Do you respect the views of the religious?

Zillah

Malty_T wrote: »

Question 1: Why do people seek a higher power?

*raises hand excitedly* Oh oh oh me me me!

People seek a higher power because we're evolutionarily programmed to form cohesive social groups, one powerful bonding force being religion! Couple that with some natural existential angst resulting from our intelligence, and the fact that we all start out as parent-obeying children and it is clear why people seek a higher power.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

ChocolateSauce: Not all people happen to view liberalism as a good thing. Some boundaries are needed in society

We've heard your despicable arguments before Jakkass. Your argument against gay marriage essentially amounts to this: "I want people to be able to exercise bigotry in their professional lives".

So yeah I basically hate everything you stand for.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

Here's a novel thought. Start with no assumptions and then look at the evidence!

The evidence convinces me of the truth of Christianity. Rational indications lead me to this point of view.

Zillah wrote: »

Be careful during this transition. There is a great comforting feeling that comes with knowing the answer before you've even looked at the evidence, so at times you might feel like you are falling, or spinning, or simply floating in emptiness. Don't worry! This is normal. This is the feeling that we call "admitting you don't know the answer", it can be very disquieting at first but it can't hurt you!

I have no interest in your patronising attitude, if that is what your atheism has produced in you, I'm not interested.

I've looked into my faith enough, it makes more sense than atheism to me. You have no idea what I think or what I feel. Don't pretend you do.

Zillah wrote: »

Y'see this is what I'm talking about! RELIGION MAKES ME FEEL NICE SO IT IS TRUE DON'T TELL ME IT'S NOT RATIONAL!

Or, that you are too haughty to consider for a second that peoples lives have changed entirely by their contact with the Christian faith? I've seen the evidence both in myself and in others.

Nettie

A lot of my friends are theists. I'm one of the few who is athiest. I respect their right to believe in whatever they like!

ChocolateSauce

Jakkass wrote: »

ChocolateSauce: Not all people happen to view liberalism as a good thing. Some boundaries are needed in society, and indeed are for the betterment of all who are in that society. I'm personally a social conservative for that reason. That's more to do with politics than anything else though.

I find the people who see it as bad are the kinds of people who want to enforce their moral standards on others, and they are more often than not religious. No one would dispute that we need boundaries, but that's about all the agreement we're going to get. Liberal people are happy to let conservatives be conservative, but the reverse is usually not true and this is where I have a vehement problem with religion; it is used as divine and infallible justification for the imposition of a particular viewpoint.

I don't think religion will be ever gone. In fact I would see it as a naiive and misguided belief. People will turn to faith every generation. If religion was removed, people would still seek a higher power in life. I have no doubt that people would find God again.

Me either, though I don't find joy in this. I do however think that it can and will someday be consigned to the sidelines of human thought.

Not in my life though, probably not for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Turtwig

Zillah wrote: »

*raises hand excitedly* Oh oh oh me me me!

People seek a higher power because we're evolutionarily programmed to form cohesive social groups, one powerful bonding force being religion! Couple that with some natural existential angst resulting from our intelligence, and the fact that we all start out as parent-obeying children and it is clear why people seek a higher power.

Eh, Jakkass?? Zillah?? Who's who??

midlandsmissus

Zillah wrote: »

Well you kind of answer your own question there. Earlier you were all like "Sure I heard of Jesus, but I heard just as much about Mohammad and Buddha, I'd have no reason to hallucinate about Jesus" and here we are now with the realisation that you felt left out at school and wished that you could be a Catholic.

You're taking it very much out of context.

I'll say it again - I would have wanted to be a catholic (very briefly, as a small child) because everyone else was.

Did I have any idea what a Catholic was? No, it didn't mean anything to me, I didn't know what it was,I just knew that I was the only one that wasn't it.

I very quickly grew out of it.

You're taking a post off a thread about how parental views affect children, and are twisting them to use in this thread.

To summarise: I knew that everyone else was a catholic at school, but I didn't know what a Catholic was. I had zero relgious instruction.

midlandsmissus

Zillah wrote: »

*raises hand excitedly* Oh oh oh me me me!

People seek a higher power because we're evolutionarily programmed to form cohesive social groups, one powerful bonding force being religion! Couple that with some natural existential angst resulting from our intelligence, and the fact that we all start out as parent-obeying children and it is clear why people seek a higher power.

If we're evolutionarily programmed, why are there so many atheists?


And what about people who believe in God and don't believe in organised religion?

Turtwig

midlandsmissus wrote: »

If we're evolutionarily programmed, why are there so many atheists?


And what about people who believe in God and don't believe in organised religion?

Atheists don't see the need for God. As for those who believe in a deity that is because of the subconscious fear instilled partly by society but largely by religion that makes us think that there must be something when there probably isn't.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

The evidence convinces me of the truth of Christianity. Rational indications lead me to this point of view.

You can call them rational indications but they're not. It's all about appearances, you don't care about rationality, or truth. All you want are your illusions and respect, and you'll do anything for either.

I have no interest in your patronising attitude, if that is what your atheism has produced in you, I'm not interested...Or, that you are too haughty to consider for a second that peoples lives have changed entirely by their contact with the Christian faith? I've seen the evidence both in myself and in others.

It is amazing that within a single post you will claim your reasons are rational, and then twice state irrational emotive reasons for being a theist. The fact that you do not like something does not make it untrue, the fact that you do like something does not make it true. Any organised social structure has the chance to turn people's lives around, that doesn't say anything about their claims about the nature of the universe.

I've looked into my faith enough, it makes more sense than atheism to me. You have no idea what I think or what I feel. Don't pretend you do.

Ohhh but I do Jakkass. You're not special, you are one among many deluded theists trying to make a Christian world for Christian people. History has known men like you. You're an opportunist, a cheat, you drag philosophy and science through the mud in an attempt to borrow their luster. You talk a big talk but you're a scam artist at heart.

Turtwig

Zillah wrote: »

You're an opportunist, a cheat, you drag philosophy and science through the mud in an attempt to borrow their luster. You talk a big talk but you're a scam artist at heart.

Pretty harsh and unwarranted I have to say.
Attacking a person only strengthens their belief.

Zillah

midlandsmissus wrote: »

You're taking it very much out of context.

I'll say it again - I would have wanted to be a catholic (very briefly, as a small child) because everyone else was.

Did I have any idea what a Catholic was? No, it didn't mean anything to me, I didn't know what it was,I just knew that I was the only one that wasn't it.

I very quickly grew out of it.

You're taking a post off a thread about how parental views affect children, and are twisting them to use in this thread.

To summarise: I knew that everyone else was a catholic at school, but I didn't know what a Catholic was. I had zero relgious instruction.

That's all very well and good but it also doesn't really matter. You knew about the whole Jesus thing, you had issues from your childhood about wanting to be religious, and you had a vision of Jesus appearing to you. Seems pretty simple.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

If we're evolutionarily programmed, why are there so many atheists?
And what about people who believe in God and don't believe in organised religion?

Evolutionary programming gives us certain biases, not dictates. I'm evolutionarily programmed to bash in the skull of other males who annoy me but it doesn't mean I'm going to do it.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

You can call them rational indications but they're not. It's all about appearances, you don't care about rationality, or truth. All you want are your illusions and respect, and you'll do anything for either.

I really don't care much about my "respect". People can disrespect my views as much as they like. I'm here to clear up any misconceptions that people tend to spout about Christianity. As for "illusions", what illusions are you referring to?

I care profoundly about the truth, that's why I advocate what I do so strongly.

Do you honestly think I am really a closet atheist who realises that Christianity is a load of tripe and is just waiting to come out? I hate to disappoint, but I do believe in God, and in Christ, and I believe that both have had a profound influence over my life.

Zillah wrote: »

It is amazing that within a single post you will claim your reasons are rational, and then twice state irrational emotive reasons for being a theist. The fact that you do not like something does not make it untrue, the fact that you do like something does not make it true. Any organised social structure has the chance to turn people's lives around, that doesn't say anything about their claims about the nature of the universe.

Rationalism is thinking based on empirical knowledge. One must have a source of empiricism before one can effectively rationalise. For Christians this empirical data is divine revelation, personal experience, theology, archaeology, history, philosophy, cosmology, and anything to do with our origins generally in the modern context of it.

It is more that you disagree with the source of empiricism that I use, rather than it being irrational.

Zillah wrote: »

Ohhh but I do Jakkass. You're not special, you are one among many deluded theists trying to make a Christian world for Christian people. History has known men like you. You're an opportunist, a cheat, you drag philosophy and science through the mud in an attempt to borrow their luster. You talk a big talk but you're a scam artist at heart.

Zillah, you know zero about my life, you know zero about my experiences. Hence why I feel myself more qualified to discuss them. I would have thought that to be fairly clear and obvious but apparently not.

As for being a scam artist, I could say the same about you, but I realise that it is an ad-hominem and that it has no bearing on the truth of Christianity in any shape or form.

As for trying to make a Christian world for a Christian people, I'm not entirely in agreement. I want as many people to know Christ as possible for their own personal benefit, so that they could be reunited with their creator, repent of their sins, and begin walking with Him and experiencing His presence. That's all I intend to do in my public encounters with people face to face (no, not on boards).

So far people have been kinder than to regard me as a scam artist. Many disagree, and that's okay. Many have been curious and asked me more in a calm manner.

As for "dragging philosophy through the mud". I feel that I am somewhat qualified to speak on philosophy as I'm a current philosophy student (I'm also studying Computer Science). As for science and origins, it's something that I have only begun to take an interest in as the debate about this subject has gone on.

Malty_T wrote: »

Pretty harsh and unwarranted I have to say.
Attacking a person only strengthens their belief.

Most critiques of Christianity have strengthened my beliefs. They have promoted thought and research on the issues posed.

Zillah, unlike you doesn't think there is anything positive about who I am. That's her prerogative.

Dave!

Is Zillah a chick?! :eek:

philologos

Dave! wrote: »

Is Zillah a chick?! :eek:

I thought so, could be wrong

Zillah

That would be hilarious, but no. I assume his (understandable) mistake is derived from the fact that the origin of the name Zillah is from a Biblical female.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Rationalism is thinking based on empirical knowledge. One must have a source of empiricism before one can effectively rationalise. For Christians this empirical data is divine revelation, personal experience, theology, archaeology, history, philosophy, cosmology, and anything to do with our origins generally in the modern context of it.

It is more that you disagree with the source of empiricism that I use, rather than it being irrational.

Divine revelation cannot be considered empirical data until it is proven to be divine revelation and not the scribblings of a primitive people

Personal experience can very rarely be considered empirical data because of the imperfections of the human mind. The scientific method tries to remove it as much as possible

Theology is mostly somebody's opinion when you get right down to it so it's not empirical data

Philosophy is not empirical data, it's again somebody's opinion

As for archaeology, history and cosmology, if you look at them with confirmation bias as you showed you do by accepting the teleological argument (among many other examples), only seeing the evidence you want to see, exaggerating the strength of the confirmatory evidence or misinterpreting data so that it appears confirmatory and effectively ignoring the disconfirmatory evidence, that's not empirical data either. It's the subset of the data that you cling to try to support your predetermined conclusion

Dades

Dave! wrote: »

Is Zillah a chick?! :eek:

We don't condone using the term "chick" here on A&A.

Our preferred nomenclature is "human female".

Dave!

I think the PC term for it is "masculinely challenged" actually :pac:

vibe666

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Divine revelation cannot be considered empirical data until it is proven to be divine revelation and not the scribblings of a primitive people

damn, beaten to the punch.

whilst we're at it, would people mind posting in evenly timed intervals? i've been watching the thread since Sunday looking for updates and feck all happened all of yesterday, then all of a sudden there's a giant burst of posts, it really makes it difficult to keep up with it when you're busy. :mad:

i was going to pull all the (many) oxymoron's out of Jakkass's post, but Sam Vimes already did a good job of that whilst I was reading through the last several pages of fluff and nonsense.