Christianity - A respectful dialogue

Holy Crap!
Post Reply
User avatar
Ameri Boi
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:53 am
About me: Lazy ass
Location: Lodi, California
Contact:

Re: Christianity - A respectful dialogue

Post by Ameri Boi » Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:04 am

Bruce Burleson wrote:
thedistillers wrote: All I did was challenging the positivist Calilasseia and her (or his?) vacuous slogans (e.g. If an entity X is postulated to exist, and there exists in turn no substantive evidence supporting the existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity x as non-existent until said substantive evidence materialises.).
Where did the blue butterfly go after RDF disappeared?
Come! We shall summon him :plot:
"Another aspect of the particulateness of the gene is that is does not grow senile; it is no more likely to die when it is a million years old than when it is only a hundred. It leaps from body to body in it's own way and for its own ends, abandoning a succession of mortal bodies before they sink in senility and death" -Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene p.34


Image

User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32527
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: Christianity - A respectful dialogue

Post by charlou » Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:30 am

no fences

User avatar
GenesForLife
Bertie Wooster
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity - A respectful dialogue

Post by GenesForLife » Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:01 am

thedistillers wrote:First I hope I'm welcomed here. I was banned from RD forum, and was informed that legal action would be taken against me if I would try to register again. All I did was challenging the positivist Calilasseia and her (or his?) vacuous slogans (e.g. If an entity X is postulated to exist, and there exists in turn no substantive evidence supporting the existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity x as non-existent until said substantive evidence materialises. ).

I would like to have a respectful dialogue with non-Christians, and challenge their worldview.

Here's a starter:

- Humans have a sensus divinitatis, which allow them to know that the proposition "God exists" is true,without any empirical evidence needed. Those who deny that the proposition "God exists" is true purposely reject the spirit in their wickedness.

Discuss.
1) Positivism is a perfectly valid logical construct, they use it in courts, if you remember, innocent until proven guilty and all that.
2)The default position he advocates, in the absence of evidence, is the right one because no evidence allows an infinite number of possibilities to be true.
3)Respectful dialogue with non-Christians? You do realize that there are loads of non-christians who are theists, who don't subscribe to your version of mythology...
4)All organisms have instincts, so bloody what?
5) "Purposely reject the spirit in their wickedness" , unverified bullshit of a noxious variety, there are so many blind assertions in there, you aren't going to impress anyone with mental gymnastics with that degree of mental con(dis?)tortion.
6)Finally, your proposed construct may have a biological basis, namely , brain damage...
The predisposition of human beings toward spiritual feeling, thinking, and behaviors is measured by a supposedly stable personality trait called self-transcendence. Although a few neuroimaging studies suggest that neural activation of a large fronto-parieto-temporal network may underpin a variety of spiritual experiences, information on the causative link between such a network and spirituality is lacking. Combining pre- and post-neurosurgery personality assessment with advanced brain-lesion mapping techniques, we found that selective damage to left and right inferior posterior parietal regions induced a specific increase of self-transcendence. Therefore, modifications of neural activity in temporoparietal areas may induce unusually fast modulations of a stable personality trait related to transcendental self-referential awareness. These results hint at the active, crucial role of left and right parietal systems in determining self-transcendence and cast new light on the neurobiological bases of altered spiritual and religious attitudes and behaviors in neurological and mental disorders. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
That abstract is from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2015 ... dinalpos=1

There is also evidence that the perceived need to postulate mythological entities for the purposes of genuflectory tendencies is associated with egocentrism...
People often reason egocentrically about others' beliefs, using their own beliefs as an inductive guide. Correlational, experimental, and neuroimaging evidence suggests that people may be even more egocentric when reasoning about a religious agent's beliefs (e.g., God). In both nationally representative and more local samples, people's own beliefs on important social and ethical issues were consistently correlated more strongly with estimates of God's beliefs than with estimates of other people's beliefs (Studies 1–4). Manipulating people's beliefs similarly influenced estimates of God's beliefs but did not as consistently influence estimates of other people's beliefs (Studies 5 and 6). A final neuroimaging study demonstrated a clear convergence in neural activity when reasoning about one's own beliefs and God's beliefs, but clear divergences when reasoning about another person's beliefs (Study 7). In particular, reasoning about God's beliefs activated areas associated with self-referential thinking more so than did reasoning about another person's beliefs. Believers commonly use inferences about God's beliefs as a moral compass, but that compass appears especially dependent on one's own existing beliefs.
:biggrin:

The full research paper is available here at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/ ... l.pdf+html

Welcome to the forum, btw ;)

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74133
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Christianity - A respectful dialogue

Post by JimC » Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:31 am

I have zero respect for christianity or any religion. Deluded is deluded.

