Powered by Outside

Do you find it absurd that I am a Christian? Why?

PB Forum :: Social / Political Issues
Do you find it absurd that I am a Christian? Why?
Author Message
flag ctxcrossx
O+
Posted: Aug 4, 2019 at 4:59 Quote
Enduro9 wrote:
No matter how you say i,t everybody has faith in something; even agnostics........They also say, "well I believe in science". What is that suppose to mean? I do too, but I also believe in God. I appreciate any post relevant to this subjectSmile

Also, no, not everyone has faith (Definition: firm belief in something for which there is no proof) in something. I'm agnostic. I don't have faith in a higher power. I don't know if there is a higher power or not, but doesn't mean I have faith that there may be a higher power. They're very different.

I am one who would possibly say that I believe in science. For me, Science is the tool that helps to answer questions. There are many things that are still unknown about the world. For those things, instead of going in a direction of faith, I just assume that it's something that's simply unanswerable given our current understanding. There may never be enough information to answer some things. No big deal.
flag TheRaven
Posted: Aug 6, 2019 at 10:03 Quote
ctxcrossx wrote:
To address your original question, my question would be how you came to have faith specifically in Christianity, instead of say Islam, Mormon, or even Scientology? In every religion, you have to have faith that what is said is true without proof. Why do you believe that Jesus died and came back to life as opposed to Islam where Jesus didn't die on the cross, or the multiple gods of Mormonism....or in having past lives in Scientology?

What made you decide to have faith in one thing over another? How many different religions did you learn about in your quest for truth? Did you question yours, look at the various religions out there, and then come back to realize that this was the one that made the most sense to you?

Data supports that religions are grouped throughout the world (for example, Mormonism in Utah). Did all of these people think about their religion as adults (with established reasoning skills) and decide to move to the same area to find like minded people....or did they grow up as a Mormon and just decided to stay without even contemplating other options. This isn't isolated to that religion/region either. It's the same mentality for the reason that people are "Ford" or "Chevy" people.....or "Cowboys" or "Giants" fans. They grew up and were indoctrinated.

That's the issue that I have with it, so few people have actually thought critically about why they believe what they believe. And even if you did, I'm not sure how you'd have picked between a virgin giving birth over Xenu ruler of the Galactic Confederacy (Scientology)....or even Zeus the god of Thunder. Zeus is completely dismissed in current times, but it's not any more far fetched than anything else.

Finally, anecdotally, almost everyone I know who practices a religion is that way because that's how they were raised. Not because it's what they actually may believe in. They were told what to believe when they were growing up, and they never stopped to think whether or not it made sense to them.

If one does actually ponder it and then land back on a particular religion, more power to them. If you don't think critically about it, then personally, I would have doubts as to whether that person was actually religious, or just found comfort in it and went along for the ride without any more contemplation.

Respectfully,

Chris

Faith isn't in religion. It's in a deity or "power". Religion is simply the "practicing" of that faith. This is something that gets mixed up a lot by both the religious and non-religious. Psuedo-atheists attack religion because they make the exact same mistake that the religious make - failing to understand that religion is just a human construct around a belief. Attacking religion is pointless. Similarly, hardcore religious followers push the practices of religion as if the practices themselves are god - in most cases this is because the practices are where the profit comes from but that's another discussion. In reality all the worlds religions are just different interpretations of ancient ways of showing faith...which is why they are largely regional. None of this really has a bearing on the existence or non-existence of god...which is why it's a complete waste of time to attack religion in the quest to disprove god.

ctxcrossx wrote:
Also, no, not everyone has faith (Definition: firm belief in something for which there is no proof) in something. I'm agnostic. I don't have faith in a higher power. I don't know if there is a higher power or not, but doesn't mean I have faith that there may be a higher power. They're very different.

I am one who would possibly say that I believe in science. For me, Science is the tool that helps to answer questions.

Everyone does have faith, as you define it. You yourself give a great example in your last paragraph. You believe in science. I'm sure you would say "well science is provable"...no, it's not. Science is not something that can be proved...it's an interpretive framework. It helps us to find evidence and proof for things we believe, but that's all within our limited perspective, and we don't have a way to orient our perspective within the infinite reality in which we exist. So religion and science have the exact same limitations, and that's precisely why '"science vs religion" is a battle that will never end.

ctxcrossx wrote:
There are many things that are still unknown about the world. For those things, instead of going in a direction of faith, I just assume that it's something that's simply unanswerable given our current understanding. There may never be enough information to answer some things. No big deal.

That, right there...what you just described, is faith.
flag ctxcrossx
O+
Posted: Aug 6, 2019 at 21:30 Quote
TheRaven wrote:
Faith isn't in religion. It's in a deity or "power". Religion is simply the "practicing" of that faith. This is something that gets mixed up a lot by both the religious and non-religious. Psuedo-atheists attack religion because they make the exact same mistake that the religious make - failing to understand that religion is just a human construct around a belief. Attacking religion is pointless. Similarly, hardcore religious followers push the practices of religion as if the practices themselves are god - in most cases this is because the practices are where the profit comes from but that's another discussion. In reality all the worlds religions are just different interpretations of ancient ways of showing faith...which is why they are largely regional. None of this really has a bearing on the existence or non-existence of god...which is why it's a complete waste of time to attack religion in the quest to disprove god.


Everyone does have faith, as you define it. You yourself give a great example in your last paragraph. You believe in science. I'm sure you would say "well science is provable"...no, it's not. Science is not something that can be proved...it's an interpretive framework. It helps us to find evidence and proof for things we believe, but that's all within our limited perspective, and we don't have a way to orient our perspective within the infinite reality in which we exist. So religion and science have the exact same limitations, and that's precisely why '"science vs religion" is a battle that will never end.

ctxcrossx wrote:
There are many things that are still unknown about the world. For those things, instead of going in a direction of faith, I just assume that it's something that's simply unanswerable given our current understanding. There may never be enough information to answer some things. No big deal.

That, right there...what you just described, is faith.

That may be your definition of faith, but it's not everyone's definition. Here is one actual definition: a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. You may view faith as only the relationship with god, but that doesn't mean that everyone does, which you readily admit. They have faith in the word of the bible (or other religious text). That literature is not god, but people still can have faith in it. By and large, faith is not reserved solely for god, but it may be specifically for you. I'm referring to the masses.

You are incorrect about science and the comparison with it and faith. You set up an argument that I didn't even make (that it's provable) just to try to defeat it. Science is the study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. While faith is "based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof". I never said that science is provable. Frankly, using the word proof in this conversation can be slightly misleading.

It doesn't make sense to say someone has faith in science. That's not how it works at all. Basically science is the study of understanding our world with the resources we currently have to understand it. Can aspects of it be wrong? Of course, but that doesn't mean it's faith at all. Things aren't proven because we are continually evaluating new information.

....god/religion/faith....doesn't have that. No new information, nothing observable, nothing that can be experimented with, nothing that is repeatable, nothing that is verified, no predictions can be made based on evidence...You just think it's true.

The formation of the universe is a good example. On one hand you have the Big Bang Theory. Could it be wrong? Sure, but it's based on our current understanding and is based on things like the universe is expanding (observable), Hubbles low (observable, repeatable), cosmic radiation (observable, predictions based on experiments),e tc.

Verses Creationism.....god did it. No way to test it, no evidence to support it (saying it's too complex to have happened any other way most certainly isn't evidence), etc. There is absolutely nothing to support this theory, which is why it requires faith.

Finally, here is a great article that talks about the misconception of proof with regards to science. It isn't too long but clarifies it quite well:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
flag TheRaven
Posted: Aug 7, 2019 at 6:20 Quote
ctxcrossx wrote:
That may be your definition of faith, but it's not everyone's definition. Here is one actual definition: a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. You may view faith as only the relationship with god, but that doesn't mean that everyone does, which you readily admit. They have faith in the word of the bible (or other religious text). That literature is not god, but people still can have faith in it. By and large, faith is not reserved solely for god, but it may be specifically for you. I'm referring to the masses.

I agree, but for the sake of discussion, i'm going with the strict definition, the one you originally posted:

ctxcrossx wrote:
Also, no, not everyone has faith (Definition: firm belief in something for which there is no proof) in something.

We can't have a useful discussion based on relative definitions.

ctxcrossx wrote:
You are incorrect about science and the comparison with it and faith. You set up an argument that I didn't even make (that it's provable) just to try to defeat it. Science is the study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. While faith is "based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof". I never said that science is provable. Frankly, using the word proof in this conversation can be slightly misleading.

I wasn't trying to defeat anything. I was extending a concession to you. But I think you get what I was trying to outline...in the "science vs. religion" or "god or no god" arguments, nothing is proven because we are discussing things outside of human sphere.

ctxcrossx wrote:
It doesn't make sense to say someone has faith in science. That's not how it works at all. Basically science is the study of understanding our world with the resources we currently have to understand it. Can aspects of it be wrong? Of course, but that doesn't mean it's faith at all. Things aren't proven because we are continually evaluating new information.


Sure it does - in the context of the origins of the universe. Because people commonly look at faith and belief as interchangeable and because in this discussion science and religion are on equal footing...both are shot-in-the-dark attempts at explaining where we came from. So you pick which explanation you buy into.

ctxcrossx wrote:
....god/religion/faith....doesn't have that. No new information, nothing observable, nothing that can be experimented with, nothing that is repeatable, nothing that is verified, no predictions can be made based on evidence...You just think it's true.

This isn't true at all. In fact it's science that continuously brings new information to those who study religious doctrine, and those of us who come to the table with an open mind can observe, verify, and predict based on evidence. Certainly those who have already discounted the possibility of a god or a spiritual world would make the claim you have, but anyone who has given the idea an honest try would not. The vast majority of believers believe because of evidence they have personally observed.

ctxcrossx wrote:
The formation of the universe is a good example. On one hand you have the Big Bang Theory. Could it be wrong? Sure, but it's based on our current understanding and is based on things like the universe is expanding (observable), Hubbles low (observable, repeatable), cosmic radiation (observable, predictions based on experiments),e tc.

How do we verify these observations? With what framework do we orient them within reality? The answer is - we don't know. We don't have a way to do that. So how do we know that what we are observing is actually what's happening? We don't. The big bang theory is based on a lot of speculation based on speculation based on speculation. So logic dictates it is probably wrong. But, at this time it's either that or god.
flag ctxcrossx
O+
Posted: Aug 14, 2019 at 18:19 Quote
TheRaven wrote:
ctxcrossx wrote:
It doesn't make sense to say someone has faith in science. That's not how it works at all. Basically science is the study of understanding our world with the resources we currently have to understand it. Can aspects of it be wrong? Of course, but that doesn't mean it's faith at all. Things aren't proven because we are continually evaluating new information.


Sure it does - in the context of the origins of the universe. Because people commonly look at faith and belief as interchangeable and because in this discussion science and religion are on equal footing...both are shot-in-the-dark attempts at explaining where we came from. So you pick which explanation you buy into.

ctxcrossx wrote:
The formation of the universe is a good example. On one hand you have the Big Bang Theory. Could it be wrong? Sure, but it's based on our current understanding and is based on things like the universe is expanding (observable), Hubbles low (observable, repeatable), cosmic radiation (observable, predictions based on experiments),e tc.

How do we verify these observations? With what framework do we orient them within reality? The answer is - we don't know. We don't have a way to do that. So how do we know that what we are observing is actually what's happening? We don't. The big bang theory is based on a lot of speculation based on speculation based on speculation. So logic dictates it is probably wrong. But, at this time it's either that or god.

I don't know what to tell you. If you think that science and faith are on equal footing, then you have a HUGE misunderstanding of science. I already explained things like observations. Look at the link I posted. How do we orient them with reality?? That's what people do when they experiment, I wish you the best of luck in life.

By the way, Big bang is based on evidence.....goddidit....is based on....absolutely nothing, You have no idea so why not attribute it to a magical man? -- this is the type of thinking that answers the OP's question.
flag TheRaven
Posted: Aug 15, 2019 at 6:12 Quote
ctxcrossx wrote:
I don't know what to tell you.

That's because at this point you should be realizing that I have made some very good points. But you aren't even considering that possbility because you aren't looking to challenge what you believe. Yes I used the word "believe"...because that's an accurate description of your stance. You are already convinced, you aren't lacking belief...you believe there is no god and there is no possibility of god existing.


ctxcrossx wrote:
If you think that science and faith are on equal footing, then you have a HUGE misunderstanding of science.

Conversely, you (like many) are the one who misunderstands science. Science is not an alternative to religion. It's not the same kind of entity. It only shares the same problem that limits religion - both are constructs of man that attempt to answer questions outside of man's scope of understanding. Religion claims to have all the answers, science doesn't. Science will never even be able to have all the answers...like I said, it's only a lens through which we attempt to find said answers. It's then up to us to interpret what we see through that lens. As a result, science fails, and will always fail, in the same ways religion does.



ctxcrossx wrote:
I already explained things like observations. Look at the link I posted. How do we orient them with reality?? That's what people do when they experiment,

No. People experiment to verify observations. But the problem of orienting observations within reality still exists because we have no reference point. Religion claims to have that reference point, but we have no way to verify it. So, again, we end up with both religion and science failing at the same point. The best science can say is "here's what this group of people observed" and the best religion can say is "the bible says"...I think we'd both agree that neither answer is sufficient when it comes to explaining the universe.

ctxcrossx wrote:
By the way, Big bang is based on evidence.....goddidit....is based on....absolutely nothing,

It's the exact same thing. The "evidence" for big bang is simply what we have deemed evidence - i.e. we have been told that to the best of our knowledge, these things mean this. Again, we can't tie that to truth because we don't have a reference point to truth. "goddidit" is based on what a book tells us, a book that we have been told documents the one source of truth in our universe. No difference.

ctxcrossx wrote:
You have no idea so why not attribute it to a magical man? -- this is the type of thinking that answers the OP's question.

No. Actually it's your type of thinking that answers the OP's question. Ideology - the belief that you know or can know the answer. You can't. No one can. You can choose to believe something or you can choose to leave the question fully open for discussion.
flag ctxcrossx
O+
Posted: Aug 21, 2019 at 21:19 Quote
TheRaven wrote:
ctxcrossx wrote:
I don't know what to tell you.

That's because at this point you should be realizing that I have made some very good points. But you aren't even considering that possbility because you aren't looking to challenge what you believe. Yes I used the word "believe"...because that's an accurate description of your stance. You are already convinced, you aren't lacking belief...you believe there is no god and there is no possibility of god existing.


ctxcrossx wrote:
If you think that science and faith are on equal footing, then you have a HUGE misunderstanding of science.

Conversely, you (like many) are the one who misunderstands science. Science is not an alternative to religion. It's not the same kind of entity. It only shares the same problem that limits religion - both are constructs of man that attempt to answer questions outside of man's scope of understanding. Religion claims to have all the answers, science doesn't. Science will never even be able to have all the answers...like I said, it's only a lens through which we attempt to find said answers. It's then up to us to interpret what we see through that lens. As a result, science fails, and will always fail, in the same ways religion does.



ctxcrossx wrote:
I already explained things like observations. Look at the link I posted. How do we orient them with reality?? That's what people do when they experiment,

No. People experiment to verify observations. But the problem of orienting observations within reality still exists because we have no reference point. Religion claims to have that reference point, but we have no way to verify it. So, again, we end up with both religion and science failing at the same point. The best science can say is "here's what this group of people observed" and the best religion can say is "the bible says"...I think we'd both agree that neither answer is sufficient when it comes to explaining the universe.

ctxcrossx wrote:
By the way, Big bang is based on evidence.....goddidit....is based on....absolutely nothing,

It's the exact same thing. The "evidence" for big bang is simply what we have deemed evidence - i.e. we have been told that to the best of our knowledge, these things mean this. Again, we can't tie that to truth because we don't have a reference point to truth. "goddidit" is based on what a book tells us, a book that we have been told documents the one source of truth in our universe. No difference.

ctxcrossx wrote:
You have no idea so why not attribute it to a magical man? -- this is the type of thinking that answers the OP's question.

No. Actually it's your type of thinking that answers the OP's question. Ideology - the belief that you know or can know the answer. You can't. No one can. You can choose to believe something or you can choose to leave the question fully open for discussion.

I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree. No sense in beating a dead horse at this point when I could be riding.

Have a great day!

Chris
flag TheRaven
Posted: Aug 22, 2019 at 9:35 Quote
ctxcrossx wrote:
I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree. No sense in beating a dead horse at this point when I could be riding.

Have a great day!

Chris

I wish I could be riding. Have a great ride!
flag poah
Posted: Jan 5, 2020 at 12:06 Quote
TheRaven wrote:
ka81 wrote:
Oh, my dear friends, we just hope that everything about any religion will disappear as soon as possible.

Only the simple-minded truly think this way. The intellectual realize that religion is a necessity for the survival of western civilization.

explain why sexist, homophobic, ignorant cults that only exist for people to have power and money are required for the survival of western civilisation?
flag TheRaven
Posted: Jan 8, 2020 at 5:37 Quote
poah wrote:
explain why sexist, homophobic, ignorant cults that only exist for people to have power and money are required for the survival of western civilisation?

They aren't. I never said they were. I said RELIGION is a necessity for the survival of civilization. Perhaps you need to do some googling on the difference between cults and religion.
flag poah
Posted: Jan 17, 2020 at 16:10 Quote
TheRaven wrote:
poah wrote:
explain why sexist, homophobic, ignorant cults that only exist for people to have power and money are required for the survival of western civilisation?

They aren't. I never said they were. I said RELIGION is a necessity for the survival of civilization. Perhaps you need to do some googling on the difference between cults and religion.

there is no difference
flag TheRaven
Posted: Jan 22, 2020 at 9:31 Quote
poah wrote:
there is no difference

So yeah, go do some learning and then come back and we'll talk.
flag poah
Posted: Mar 28, 2020 at 6:22 Quote
TheRaven wrote:
poah wrote:
there is no difference

So yeah, go do some learning and then come back and we'll talk.

Cult = a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object

so yes all religion is a cult.
flag Matt115lamb
Posted: Mar 28, 2020 at 7:24 Quote
U took your time to think of that !hehe
flag TheRaven
Posted: Mar 28, 2020 at 10:38 Quote
poah wrote:
Cult = a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object

so yes all religion is a cult.

So you went and did some learning, and came back, and posted that?

That's not the complete definition of a cult btw.

The difference between a religion and a cult is huge. But in objective form it boils down to this - religion has positive motivation, cult has sinister motivation. it's a one word difference in print, but it's absolutely massive in practice.

You need to do quite a bit more learning.

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.011538
Mobile Version of Website