The gentleman that started this thread is posting in some of my favourite forums.

I am totally apathetic to religion so why not hear the case for the competition

http://www.theharrowing.com/index.html
http://www.ahftu.net/frame.html

NB. Christians will find the above sites offensive

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1100442945.jpg

beautiful my ass! what a bunch of right wing crap!(IMHO)

Shaun,
you're dead-on correct. Logically, your argument is pretty darned sound. It's really exciting for me to see intelligent rational people discussing religion.
Unfortunately, it hurts to see people who are more than capable of understanding the coherency of the Christian position toss it out because of some fundamental misunderstandings.
1 - We sinned because he gave us the freedom to do so. What sense would it make for God to create a bunch of robots who have no choice but to do the right thing? With free will, when we do the right thing, it carries meaning.
2 - God knew he was going to send Jesus to die for the sins of all of humanity even before he created us. There was no surprise there, no damage control reaction. Once again, we have a choice -- God gave us the free will to choose to follow his son into fellowship with God, or not. The choice for God must always be an individual decision -- otherwise it is meaningless.
3 - Not in this post, but: "Look at all the people who have died in the name of Christ!" -- sure, but how many of the people who committed murder while claiming God was on their side could seriously back it up with scripture? This is what sets Christianity apart from other religions of similar age who have violence in their past -- the people who claimed Christianity as their excuse for violence couldn't back it up with anything Biblical. They were not acting in accordance with the fundamental principles of the Bible, so their actions were fallacious. Take for example, guys who commit a crime against humanity by putting V-8's into their Porkers. Ferdinand would never approve, but people call it a Porsche anyway, no?
My point is that you can call on the name of God, Buddha, Zoroaster, Dagon the Fish-God, or whoever else to justify your actions. At the end of the day, you're still responsible for your own actions, however, and the name of whichever arbitrary deity you've managed to sully isn't necessarily in agreement with whatever egregrious stuff you've done.

FWIW, we are in complete agreement on televangelists and people who's first (and only) post in a Porsche forum is something like this.

My closing question for you: If God drives a Porsche (which he must -- we hold this truth to be self-evident), what is it? A '65 911? A '51 356? A GT3RSR? Hmmm....


Dan

BTW, Milu, great links. The "Undead Webmaster" seems like a guy with some unresolved bitterness issues, though. Wow.

Dan

I'd say he's come to terms with his issues in his own way. I think both sites merit proper study whether one agrees with their position or not.

One of the many problems I have with most religious (sic) is their inability to listen to alternate views and beliefs objectively, to accept that other beliefs may be equally valid and to allow for the possibility that they may be wrong.

that's what I keep saying about a lot of porn sites, but for some reason I can't get much traction with my proposals...

There is your problem. Religions are based on faith, not reason. Objectivity *can't* play much of a role in the process. And if you have enough faith, you can never be "wrong". Again, to be wrong, there would have to be a right. And what is right is right for the individual, not based on any metrics or standards.

"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh!"::D

I try to respect the beliefs of others and try not to laugh at them, I usually succeed. Usually the more fundamentalist they are, the funnier they are.:p

2 words : Spanish Inquisition

Religion is fine for someone else, just not my cup of tea ..
However, I would NEVER voice my dislike of it if there was true SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE ... Thats the only reason I make fun of it and its followers, and that applies to ANY religion....

Milu, I'm totally down with that. The Undead Webmaster had some pretty useful insights on Satanism; I'm always open to examining new ideas, and he certainly has some "out of the box" stuff. Actually, according to his definition, I think that "out of the box" ought to define his beliefs. (shrug)

Don -- The Spanish Inquisition was an act of God in exactly the same way that installing a Chevy V-8 in the front of a 911 is an act of Porsche. Putting a Porsche Turbo badge on the back of your Honda doesn't make it faster, and isn't necessarily supported by "the faithful followers of Ferry." Just because someone "invokes the name of God" doesn't mean that God actually endorses or supports what they're doing.

Separation of Church and State: I'm down with that, too. We've given up prayer in schools, posting the 10 Commandments in public places, and teaching Creation. Now wouldn't it be nice if the other religions would do the same? The Christians have backed out of government -- but what about the Buddhists, who are allowed to teach in schools, or the Atheists, who espouse their philosophies from college podiums around our country, or Evolutionists -- who despise the name "religion," but cannot deny the fact that Evolution is as much a religious teaching as Creation is. You advocate this separation of church and state, but only inasmuch as it removes Christianity from your view.

Dan

Dan, can you explain this statement? I suppose it depends what you're lumping under the umbrella of "evolution." I would argue that teaching that the earth is billions of years old, and that there are certain commonalities of living things, and that it appears as though there were a number of different periods of life on the planet has no "religion" attached to it, unless you consider science a religion (which is OK, but I want to get that on the table).

If however you are talking about a narrow definition based directly and only on Darwin's teachings, then I can see how you might toss that under the religion tree.

Good point, Todd. I'm mostly meaning fundamentalist evolutionists, who start with the premise that there is no God, so Creation is out the window, then find themselves hunting around for a halfway plausible explanation in the vacuum. The teaching you actually see in public schools generally typifies this belief, though rather than coming out and announcing "There is no God," they merely teach Atheism as a basic assumption for Evolution. I suppose it's theoretically possible to separate the ideas of evolution from the religious foundation (or areligious?) that it's built on.

As to teaching a multi-billion year old earth as scientific fact, well, I have a hard time grappling with that. The best argument for a multi-billion year old earth is that the evolutionary process required billions of years to happen. The radioisotope dating techniques that most normal people use to base ancient earth claims on are based on some assumptions that aren't necessarily true. When you actually sit down and think about it, the ancient earth argument falls apart in the face of real data -- which makes it no more scientific than the so-called "Genesis fairy tale."

There are definitely some commonalities among many living things. That's certainly valid, and clearly falls under science. Further, micro-evolution, as Darwin observed, clearly happens -- this observation, too, falls under "science." However, to make the logical extension of these ideas to say that all living things evolved from a pool of primordial soup is a leap that makes belief in God look positively easy. Take a look at the haphazard fossil record, the plaster-casts of "missing links" that have been manufactured, the desperate attempts over the history of evolution to continue to keep the idea viable, despite mounting evidence to the contrary ... it should be clear, by this point in history, that evolution doesn't make any sense, yet people -- even intelligent people -- continue to ignore the data and espouse a failed idea. It's easier to reject God and believe a theory that has no real support than it is to accept his rule over your life.

(sigh)

Dan

Dan, what do you do for a living?

S

Navy -- submarine driver, by trade, but on shore tour running a barracks for mid-grade criminals right now. Why? What do you do?

Edit: that's right, you run G9-Girl, I remember that recent thread, now.

Edit2: just read your post in the "W = Hitler" thread. Looking forward to a respectful discussion of the topic.

Dan

It's in our nature to always place a beginning and an end to things, so 6,000 years ago the story of Adam and Eve was created to explain how we got here. I think that we humans just can't fathom a beginningless existence so that combined with a lack of answers was the basis of creationism.

Now 6,000 years later, science is starting to reveal the answers to our beginnings. We can't expect to find all the answers immediately, but we are well on our way to putting the puzzle together even if there are still some missing links as you pointed out.

Hey Dan, looking forward to the same. This may be a better description of G9Girl: http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/191814-wanted-inspirational-story-interviewees-long.html

It's too bad we couldn't meet for a much more lively discussion, certainly much quicker. White boards would be fun too.

Driving a sub, that sounds pretty cool. Let me ask you two questions: When you go down a mile undersea (I'm not sure how far you really go, so simply "deep" may be better) how do you know that the sub won't be crushed?

In your world (belief structure), what are your absolutes? That is what can't be questioned, or tested or refuted with logic. Let's take circular logic off the table now.

See you soon.

Shaun

Re: Beautiful! (299 Viewing)
 

So Wayne -when are you going to upgrade to the newer version with the graph-text authentication, and shut the auto-trolls down for good?

I do remember reading your thread and thinking that it was an honorable and respectable thing to do. Good on ya; keep us posted on your successes.

Taking a submarine to test depth is an exercise in faith. It's easy to do the math and confirm that the engineers are right -- steel of a given thickness with frames at certain centers will be safe to a given depth. It's easy (but time consuming) to review the paperwork for all of the materials, for all of the work, for all of the training for all of the people who performed maintenance on critical systems. It's easy to look at the history -- this particular hull has been to test depth before; this crew (or about 2/3 of them, anyway) have been all the way down. The hull should be able to handle one more, and the crew is very likely to be able to handle anything that comes up. It's easy to say "Based on all of the data available to me, I believe this submarine is safe to test depth." It's another thing entirely to actually batten down the hatches and give the order, "Dive, submerge the ship; make your depth X feet."

Absolutes? For the purposes of this discussion, I'd settle for agreeing that absolutes exist. Technically speaking, we could go through the philosophic exercise of demonstrating that true relativism is logically untenable, but it would save a lot of time to at least start with the one ground rule that there are absolutes. What absolutes would you like to start with?

FWIW, the point of raising evolution/creation was simply to note that evolution is as much a religious belief as creation. Creation theories assume the existence of a creator, while evolution theories (at least, the fundamentalists) generally assume no god -- and this is what is taught in schools. I don't have a problem teaching atheism, Buddhism, or Zoroastrianism in schools, as long as we counter with some other realistic possibilities. I'm sure you'd take offense if the only thing your children's teachers were allowed to present was Southern Baptist teaching. I do have a problem with people who complain about "separation of church and state" without recognizing that atheism is a religion as well.


Dan

Dan, sent you a PM.

djmcmath,

Thanks for representing us "rational Christians"! Well-stated replies and non judgemental perspective shows you to be a mature and grace-filled Christian!!