To the Christians here...

Huntster said:
May I provide this one as an example?

There are lots more where that came from..................
Click to expand...

Well, that's certainly an insult to the pope. However, he doesn't read these boards much so I doubt he's that hurt.

As I said before, Pauliesonne is not representative of the posters on this board, and he is by and large disliked. Many posters here believe him to be a troll and would like him to leave.
 
Huntster said:
You fail to understand the difference between knowledge and faith.

As a Christian, I'm very likely wrong regarding my understanding of God, and may even be wrong about the existance of God, but my faith will not be shaken.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm don't misunderstand at all. There are many Christians like yourself who freely admit that they are going on faith alone. Yet, they claim to "know" God exists. Well, maybe this is just semantics and when they say "know" they actually mean "believe", but many will take great offense if you tell them, "You don't really know God," even if that is technically correct.

But there are many others who make claims about the physical world based on their faith. They make testable hypotheses, such as "prayer can heal you". Even historical claims, like the possibility of the great flood story being accurate, can be shown to have evidence for or against them.

Still, I find it telling that you admit that you could be shown that God did not exist, yet you would still have faith in Him. It is almost like Twain said, "Faith is belivin' something you know ain't true." However, I find it refreshing that a Christian admits that it is possible that God does not exist. What would it take to convince you?
 
maybe being around to withness the sun absorb the earth in 200 million years time? from a safe distance of course
 
Dcdrac said:
i have often wandered why US chiristian fundamentalists largely ignore the christian bit of the bible and zero in on the Old testament the non christian bit.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't think they ignore the New Testament. They believe the whole thing is true. However, because the OT is so riddled with hate, gore and contradictions, they wind up spending more of their time defending that part. You must admit, it's a full time job just to defend Genesis.
 
Huntster said:
Death, then darkness.................
Click to expand...
LOL. Even in itself, that is a belief in the afterlife. This is like saying "I can only be convinced once it is impossible to convince me of anything."

Okay, I'll rephrase it. What would it take to convince you while you are still living that God didn't exist?
 
Huntster said:
Funny, that also describes many of the skeptics on this board.
Click to expand...

Yes, but as you pointed out, there's a key difference there, specifically the difference you described upthread as "faith."

Skeptics have come to their belief that they have the right point of view (and that theists are wrong) based on logic, reason, and evidence. Most of them have little difficulty presenting reasons for disbelief in God(s), can present counterfactual scenarios that would cause them to revise their belief, and in general, do not rely on "faith."

A simple example: one of the articles of faith in the Christian Church is the Sermon on the Mount (from the Book of Matthew). I quote briefly in part : "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

Now, that's pretty explicit -- "everyone that asketh receiveth." Furthermore, those are the words of Christ himself, not a later interpretation by some nutcase Paul-come-lately.

Well, I've asked. And I've not received. In fact, a whole lot of people have asked, and they haven't received either. We could even (if we liked) do a controlled experiment, for example, where we asked God to heal one group of people in a hospital, and didn't ask God to heal another group of people, and see whether we "received" the gift of divine healing. Whups -- we've already done that experiment, and the answer is "they don't."

We could look at the infant mortality rate for clergymen (who can be presumed to "ask" for the health and welfare of their children) versus the general public, and see if clergy "recieve" the gift of having their children not die as often. Or rather, we've done that experiment, too, again with negative results.

So evidence tells me that the statement "everyone that asketh receiveth" is simply untrue, by observation. Reason tells me that if Christ really said that, he was either letting his mouth write checks that his body couldn't cash, or he was simply lying in his teeth. EIther way, logic suggests that anyone who believes in the literal truth of that statement is simply "wrong."

Of course, I could easily be convinced to change my belief. Simply show me that, yes, everyone who asks does receive -- that somehow the experiments were incorrectly done or that the statistics were calculated wrong, and that the truth state of affairs is that everyone without exception who asks for divine healing gets it. That's something that would convince me that my understanding of the Sermon on the Mount is wrong, and that I might be wrong about this whole Christianity schtick in the first place.

Now, tell me,... why should I value your opinion when you have not only no way to back it up, not only no reason, evidence, or logic supporting it, but also that you proudly proclaim that no matter how out of touch with reality it is, you will still have "faith" in its truth?
 
Huntster said:
You are either a denialist or ignorant of Paulisonne's antics.

A large percentage of his posts are "hateful believer-bashing".
Click to expand...
You are either blind or deliberately ignoring my posts where I state that Paulie is not representative of most posts or posters on this forum, and that many members here regard him as a troll, and not a skeptic at all.
 
tkingdoll said:
You are either blind or deliberately ignoring my posts where I state that Paulie is not representative of most posts or posters on this forum, and that many members here regard him as a troll, and not a skeptic at all.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, there are Christian-bashers here. I feel it is pointless and divisive to name names, but it doesn't take a very hard look to find numerous examples. Perhaps they're justified. Perhaps they're trolls, perhaps you need context, but it is here.

But it doesn't matter. There are all kinds of "bashers" here. There are liberal bashers, Republican bashers, anti-semite bashers, materialism bashers, you name it. This is what you get on a discussion forum. Anybody who expects differently is either living in a dream world or has only frequented forums where people with conflicting views are quickly banned. Frankly, I'm glad you can bash here, because it means that we are not being (severely) censored. (I recall that I had to walk on eggs constantly when I was posting on the Christian forums because they'd ban you for not capitilizing God.)

So to those who say there are few or no bashers, get real. To those who resent being bashed, get over it. You want to talk? We'll talk. We'll talk straight and hard. It ain't for sissies.
***
ETA: Thank you Thai for demonstrating my point.
 
Last edited:
Huntster said:
I don't agree.

We just have different acceptance standards for certain phenomenon.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have changing standards for what you'll consider believable and what is not. Simply put, you don't apply the same skepticism to your god that you would to the belief that bigfoot exists. Oh wait, in your case, you would. Scratch that.
 
tkingdoll said:
Weird. So you're saying you don't come here because you don't like people who bash other people's opinions, and you make your point by bashing other people's opinions? You might wanna work on that hypocrisy a little.
Click to expand...
I think we have a different opinion of what the word bashing means. I have not read any of ned flandas' posts other than those in this thread (although I will remedy that later tonight if time permits) but the post which you quote seems to me a polite expression of his views. Expressing a view which is critical of people's behavior is not the same as bashing them.

ReFLex has provided some good examples of genuine bashing. Calling what flandas wrote bashing cheapens the term.
Why are you specifically offended by Christian* bashing and not, say Homeopath bashing, Psychic bashing, Modern Art bashing or Hammegk bashing?
Click to expand...
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am equally offended by all of these. I believe it is possible to criticize homeopaths (or psychics, modern art, and hammegk) without going out of one's way to insult them, and that skeptics should strive to do so. As a religious person, I am happy to speak out against the bashing of atheists if it happens in conversations with friends. As a person generally on the left-hand side of the political spectrum, I am happy to speak out against the bashing of people on the right. I have no problem criticizing George Bush's policies, but I see no need to call him a lunatic or an idiot.

Not only are insults generally rude -- I believe using them in serious arguments is irrational and anti-skeptical. It hinders, rather than helps, the cause of skepticism to engage in bashing of those with whom one disagrees -- and I believe that regardless of whether the basher or bashee is someone I agree or disagree with.

When people win an argument by bashing their opponents, they set back the cause of skepticism by demonstrating that insults trump reason. I'd rather win or lose an argument based on the quality of my evidence and my reasoning, not on the quality of my rhetoric. I'll do my best to state my points as clearly as I can, but I wouldn't want to win just because I could come up with more colorful language and wittier put-downs than the person I was disagreeing with.
 
Tricky said:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
Death, then darkness.................
Click to expand...

LOL. Even in itself, that is a belief in the afterlife. This is like saying "I can only be convinced once it is impossible to convince me of anything."
Click to expand...

Not really. It's the only way to prove or disprove the situation.

Okay, I'll rephrase it. What would it take to convince you while you are still living that God didn't exist?
Click to expand...

With words? Pictures?

What can illustrate the possibility or impossibility of a spiritual dimension in a physical world?
 
arthwollipot said:
... all religions are equally convinced that they have the "right" answer, and that all the other religions are "wrong".
Click to expand...
That's not true. It's not part of my religion, for instance. Do you have any factual evidence to back up your assertion about what all religions believe, or is this simply something you believe out of prejudice?

John Godfrey Saxe's poem "The Blind Men and The Elephant", expresses well the idea that the various religions are different imperfect attempts at understanding and expressing the same underlying truth. It's not something every religious person believes, but it is something many of us do. So when I am hitch-hiking and get a ride from someone whose religious beliefs are very different from my own, I don't think Oh, that person's religion is wrong -- I think Ah! That's a different way of looking at it than I have, and a different way of expressing it, but I can see that we are talking about essentially the same thing.

I'm familiar with the poem from my own religious upbringing, but it's one that many people of many different faiths have enjoyed and found inspiring. For instance, in looking the peom up (in order to link to it, and to verify the author's name) for this post, I noted that it is also part of Buddhist and Islamic traditions.

Here's the money quote from the poem:
...And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion ~ Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right ~ And all were in the wrong!
Click to expand...
That sums up my own religious belief nicely. I have no illusion that I am right in all of my beliefs, nor do I believe anyone else is or ever will be. I try to be open to new insight and new understanding, and have often found these in surprising places. Which is why I try not to dispute loud and long, but instead to listen respectfully and to learn from what others perceive -- especially when those perceptions are different from my own.
 
Tricky said:
... But there is some believer bashing going on here. Check out any thread with significant contributions by Kurious Kathy if you want to see some. You can argue that she deserves it because she insults non-believers, but I honestly don't think she does so intentionally. But this "you insulted me first" game will get us nowhere. We all insult each other, whether intentionally or not. It's hard to force yourself to ignore insults, but that's the only way to avoid getting sucked into the mud.

Personally, I love good insults. I'd rather give them to people I like, but I can appreciate a creative put-down even when I am the butt.
Click to expand...
I was tempted to nominate this for a language award, but then I realized that it is the content of what you said, rather than the language with which you said it, which I admire so much. But if there were a DGP ** award, in addition to the TLA award, I would nominate this in a heartbeat.

Very well said -- and thank you for saying it.


** DGP = Damn Good Post
 
Huntster said:
With words? Pictures?

What can illustrate the possibility or impossibility of a spiritual dimension in a physical world?
Click to expand...

You're being purposefully obtuse and evasive. That's ok, I already know that you can't be convinced that your god doesn't exist.
 
rocketdodger said:
... we deal in facts, logic, and reason, and all of these are veritable poison to the religious.
Click to expand...
Really? I'm religious, and I don't recall believing that facts, logic, and reason are poison. My religious upbringing was to respect facts, logic, and reason, and that is what I strive (however imperfectly) to do. I am a skeptic because of my religious beliefs, not in spite of them. Please explain to me the factual basis on which you make this statement about my beliefs which runs so directly contrary to my own experience of my beliefs.

Kittynh and Rolfe are two posters I greatly admire. I've met Kitty and know she is religious. I've never met Rolfe, but my understanding is that she is religious as well. I don't recall either of them ever indicating that facts or logic or reason are poisonous to them. Quite the contrary! So could you point me to the posts of theirs to support your assertion that as religious people they find facts and logic and reason poisonous.

If you are dealing in facts, then you should be able to do so. My suspicion is that it is prejudice which you are dealing in, instead. You have made a prejudgement about what religious people must be like, rather than looking at what we actually are like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom