Christians vs. nonChristians on issues

[Ian Darling]

John Fisher wrote: Exactly. While aiming for the truth, you select the most likely choice given the current information. If the goal wasn't the truth of the situation, why change the theory if it sounds nice already? Maybe the current explanation has implications that we like. If someone comes up with evidence that the current explanation no longer is the best choice, why switch? The only way to figure the "best" theory is to have a goal -- the truth. Just because they aren't guaranteed to reach it doesn't mean they stop trying. Yes, but given the lack of perfect and complete information, you can't get to The Truth - all you can get is more and more accurate - at least in a historical context. And choosing a theory is nothing to do with aesthetics or how much we "like" it (which is what you've implied, even if you don't mean it). A theory is the explaination that best describes what the evidence it, regardless of what the consequences of that theory are. Scientists would quite like to get Truth, but they'll settle for (and only get to) Accurate. I suspect we'll never get to Truth (because there are an infinite number of facts, and you never know if we'll find something to contradict a theory without testing an infinite number of facts, which as we know, is very hard :-D)

---

Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

[jhwurmbach]

Gary Kirkham wrote: homosexuality is a choice. It is not something you are born with no matter what a few activist Doctors and Judges might have to say. And it is that way just because you want it that way? Despite reality? Sounds about right. All fundamental christians here and everywhere seem to think of an acive God that is constantly interfering with the world. There is no way why this God should not stop those poor, hellbound sinners from being homosexuals. Just that he may simply be unbelievable cruel. It must be very easy for this active omnipotent God do stop all sin. But he seems to actually like seeing people go to hell, he is not omnipotent - or he is not there at all. Pick your choice.

---

"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation." -- Caius Petronius, Roman Consul, 66 A.D.

[Terry ONolley]

How convenient! Just because an immortal being who knew he couldn't be killed hung around on a cross for a couple of days means that all of the laws set down by god himself are null and void! What a relief! I guess that means that is now OK for good god-fearing men to fornicate, commit adultery and murder since Jesus (an immortal who knew he would be only temporarily inconvenienced) hung out on a cross. What a break for you Christians! You can slaughter as many old ladies as you want! You can rape as many nuns as you want! Jesus (an immortal who knew he was the son of god and thus could not be hurt by whatever silly little trials the romans had in store for him) "died" on the cross for you! What a pathetic cop-out. Did Jesus say that all of the prior laws passed down by his father - the Lord God- were now null and void? Or does the new testament (which was written over a period of several hundred years by pathetic mortals) say this?

---

Glano perictu com sahni delorin!

[Terry ONolley]

Christian Graus wrote: Terry, you've made a fool of yourself again. Telling a Christian to live by Leviticus is like telling you that you live by the laws of the United Kingdom. Yes my Christian brother. You are right - you have called your fellow man an idiot. You have called him a fool. And all because he believes different things than you do. I'm just kidding :) I know you are a typical hypocrite and I don't hold it against you - you loving saver of souls. Kisses.

---

Glano perictu com sahni delorin!

[Terry ONolley]

(Steven Hicks)n+1 wrote: Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship with God... unfortunitly it gets confused with church unfortunitly A great point and one I can respect wholeheartedly. I just wish people had the balls to call themselves "spiritual Jesusists" instead of going through the life-long charade of pretending to be "Christians". Christians are members of established religious orders with rules, regulations and codes of conduct. I, myself, do my best to live by the teachings of Jesus since I consider his philosophy to be the one that, should all mankind adopt, leads to peace on earth. My problem is with those pathetic bastards that, instead of calling themselvfes Spiritual Jesusists, call themselves "Presbyterians" or "Baptists" or "Lutheran", etc., etc., etc. when anyone with half a brain can tell you that they do not live their lives according to the teachings of the documentation that ships with their "religion". They are hypocrites. They are not worthy of respect. They will wake up every day knowing that they plan on flirting with their secretary in hopes of fucking her. They instead use the cop-out "All mankind are sinners". Those pathetic bastards are going to hell according to their own religion. So why do they pretend to follow it? Because they were brainwashed as children and are silly little peons as adults.

---

Glano perictu com sahni delorin!

[David Wulff]

I don't agree with everything you've said there, but I have to give you a five for that. :rose:

---

David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum

Putting the laughter back into slaughter

[John Fisher]

Erm... It sounds like you think I said something you didn't agree with, but I can't see any basic difference between what you just said and the point I was making all along. The goal is to find the truth. *scratches his head a bit* John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.

[Steven Hicks n 1]

I think one of the best songs that I've heard in relation to the hypocrits is "Stumble" by DC Talk (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/dc-talk/37744.html) Which begins with: "the greatest single cause of atheism in the world today Is christians who acknowledge jesus with their lips Then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." -Steven Hicks

CPA

CodeProjectAddict

Actual Linux Penguins were harmed in the creation of this message.

More tutorials: Ltpb.8m.com: Tutorials |404Browser.com (Download Link)

[Gary Kirkham]

Terry O`Nolley wrote: I guess that means that is now OK for good god-fearing men to fornicate, commit adultery and murder since Jesus (an immortal who knew he would be only temporarily inconvenienced) hung out on a cross. Which only illustrates that you: A) Have not read the New Testament B) Did not understand what you read In any event, it appears that it is not possible to have reasoned mature communication with you. So I will stop trying. There is one thing that is certain, God loves you. And at the risk of opening myself up to immature insults, I love you. Peace be with you. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks

[John McIlroy]

That's a fun debate... but it it gets a little tiring after the 200th time. But it is very logical to me... let's leave it at that. I was more interested in Eric's Biblical conditional statement.

[John McIlroy]

Wow! Did you read this post before you sent it? Quite the maniacal screed!

[John Fisher]

Ian Darling wrote: Arguments from Design, Incredulity, Nature, The Bible (and so forth) don't count, being either faulty or inadequate. :laugh: That's like saying, "Prove to me that 1+1 = 2, but you can't use numbers or mathematical ideas, since I don't like those arguments." John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.

[John Fisher]

Richard Stringer wrote: I contend that it is impossible to prove the existance of a superior being using logic without redefining "logic". Hmmmm... How do we know that you haven't already redifined logic? John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.

[Ian Darling]

John Fisher wrote: That's like saying, "Prove to me that 1+1 = 2, but you can't use numbers or mathematical ideas, since I don't like those arguments." Well, the argument from design is problematic - as it's quite reasonable for the properties of natural objects to arise from iterative application of simple laws (such as physics). The argument from incredulity goes along the lines of "Surely the universe can't exist without God!" The argument from nature is essentially "look at the pretty bunny - God created that" And the argument from The Bible is a form of circular reasoning. OTOH, 1+1=2 is something that can be validated and consistent within the mathematical framework, which is rigorous. It's like the common question asked on talk.origins which is never answered: "What is the scientific theory of creationism?" In the same way - what is the logical/scientific argument that God exists? If you're using logic or science - then you're within the bounds of naturalistic investigation. *That's* why the arguments I mentioned are inadequate or faulty - because they are either supernaturalistic and tharefore outside the bounds of human logic, or are naturalistic and inadequately supported by the evidence. 1+1=2 is an entirely naturalistic statement, and therefore can be investigated :-)

---

Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

[Brit]

John Fisher wrote: As with most ideas that have been around a while, there are plenty of people that pick and choose what they like and dislike. People are prone to ignoring the parts they don't like, and Christians are people. Well, that may be, but I'm just pointing out that the boolean function "GodWroteTheBible()" needs a little more elaboration in order to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong. All Christians would say "God wrote the Bible", but some would say that "all opinions expressed in the Bible are divine opinion" and other Christians would say, "most opinions expressed in the Bible are divine opinion". Now you can argue about who is right, but the boolean function is misleading because all Christian can agree with "God wrote the Bible", but disagree with "all opinions in the Bible are God's opinions". Hence, he needs to rewrite it as such:

if ( DoesGodExist() )
{
if ( GodWroteTheBible() )
{
if ( AllOpinionsInTheBibleAreGodsOpinions() )
{
if ( TheBibleStatesHomosexualityIsWrong() )
{
bHomosexualityIsWrong = true;
}
}
if ( TheBiblesStatementsOnHomosexualityAreGodsOpinions() )
{
if ( TheBibleStatesHomosexualityIsWrong() )
{
bHomosexualityIsWrong = true;
}
}
}
}

You've talked about why people might have psychological reasons to ignore certain parts of the Bible. That is true, but it doesn't mean that they are wrong. Presumably, you are arguing that those people are wrong. But, then, whether they're right or wrong isn't really the point. The point is that they are acting rationally within their framework of belief. "Acting rationally within their framework of belief" is also the reason that I say Christians are acting rationally if they say homosexuality is wrong. John Fisher wrote: Of all the Christian women that I've heard discussing this topic, very few of them believed that submitting to a husband with that kind of love would ever bother them. Well, that may be true, but we run in different social circles. Ultimately, a lot of this discussion touches on one of my big problems with religion: a lack of verification. Theoretically, God doesn't need to write a book. He can talk to people directly. Instead, all religions have a book (or books) which are supposed to be the final say on the matter. But, peopl

[Richard Stringer]

Because I am still using binary logic and don't need a third ambigious state (quantum logic perhaps ) for my state diagrams to function. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare

[Christian Graus]

Terry O`Nolley wrote: You are right - you have called your fellow man an idiot. Terry, we've established that you have no idea what Christianity means, why should I therefore be constrained by your deluded definitions ? You may be interested to know that Jesus drove people out of the temple with a hastily fashioned whip. He did a lot of other things that may surprise you, such as saying He came not to bring peace, but a sword. He certainly was no wimp, and His mission was not to make people into wimps, either. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder

[John Fisher]

Who invoked a third ambiguous state? John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.

[John Fisher]

Ian Darling wrote: And the argument from The Bible is a form of circular reasoning. OTOH, 1+1=2 is something that can be validated and consistent within the mathematical framework, which is rigorous. You shouldn't have placed those so close together, because "within the mathematical framework" would also be a form of circular reasoning, too. Also, you must not have heard many of the arguments, because there are reasons to believe the Bible without circular reasoning. (Archeological research that match with statements written afterward and prophecies written beforehand, and other things.) Ian Darling wrote: 1+1=2 is an entirely naturalistic statement, and therefore can be investigated Ok. Here's a "naturalistic statement" that can be investigated to a degree. All observable evidence suggests that everything existing in our universe has a source or cause of existence. So, you can ignore that logic, or reasonably conclude that the universe must have had an external cause, or illogically decide that the universe could create itself. Alternately, you could provide evidence that things can come into existence without anything else being involved. (You'll have hard time with that one though, after work like that done by Pasteur.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.

[Richard Stringer]

Anyone who tries to use logic to prove the existance of a superior being. If you don't believe it - try writing a state machine that will have a state that is defined as "faith" Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare