Christian and Skeptic??

[Ashles]

I agree with ilk. Also this doesn't really seem to be the thread to discuss it. It would be better to start a seperate thread about it if you actually wanted to discuss it instead of throwing out a rather unfair generic criticism of non-specified posters.

 

[BPScooter]

Not sure how to intrude

So, I leave a thougtful post and all you other thinkers leave 8 (eight) pages of comments. I applaud and admire this direction, and hope to contribute.

Regardess of dogmas, I still possess a brain. As far as I know, it is among the most complex structures known to science. When I say structure I am blatantly materialistic. Show me an animal brain or computer that is as complex. By complex I mean complicated, multi-faceted.

So, now try to describe/control any or all of the parts of this brain. And be willing to suffer the consequences. Use intense social control... although it mignt be 1939, I might be Schindler. Use intense physical control... I might be in any Army. Use intense mental control, I might be a patient of Freud.

We're lucky to be posting and rebutting in such a fine medium as the Internet. I don't think I'd have brain enough to talk.

BP

 

[turtle]

Well, I'd take that particular quote (and description of the conversation) with a rather large dose of salt... since the whole thing cited by turtle is FROM the website of Sitchin himself.

A little self-promotion going on there, methinks.

Whatever are you talking about?

 

[bigred]

At the risk of possibly repeating mysef (a lot of posts to read/re-read here!)......

Firstly, while there may indeed be some Christians who believe that non-believers (in God, presumably, although that isn't clear from your post) will suffer eternal damnation that is very far from being the mainstream belief, which is that anyone who leads, by their lights, a good life and refrains from doing what they consider wrong makes it into Heaven, or at least into Limbo, which is defined as a place of purely natural happiness, as opposed to the supernatural spiritual happiness of communion with God.

Secondly, not only Jesus saves. Few Christians would believe that devout Moslems, for example, would suffer eternal damnation.

Thirdly, I suppose there are christian creationists, but I would bet they would be outnumbered by the christian evolutionists. As far as the catholic church is concerned the present Pope declared in (I think) 1996 that evolution was perfectly compatible with christianity.

Generalizations are kinda dangerous tools, O.M. ... and since I don't fit into any of those catagories, I suspect you're missing a few of us.

Just a note that the bible is not "everything" to most Christian denominations. Whilst it is (probably) the most important document in their belief system many other aspects of their churches, leaders, prayers, ceremonies and so on form what they would recognise as their Christianity.

Well said on all counts.

 

[bigred]

First pardon the timing, but I haven't had time to go back and read many of the earlier posts....if y'all prefer to just let the thread die, that's fine, won't be the first time I talked to myself

Religion has many good things to offer (if you believe in a society where humans co-exist, have their happiness maximized and their suffering minimized) but by it's nature seems to promote behaviour which is harmful to society.

Actually overall it does quite a bit more harm than good. The harm comes from man's "abuse" of religion (although maybe that's what you meant).

 

[bigred]

Re: Re: Christian and Skeptic??

Randi considers the two to be incompatible, and indeed so do many of the wise folks who contribute here, and so have many scientists and skeptics through the centuries.

They're wrong.

"Skeptic" does not = "non-Christian" (or non-theist). One can have questions or doubts but still believe something. In fact, there are precious few things (if any) that there are never doubts about: God, evolution, science, religion, philosophy, physics, pizza.....well OK not pizza....

Religion is silent on scientific questions, as science is silent on religious questions.

I guess you mean "religion doesn't answer scientific questions, nor is it mean to," which is true. The reverse, of course, is also true.

Not that either of those things stop many people from trying.

 

[bigred]

Jesus Christ was the Messiah and the Son of God who rose from the dead.

This is a very specific claim to knowledge without a shred of supporting evidence outside of the Bible which is anecdotal and hence worthless.

Exactly what kind of supporting evidence would you consider acceptable? ie I don't exactly think bunson burners and double-blind tests would cut it, do you?

Trying to "prove Christianity" using scientific methods is like trying to measure a sound wave with a yardstick. Wow, doesn't work, surprise surprise.

sheesh

If you only believe things which can be shown to have some scientific validity, fine, good for you. That doesn't make it the only or "right" way to think though.


EDIT: newdrk said it better. (That's what I get for reading and replying as I go along vs reading the whole thing)

But as Sagan pointed out (and TLN misunderstood), a genuinely unfalsifiable belief cannot be subjected to evidence-based inquiry.

 

[bigred]

I simply cannot see how belief in a deity differs from belief in any other woo

Your loss.

How many Christians would be Christians if they had not been conditioned to become so by their society, families and peers?

Not nearly as many, no doubt....but I suspect more than you might think.

I also wonder how many people would be atheists if they had not been similarly conditioned, and/or latched onto it in an effort to be "smart" or "cool." I think the numbers would shrink quite a bit there also.

How many Christians cling to their faith for conscious or subconciuos fear of social isolation if they renounced their faith? (Many, I'm sure - I've been there myself.)

In today's society? You kidding me?

flying fully in the face of all knowledge and totally flawed in inherent logic)

You forgot "IMO."

God's existance no more "flies in the face of all knowledge" than alternate dimensions, universes, or alien life. None of those things have been "scientifically proven" - but doesn't make them illogical.

I also think that religion is the dummest human invention to retain

Obviously you've never worn a tie.

Ethics are not incompatible with atheism and scepticism.

? I don't think anyone here is saying that.

 

[bigred]

1-How did the universe start? Was it a big bang, or a creator? You believe in a god, catholic style (for lack of better term). You understand that one of the pillars of catholicism is that god created the universe. This to me, seems another difference in your belief in god and your sketicism.

? These 2 are mutually exclusive because - ?

2-Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Another pillar of catholic faith. No human has ever been able to do this before. How can you reconcile these two differing points between faith and skepticism? If Jesus was indeed human, how could he have pulled this off?

Because He was not simply human. He was both human and divine - ie could take some liberties with phsyical/biological laws if He wants.

Yes, agreed that the church does change it's doctrine from time to time. But as the church changes, so are the followers are expected to fall in line with the changes, or risk excommunication (the severest of penalties I think). But my point is, that even as the church's dogma is changed, if you don't follow those changes, you are no longer considered a catholic.

This is an oversimplification which simply isn't true. If I eat meat on a Friday during Lent, I've gone against the RCC's dogma. But I'm still quite Catholic. (and being a good Catholic make sure to feel guilty about it, lol)

 

[bigred]

From a Roman Catholic standpoint are you not required to believe in the Garden of Eden story? Without the concept of Original Sin, the whole edifice of Catholicism collapses.

How do you feel about the Adam and Eve story?]

We believe in original sin. Adam and Eve? Most likely symbolic/fictional.


You seem to be a very "liberal" Catholic. When, for example, was the doctrine of Transubstantiation revoked? I don't remember ever having heard this. Indeed, I thought it was central to Roman Catholic doctrine.

On the SETI question.
(snip)

tsk tsk you tap-danced around this one. Do you believe ETs exist or not?

Someone once said that Communism and Christianity have one thing in common -- great ideas, terrible implementation. [/B]

lol. I think Christianity was implemented better, but I'm afraid that isn't saying much. Putting the human equation into even the best of ideas does tend to invite trouble though!

 

[bigred]

jmercer,

Could you kindly point out to me how the following remark of yours in any way differs from the sentiment and justification of belief espoused by believers in 'afterlife', reincarnation, spirits, fairies, ghosts, astrology, ceystal healing, homeopathy, dowsing, applied kineseology, alien abductions:
(snip)

I also notice you left out ETs. How about it? rod: