Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:I wanted to point out that even those who so adamantly oppose Christianity, are, in fact, often embracing the very values Christianity puts forward, that they are not such "free" and "open" thinkers as many here wish to claim.

Are you saying that because I treat my neighbor with respect and haven't killed another human, I have subconsciously "embraced christian values"? OK.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Fast forward to an interview I heard with a soldier in Iraq. OK, not the most liberal or open-minded segment of the population, but definitely the face of American that many see. In this interview, they were talking about various changes implemented. You know what this young soldier picked up as an example? That men kiss men. This was just "wrong" he said ... and he saw it as his job to "teach" the native people that this was "not acceptable behavior".

I do agree with much of what you are saying about cultural norms, but since we are skewing off topic anyway, there is another piece to your puzzle. The majority of Americans (and new military recruits) have never traveled beyond their neighboring states, except for the occasional holiday vacation. Even more have never been outside the United States borders. The vast majority of American's don't even own a passport! I would also wager that the majority of Americans have never even MET a Muslim (or a christian met an atheist) , let alone sat down and talked to one about religion. It's very easy to hate that which you do not know, which explains much of the "just kill em all" attitude from some. Look back at the cold war. The Russians weren't like us. They didn't THINK like us. "They have no morals". "They are a savage race"....etc, etc. It was the Japanese before that...and the Germans too...we have heard it all before. THEN something nice happens. A few move here...then a few more. Then you have one in your office. Then your kid is playing with another ones child. The next thing you know you are eating Sushi or dining at a Moroccan restaurant (Gasp! Muslim food!). I have had the advantage over most Americans to travel for my job to MANY different countries/continents and meet people from all different races/religions. My workplace is like the United Nations. Out of 200 employees we have Russians, Greeks, Italians, Israelis, Chinese, Hungarians, Indians, Brits, Kiwis, Aussies and Latinos/Arabs/Asians of all flavors in the building. I have sat at the lunchroom table with a Russian woman, a Chinese man and a Tunisian Muslim and had fascinating conversations about their homelands and religions. This is not uncommon in New York, but in Middle America it's a very different story. The globe is truly getting smaller and I have realized that people are people no matter their race or religion...we all basically want the same thing. It's when countries isolate their people and allow extremists to tell them about "the other side", be it a race or religion that problems arise. And we Americans are just as guilty of this.

PLAYER57832 wrote:
The word "God", it is specific to the God either you or the one to whom you speak worships. The capitalization makes it a kind of "proper noun" or "name".

Since an overwheming majority of speakers, at least in the west are Jewish/Christian or Muslim, "God" is often used to mean the one "omniscient/all-knowing" god of these religions, unless it is specifically defined otherwise.

So "God" can have a different meaning depending on who says it, which is exactly my point. Just because a majority of the people have a common usage for it doesn't mean that that is the definition.

The point was about "good" being a subjective term because it could mean differnt things to diffent people.

Neutrino wrote:In addition to what Balsifen said, the mercenary attitude displayed in consciously (or unconsciously) accepting Pascal's Wager is what's going to prevent you from getting into any hypothetical heaven. You're not in it because of any genuine belief in God, you're in because God is offering the best deal on the afterlife. You may claim that you do believe, and maybe even convince yourself of that, but it won't change the fundamental detail that you're only in this "Christianity" buisness 'cause it has the greatest opportunities for profit. God ain't gonna let you into heaven with that attitude.

But here's my point: what do you suggest I do now? I won't become an atheist thanks to the Wager, but it's by far the largest reason I have for my beliefs. Are you saying that knowledge of the Wager equals damnation? It is even possible for me to go back to "genuine belief"?

Neutrino wrote:Actually, as I said before, faith-based solutions fails as scientific models, as they are fairly blatant Occam's Razor violations. They add a term to the equation (God) which is completely superflous, for no increase in accuracy over a scientific solution. Neither can answer the question of "what came before the universe" (the faith based solution because God is unknown and unknowable and the scientific solution because the time before the universe's existence has not been observed in any way), so why should we choose a more complex non-answer over a simpler one?

Except the "scientific" solution is based on faith, too. What proof do you have that the Universe came into being, or has forever existed, without the necessity for a God? None- you said yourself that the time has not been observed in any way (at least by us). You BELIEVE that there is a solution without God... you don't know what it is, but you believe it anyway. That's faith, not science.

Neutrino wrote:Let's have an analogy here. Say you drop a ball. You can assume the ball slipped or that, for example, a thousand tiny, invisible leprechauns pushed it out of your hand. Occam's razor can easily determine the valid solution in this situation. In fact, you've likely already, subconsciously employed it. Thousands of invisible leprechaun's have never been reported by any reliable witness; we have no reason to believe in their existance. The leprachaun-based solution posits their existence for no gain in accuracy; the model is significantly more complex for absolutely no reason. This is why Occam's razor is important; without it the door is opened to all kinds of soliphistic crap, like the leprechauns.

Of course, I chose an intentionally absurd analogy here, so as to better demonstrate the validity of Occam's Razor, but, in essence, there is no difference between invisible, ball-pushing leprechauns and God when both are put forward as scientific solutions for problems.

Yeah, I accept that the Razor a pretty valid argument. It's not always true, but usually it works well.

Except the Razor doesn't help us here. Your analogy is incorrect. We have a scientific explanation for why the ball dropped- the sweat on your hand (or whatever) lessened the friction on the ball, and gravity caused it to move out of your hand. Do we have a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe? No. Will we ever? And will it involve a deity? That's a matter of faith.

Backglass wrote:There are plenty of people who need morals in general. You don't have a lock on anything.

Right you are. And I never said anything to the contrary.

Backglass wrote:Wow. The fact that you can say such a thing with a straight face shows me the level of your indoctrination. So...on the whole you are saying that the majority of atheists (or non christians for that matter) are somehow "less moral" as a group? Do you have any facts to back up this claim or is this just what you have learned at church and had beaten into your head?

I've seen quite a bit of indoctrination here myself. People want to think of me as an ultra-conservative hardcore Christian who thinks atheists are a bunch of immoral hoodlums, because they love winning arguments against people like that. Guess what... you and I agree more than you seem to want to believe. Here's proof:

Backglass wrote:you are saying that the majority of atheists (or non christians for that matter) are somehow "less moral" as a group

I said nothing about the majority. In fact, just about every Christian will tell you that they are a sinner.

I'm not saying that Christian morals are the only morals. You talk about non-Christians like I despise them. Yeah, I absolutely loathe those kind, peaceful Buddhists.

Religion is like a map. Of course, you'll get some maps that tell you the entirely wrong place to go, and even some people who misread the map entirely (Muslim terrorists, anti-Semitism, etc.), but most people find helpful guidance with their maps. Atheists don't have a map... and while it's possible for them to get to the same places as the religious (which are mostly the "right places", although that is up for debate), they have to find the places all on their lonesome, and then your Stalins, Hitlers, and Kim Jong-ils steer some people without maps the wrong way (and even cause people with maps to throw them away altogether)!

To group together atheists and label them all as immoral, or to group the religious and label them all moral, would be foolish. Religion, however, can be used as a tool to aid our choices, which is why I said that the average Christian is more moral than the average atheist. People like you who can't swallow their pride and admit that we all could use some help really bug me. Sorry, but nobody's perfect.

jonesthecurl wrote:Umm...Atheists don't believe in god. You do. The title of the thread is "Why do I believe?"...
And the first post in the thread talks about marshalling reasons for believing in god.
In what way is this not about whether god exists>

There's a difference for finding reasons why God exists and finding reasons why I should believe God exists. The former will always work for the latter, but since nobody has any evidence to support or contradict the former (assuming a panentheistic creator God), I'm going to have to work solely with the latter.

Backglass wrote:Are you saying that because I treat my neighbor with respect and haven't killed another human, I have subconsciously "embraced christian values"? OK.

Christ embraced values which many today see as acceptable. Christians don't have a claim on "good values", but, like you, they see them as the best way to live. That's part of what makes Christianity so popular.

Backglass wrote:I do agree with much of what you are saying about cultural norms, but since we are skewing off topic anyway, there is another piece to your puzzle. The majority of Americans (and new military recruits) have never traveled beyond their neighboring states, except for the occasional holiday vacation. Even more have never been outside the United States borders. The vast majority of American's don't even own a passport! I would also wager that the majority of Americans have never even MET a Muslim (or a christian met an atheist) , let alone sat down and talked to one about religion. It's very easy to hate that which you do not know, which explains much of the "just kill em all" attitude from some. Look back at the cold war. The Russians weren't like us. They didn't THINK like us. "They have no morals". "They are a savage race"....etc, etc. It was the Japanese before that...and the Germans too...we have heard it all before. THEN something nice happens. A few move here...then a few more. Then you have one in your office. Then your kid is playing with another ones child. The next thing you know you are eating Sushi or dining at a Moroccan restaurant (Gasp! Muslim food!). I have had the advantage over most Americans to travel for my job to MANY different countries/continents and meet people from all different races/religions. My workplace is like the United Nations. Out of 200 employees we have Russians, Greeks, Italians, Israelis, Chinese, Hungarians, Indians, Brits, Kiwis, Aussies and Latinos/Arabs/Asians of all flavors in the building. I have sat at the lunchroom table with a Russian woman, a Chinese man and a Tunisian Muslim and had fascinating conversations about their homelands and religions. This is not uncommon in New York, but in Middle America it's a very different story. The globe is truly getting smaller and I have realized that people are people no matter their race or religion...we all basically want the same thing. It's when countries isolate their people and allow extremists to tell them about "the other side", be it a race or religion that problems arise. And we Americans are just as guilty of this.

Hard to argue with that. I think we can assume that most of the posters here aren't as closed-minded as that (yes, even me)...

I read a story recently about a devoutly religious minister who, some time ago now, was forced, during an accident at sea, to choose between saving his son and saving his son's friend.
His son had been christened and was a catholic like his father, whereas the friend had not been christened and was a non believer. The father had one life-line to throw and two boys over-board in extremely rough seas. He chose to throw the life-line to the friend rather than his own son, convinced that his son was guaranteed entrance into heaven and the friend was condemned to damnation should he die before accepting God. His son drowned.
Many would look upon that as absolute lunacy and against all natural instincts, but the man's belief was so strong that he made an immediate choice based on pure faith - he knew without a shadow of a doubt that his son was moving on to a better place.

It's an extreme situation, but could the believers among you be as steadfast as he was?

To what extent is your belief simply based on your upbringing or something you were taught to go along with? - going to church, saying your prayers, bringing up your own children to accept God...a familiar routine, if you like.
If that faith were really put to the test, would it be unwavering or is there always, as one would expect, some measure of doubt in the existence of God?

mandyb wrote:I read a story recently about a devoutly religious minister who, some time ago now, was forced, during an accident at sea, to choose between saving his son and saving his son's friend.
His son had been christened and was a catholic like his father, whereas the friend had not been christened and was a non believer. The father had one life-line to throw and two boys over-board in extremely rough seas. He chose to throw the life-line to the friend rather than his own son, convinced that his son was guaranteed entrance into heaven and the friend was condemned to damnation should he die before accepting God. His son drowned.
Many would look upon that as absolute lunacy and against all natural instincts, but the man's belief was so strong that he made an immediate choice based on pure faith - he knew without a shadow of a doubt that his son was moving on to a better place.

It's an extreme situation, but could the believers among you be as steadfast as he was?

To what extent is your belief simply based on your upbringing or something you were taught to go along with? - going to church, saying your prayers, bringing up your own children to accept God...a familiar routine, if you like.
If that faith were really put to the test, would it be unwavering or is there always, as one would expect, some measure of doubt in the existence of God?

It would be hilarious if the friend still didn't accept god after this

radiojake wrote:

mandyb wrote:I read a story recently about a devoutly religious minister who, some time ago now, was forced, during an accident at sea, to choose between saving his son and saving his son's friend.
His son had been christened and was a catholic like his father, whereas the friend had not been christened and was a non believer. The father had one life-line to throw and two boys over-board in extremely rough seas. He chose to throw the life-line to the friend rather than his own son, convinced that his son was guaranteed entrance into heaven and the friend was condemned to damnation should he die before accepting God. His son drowned.
Many would look upon that as absolute lunacy and against all natural instincts, but the man's belief was so strong that he made an immediate choice based on pure faith - he knew without a shadow of a doubt that his son was moving on to a better place.

It's an extreme situation, but could the believers among you be as steadfast as he was?

To what extent is your belief simply based on your upbringing or something you were taught to go along with? - going to church, saying your prayers, bringing up your own children to accept God...a familiar routine, if you like.
If that faith were really put to the test, would it be unwavering or is there always, as one would expect, some measure of doubt in the existence of God?

It would be hilarious if the friend still didn't accept god after this

I'd hate to be that kid. What do you say?

"Oh! Oh...uh...thanks, I see. I'll, uh, I'll think about it..."

"Suddenly I find Jesus more credible!"

"Hail Satan!"

That's some hardcore faith right there.

radiojake wrote: It would be hilarious if the friend still didn't accept god after this

Lol... I wouldn't tell him if I were the priest, I'd just try to influence him. Nobody needs that kind of guilt on their conscience.

radiojake wrote:

mandyb wrote:I read a story recently about a devoutly religious minister who, some time ago now, was forced, during an accident at sea, to choose between saving his son and saving his son's friend.
His son had been christened and was a catholic like his father, whereas the friend had not been christened and was a non believer. The father had one life-line to throw and two boys over-board in extremely rough seas. He chose to throw the life-line to the friend rather than his own son, convinced that his son was guaranteed entrance into heaven and the friend was condemned to damnation should he die before accepting God. His son drowned.
Many would look upon that as absolute lunacy and against all natural instincts, but the man's belief was so strong that he made an immediate choice based on pure faith - he knew without a shadow of a doubt that his son was moving on to a better place.

It's an extreme situation, but could the believers among you be as steadfast as he was?

To what extent is your belief simply based on your upbringing or something you were taught to go along with? - going to church, saying your prayers, bringing up your own children to accept God...a familiar routine, if you like.
If that faith were really put to the test, would it be unwavering or is there always, as one would expect, some measure of doubt in the existence of God?

It would be hilarious if the friend still didn't accept god after this

Suck on that. Pascal! As the boy is drowning, he shouts out "but I only believed 'cos it's safer!"

mandyb wrote:I read a story recently about a devoutly religious minister who, some time ago now, was forced, during an accident at sea, to choose between saving his son and saving his son's friend.
His son had been christened and was a catholic like his father, whereas the friend had not been christened and was a non believer. The father had one life-line to throw and two boys over-board in extremely rough seas. He chose to throw the life-line to the friend rather than his own son, convinced that his son was guaranteed entrance into heaven and the friend was condemned to damnation should he die before accepting God. His son drowned.
Many would look upon that as absolute lunacy and against all natural instincts, but the man's belief was so strong that he made an immediate choice based on pure faith - he knew without a shadow of a doubt that his son was moving on to a better place.

It's an extreme situation, but could the believers among you be as steadfast as he was?

To what extent is your belief simply based on your upbringing or something you were taught to go along with? - going to church, saying your prayers, bringing up your own children to accept God...a familiar routine, if you like.
If that faith were really put to the test, would it be unwavering or is there always, as one would expect, some measure of doubt in the existence of God?

Citation needed.

And couldn't he have thrown the line out again after hauling in the first boy?

MeDeFe wrote:Citation needed

You wont find one. It's yet another religious story/parable/allegory meant to "teach" you something...although I am not sure what.

By this logic David Koresh & Jim Jones were right. After all, they accelerated the trip to heaven for all those "saved" people.

Backglass wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Citation needed

You wont find one. It's yet another religious story/parable/allegory meant to "teach" you something...although I am not sure what.

By this logic David Koresh & Jim Jones were right. After all, they accelerated the trip to heaven for all those "saved" people.

Not quite ... sucide is one of the fundamental sins in most Christian denominations.

john9blue wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Umm...Atheists don't believe in god. You do. The title of the thread is "Why do I believe?"...
And the first post in the thread talks about marshalling reasons for believing in god.
In what way is this not about whether god exists>

There's a difference for finding reasons why God exists and finding reasons why I should believe God exists.

well, good luck with that one.