively loaded words, yet no one ever seems to address this problem deftly. What is faith? What is atheism? Throwing dictionary definitions around never helps as they simply reflect the common usage. A dictionary does not define a language, it merely documents it and either side can find the definition they want in it. Then they throw these disparate definitions at each other and get into shouting matches about the details. I hate coming out and saying I'm an atheist because the theist side attributes beliefs to me that simply aren't applicable. I hate saying that the materialism that is a basis for atheism is a sort of faith because the atheist side attributes implications to this statement that I do not intend. The core of this problem is everyone is using their own definitions for these words. There is no common language between the two sides to argue their points so half the jibba-jabba nonsense noise is simply misunderstanding and misattribution.

 

Finally there are evangelicals on both sides and there are assholes and dickwads on both sides. These are the loudest though certainly not the most representative of their respective populations. I think there would be a lot less antagonism if people could simply realize that the theist and the atheist are starting from different axioms that are, at the bottom, irreconcilable and, ultimately, unfounded.

 

The fact of sensory-based existence in an unknown universe neccessitates that we must simply make certain assumptions before we can accept anything as knowledge. The atheist typically accepts a materialistic set of axioms where the theist accepts a spiritualistic (or perhaps dualistic) set of axioms. Given the limits of human perception and reasoning, I think there is no valid way of deciding, in some kind of objective sense, which is better. They are both equally valid as far as we know. I would assert that the materialistic axiom set is smaller than the spiritualistic set and perhaps more consistent from a logical point of view but that's just another illustration of an axiomatic difference. The value of that consistency begs the question, as the primacy of logic to determine truth is PART OF THE MATERIALISTIC AXIOM SET. The theist, often, does not accept this axiom (not to say they don't accept logical reasoning as inquirer of truth but that logical reasoning is not the alpha and the omega inquirer) thus the size, logical consistency, or primacy of said axiom set MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE THEIST FOR IT IS NOT PART OF THE SPIRITUALISTIC AXIOM SET.

 

The solution? There is none. This is what I mean by irreconcilable differences. The very nature of argumentation and what consititutes valid reasoning is different. Ultimately the only way to decide resides with that bugaboo of human emotion. Which axiom set appeals to you? That's what it comes down to. Which seems more appealing, more comforting, more, dare I say it, reasonable? But aren't we supposed to be getting at The Truth here? How can it be The Truth if we just pick which one we like? Yeah, it sucks. But there's no objective way to decide between the axiom sets. Any method to decide between the two must first be built upon one or the other, in which case you're begging the question. The person that chooses the materialistic axiom set is no "better equipped" in any independently definable way than the person who chooses the spiritualistic axiom set. It comes down to personal preference. Welcome to an imperfect Universe.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Nicely stated.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

*Hands JOTW the "Most-times-using-the-word-"axiom"-in-a-post" award*

 

The resolution doesn't come in the form of a specific answer, a "right" or a "wrong", but the form of the question and the search for the answer, for the "truth".

 

Which is why I don't find these discussions to be meaningless or irrelevant. Which is why I won't just settle to "agree-to-disagree". Sure, they are a bit circular, and sure, there is a 99.9999999% chance that you will end up believing the same thing leaving the thread as you did entering, and it _does_ get tiring at times (which is why it should be kept to a minimum), but it still has it's own rewards despite not getting proven "right" in the end.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Meh, I just like debating. I don't think anyone seriously thinks this thread is going to alter your religous beliefs.

[Guest SP-1]

Marney, perhaps in your own little world and to whatever little following around here you have, I've been slapped around and/or owned. I've presented my points peacefully and without the flaming that you so often love to resort to. The people who will recognize that are the people I'm interested in talking to. Continue your "abuse" if you like, we who are carrying on an actual conversation will continue to do so.

[Guest godthedog]

The atheist and the theist start with different axioms. Axioms, by definition, cannot be proven so the impasse always piles up in the same place everytime this debate comes up. It comes down to fundamentally different world views that cannot be reconciled. The only real solution is to agree to disagree and move on with your life.

 

This is going to be a long post.

 

The problem is it's not that easy to toss it off because it's such an emotionally charged issue for both sides with ad hominems, straw men, and rhetorical undermining that these things inevitably get ugly. Although I'm a relative n00b here I've been involved in other forums for lo these many years and have been in my share of religious debates. I learned long ago you simply can't argue rationally for the basis of one side or the other and "win" so to speak. I know this is skirting closely to "Atheism >> Faith OWNED" but the reality of it is those axioms, those damn axioms again, are not shared between the two parties and they lead directly to fundamentally different metaphysics, values (concerning both truth and human reasoning), and inquiry systems for both sides.

 

Another problem plauging these debates is no one can agree on a single definition for what are massively loaded words, yet no one ever seems to address this problem deftly. What is faith? What is atheism? Throwing dictionary definitions around never helps as they simply reflect the common usage. A dictionary does not define a language, it merely documents it and either side can find the definition they want in it. Then they throw these disparate definitions at each other and get into shouting matches about the details. I hate coming out and saying I'm an atheist because the theist side attributes beliefs to me that simply aren't applicable. I hate saying that the materialism that is a basis for atheism is a sort of faith because the atheist side attributes implications to this statement that I do not intend. The core of this problem is everyone is using their own definitions for these words. There is no common language between the two sides to argue their points so half the jibba-jabba nonsense noise is simply misunderstanding and misattribution.

 

Finally there are evangelicals on both sides and there are assholes and dickwads on both sides. These are the loudest though certainly not the most representative of their respective populations. I think there would be a lot less antagonism if people could simply realize that the theist and the atheist are starting from different axioms that are, at the bottom, irreconcilable and, ultimately, unfounded.

 

The fact of sensory-based existence in an unknown universe neccessitates that we must simply make certain assumptions before we can accept anything as knowledge. The atheist typically accepts a materialistic set of axioms where the theist accepts a spiritualistic (or perhaps dualistic) set of axioms. Given the limits of human perception and reasoning, I think there is no valid way of deciding, in some kind of objective sense, which is better. They are both equally valid as far as we know. I would assert that the materialistic axiom set is smaller than the spiritualistic set and perhaps more consistent from a logical point of view but that's just another illustration of an axiomatic difference. The value of that consistency begs the question, as the primacy of logic to determine truth is PART OF THE MATERIALISTIC AXIOM SET. The theist, often, does not accept this axiom (not to say they don't accept logical reasoning as inquirer of truth but that logical reasoning is not the alpha and the omega inquirer) thus the size, logical consistency, or primacy of said axiom set MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE THEIST FOR IT IS NOT PART OF THE SPIRITUALISTIC AXIOM SET.

 

The solution? There is none. This is what I mean by irreconcilable differences. The very nature of argumentation and what consititutes valid reasoning is different. Ultimately the only way to decide resides with that bugaboo of human emotion. Which axiom set appeals to you? That's what it comes down to. Which seems more appealing, more comforting, more, dare I say it, reasonable? But aren't we supposed to be getting at The Truth here? How can it be The Truth if we just pick which one we like? Yeah, it sucks. But there's no objective way to decide between the axiom sets. Any method to decide between the two must first be built upon one or the other, in which case you're begging the question. The person that chooses the materialistic axiom set is no "better equipped" in any independently definable way than the person who chooses the spiritualistic axiom set. It comes down to personal preference. Welcome to an imperfect Universe.

that's the single most intelligent thing i've ever seen ANYONE say on this board, and you're my new favorite poster.

 

that said, i'm going to try to prove it wrong, because it looks like there's a couple of flaws here.

 

the primacy of logic to determine truth is PART OF THE MATERIALISTIC AXIOM SET. The theist, often, does not accept this axiom (not to say they don't accept logical reasoning as inquirer of truth but that logical reasoning is not the alpha and the omega inquirer) thus the size, logical consistency, or primacy of said axiom set MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE THEIST FOR IT IS NOT PART OF THE SPIRITUALISTIC AXIOM SET.

thomas aquinas emphasized the "primacy of logic" as much as you claim the atheists to be doing. aquinas believed that faith had a special place in his belief, but should not take the place of logic; logic is a part of his "axiomatic set," if you will. most religious thinkers that i've read agree that if you reduce the theistic belief to a contradiction, it's done. if you got into a debate with aquinas and could somehow prove, beyond doubt, by the laws of logic that god does not exist, i doubt he would still believe in god. to do otherwise is to assume some sort of "supralogical" god, which not only makes no sense by its own nature, but gets you into all sorts of problems and is ultimately impossible to even imagine.

 

other guys like kierkegaard say otherwise (that religious belief IS illogical and is SUPPOSED to be illogical), but the very existence of aquinas indicates that you can't make the problem go away by saying the axiomatic sets of the theist & atheist are completely different, because it's apparent that sometimes they aren't.

 

another larger problem is this: these "axiomatic sets" are fundamental, irreducible beliefs about the world. since they are irreducible, it's impossible to say anything outside the set. as d.z. phillips (from whom you seem to be drawing a lot) said, a proposition is only true in relation to some standard by which it can be judged. the axiomatic sets are themselves the standards. the problem with all this is, you can't say anything about the standards themselves. anything you say about the axiomatic sets is only true in relation to some standard--your claim asserts that something is true about them (namely, that they can't be reconciled); except this claim can't be true or false unless there's some standard to judge it by. you're trying to pull in some standard that both axioms can be judged by, but by their very nature there IS nothing to judge them both by. the argument is self-defeating. basically, if we believe the claim that these two belief systems are irreducible and irreconcilable, then we have no standard to judge them both by, so we can't say they're irreducible and irreconcilable. if what you're asserting is true, then we can't assert it as true.

[Guest bob_barron]

If you're not willing to put in the effort to type out a post you should cite a link at the very least. "Thanks for playing" indeed... Christ, you're a whiny little nancy-boy. Take your ball and go home if you must; the adults can carry on the conversation.

 

Forget about it! Just FORGET about it! I don't WANNA talk about it! WAAA

 

Eeesh, what a ridiculous temper tantrum. I feel embarrassed to have watched it.

Resorting to being a moron, even though that's "your thing", instead of asking me to explain myself, etc..., calling me an ass just out of the blue, and other shit like that is not being an adult. Once you grow up, understand how a conversation of this such continues, then I'll join back in. If you can ever do that, then ask me back, thanks.

 

I'm not here to get bitched at without even being given a chance to explain myself. I know this is NHB, so maybe the discussion shouldn't be here, because I will not discuss it with people who are disrespectfull, period.

Good lord. (Oops)

 

Instead of constantly whining about being flamed and people being disrespectfull (sic) to you-

 

Why not just explain your points instead of clogging up the thread with your whiny posts about faceless strangers "flaming" you.

[Guest SP-1]

I've explained my reasons for it, and it goes beyond a simple, "it's unnatural." I've explained my personal experiences with homosexuality with myself and with people around me, and explained where I think it stems from.

 

But I guess it's more fun to make the blanket statement about Christians than actually find out what a Bible believing everyman Christian thinks by asking.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Marney, perhaps in your own little world and to whatever little following around here you have, I've been slapped around and/or owned.  I've presented my points peacefully and without the flaming that you so often love to resort to.  The people who will recognize that are the people I'm interested in talking to.  Continue your "abuse" if you like, we who are carrying on an actual conversation will continue to do so.

Fascinating. Utterly fascinating.

 

 

 

...that you still haven't explained why you think homosexuality is "scientifically unnatural."

 

We're all waiting.

 

- Marney, who is, in fact, far more eagerly awaiting JotW's response to godthedog, both of whom are making very good points. Also looking forward to reading more and maybe joining in once she thinks through everything that's been said already. Thanks for the great posts so far, guys.

[Guest godthedog]

Marney, perhaps in your own little world and to whatever little following around here you have, I've been slapped around and/or owned.  I've presented my points peacefully and without the flaming that you so often love to resort to.  The people who will recognize that are the people I'm interested in talking to.  Continue your "abuse" if you like, we who are carrying on an actual conversation will continue to do so.

Fascinating. Utterly fascinating.

 

 

 

...that you still haven't explained why you think homosexuality is "scientifically unnatural."

 

We're all waiting.

 

- Marney, who is, in fact, far more eagerly awaiting JotW's response to godthedog, both of whom are making very good points. Also looking forward to reading more and maybe joining in once she thinks through everything that's been said already. Thanks for the great posts so far, guys.

actually, i was wondering...what other "faith over logic" theological thinkers are there out there? i figure you'd know about this, and my exposure's been limited to religious belief in the context of philosophy (which has that natural bias towards logic).

[chaosrage 0]

So these "militant atheists" were basically just one guy who's not even an atheist. Alright, heh. And although it might be nice to think flinging insults automatically negates any logical points made and makes the other person look better, the fact is they don't. If you can't handle a little insulting (he's not even flaming you), why are you on this board?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

So these "militant atheists" were basically just one guy who's not even an atheist.

...and who's not even a guy.

[Guest The Grand Pubah of 1620]

I am not an atheist, but I am an agnostic. I have no doubt that there is a "god". The whole Christanity thing is bullshit though. But after reading through this thread tonight, I can see that Dr. Tom and I have a very similar view on this matter.

 

Scary, ain't it Tom.

[chaosrage 0]

So these "militant atheists" were basically just one guy who's not even an atheist.

...and who's not even a guy.

That too! Damn you internet.

[Guest SP-1]

Marney, have you forgotten the Texas Sodomy thread? It's right there. Remember our little tiff over it? Where I explained why I think it goes against the orderly nature of things scientifically, why I think it's a sin biblically, and where I believe it actually comes from. Three explanations for why I think it's wrong. It's right there and still pretty high up on the list for anyone else that wishes to wade through Marney's sudden attack in the thread.

 

Perhaps militant atheists is a bit of a strong word. Tom and a few other have been pretty intelligent in the discussion so far. Then there's the Marney's and the Johnsons and such and so forth that can't partake in any discussion without turning to insults to try and get their own (already popular) points across. It was a bit of a blanket statement to describe a generally hostile board towards Christianity.

[Guest KJ Brackish]

Being that I live here in Salt Lake City, I can safely say that it is not TOTALLY full of MORMONS. In fact, I know a couple, but not many. I HATE the Mormon religion. I think that they are Catholic's on Crack! I am a catholic and them trying to spice it up with Joseph Smith, that jackass, really pisses me off! I just thought that I'd vent on how I hate that religion. IMO of course.

 

DFA

[Guest Goodear]

Of course, religion has been responsible for countless wars, murders, rapes, and other atrocities over the years. Something that is ostensibly supposed to unite people has done a lot to divide them, often at the point of a sword. Love thy neighbor as thyself, but don't be afraid to run him through if the village idiot says he's in league with the devil. Brilliant.

 

Just because it came back up I figured that I would answer this statement. "Religon" has not and can not be responsible for a war that took place in its name since its an abstract concept. It's like saying "Communism" caused all of those people to dissapear from their homes during Stalin's reign. Or that "Compassion" has saved lives. No sir. People act first and rationalize second. Sure people have done nasty crap in the name of religon, but people do nasty crap in the name of basically any concept you would care to name including love. I'm not so judgemental to imply that love actually caused a man to kill his wife, I'm not going to blame religon because someone wanted to make war on the mideast during the Crusades.

 

As for Mormons, the difference between 'Mormon' and 'Moron' is only one letter, and that's not a big enough difference for me to take them seriously.

 

And the difference between Tom and Mom is just one letter and she probably doesn't want you to be so prejudiced. Mormons are just like you and me except they go on more religous retreats and raise barns for each other. Damn them for having a community. Want to make fun of the Amish now?