I have respect for some individual christians.

They do not include you.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Christianity - A respectful dialogue

Post by Rum » Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:49 am

I was a Christian as a teenager. When I started to lose my faith I was very alarmed to begin with. I didn't want to - it made me anxious and worried (and guilty!) that the evidence of my senses and intelligence could simply not support a belief the existence of a Super Daddy. I was not evil or sinful, though I wondered at the time if I was - and even stopped masturbating for a while! . But I just could not believe. I still can't.

Maybe its Satan at work. :funny:

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Christianity - A respectful dialogue

Post by Hermit » Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:16 am

thedistillers wrote:Humans have a sensus divinitatis, which allow them to know that the proposition "God exists" is true,without any empirical evidence needed.
How can you determine the validity of that proposition?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
GenesForLife
Bertie Wooster
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity - A respectful dialogue

Post by GenesForLife » Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:49 am

Seraph wrote:
thedistillers wrote:Humans have a sensus divinitatis, which allow them to know that the proposition "God exists" is true,without any empirical evidence needed.
How can you determine the validity of that proposition?
When people can't prove something objectively, they resort to evasionary tactics of ineffability, which is an affront to civilization

User avatar
Loki_999
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:29 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity - A respectful dialogue

Post by Loki_999 » Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:52 am

thedistillers wrote: Here's a starter:

- Humans have a sensus divinitatis, which allow them to know that the proposition "God exists" is true,without any empirical evidence needed. Those who deny that the proposition "God exists" is true purposely reject the spirit in their wickedness.

Discuss.
Hi, and welcome. Always nice to have a believer around to provide a different POV and some entertainment.

Please allow me to dissect your post.

Humans have a sensus divinitatis, which allow them to know that the proposition "God exists" is true,without any empirical evidence needed.

FAIL. Citation needed. From personal experience I have no such sensus divinaitatis so even if I am the only person in the world without this thing your statement fails. Also apparently Psalms 14:1 appears to contradict this view as well. I really would need some empirical evidence.

Allow me to counter by saying that humans have a sensus flyus spaghetticus monsterous which allows them to know that the proposition "The FSM exists" is true, without any empirical evidence needed.

Those who deny that the proposition "God exists" is true purposely reject the spirit in their wickedness.

Well, if you "know" that God (Yahweh) exists and reject him it is not necessarily wickedness. I started a thread and poll a few months ago on RDF asking atheists that if God was proven to exist would you worship him. The results were pretty much negative. After all, the God of the bible is a petty minded sadistic bastard who had a bad habit of throwing his toys out of the pram and fucking around with his most devout followers. Looking at the bible you were probably safer not worshiping Yahweh and then you may only be targetted by one of his bad moods. If you were a follower you were definitely going to get shat on or fucked around with - Job, Moses,Abraham, Lot just to name a few... not to mention his son, erm himself, whatever.... who was intentionally nailed to a cross. Sick bastard in my opinion.

Basically if you need to worship a god then at least pick a decent god. Can i recommend to you Aphrodite (Love), Athena (Wisdom), or Dionysus (Party time!)? I would recommend you worship me but I have a somewhat tarnished reputation myself so probably not what you need if you want to escape the tyranny of Yahweh.

Hail Eris!
FBM wrote:Set him on fire.

Edit: Whatever you do, don't set him on fire. That would be wrong. I just looked it up.

thedistillers
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity - A respectful dialogue

Post by thedistillers » Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:57 am

So as previously mentioned, we know in our heart that God exists. Some people might object: that humans have a sensus flyus spaghetticus monsterous which allows them to know that the proposition "The FSM exists" is true, without any empirical evidence needed.

This objection fails, because no one seriously claims the FSM exists. It was created in 2005 by Bobby Henderson.

Now perhaps the Muslim could make a similar claim about Allah. But why not indeed! Just because there are people who are mistaken doesn't invalidate one bit what I believe! That there are creationists doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution!

Some people might say that I might be the one who is mistaken. But in the absence of a defeater, I see no reason why I should reject my belief in God, the same way that I don't see any reason to reject the belief that the world is real, even if some people believe the world is an illusion.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74133
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Christianity - A respectful dialogue

Post by JimC » Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:01 pm

thedistillers wrote:So as previously mentioned, we know in our heart that God exists. Some people might object: that humans have a sensus flyus spaghetticus monsterous which allows them to know that the proposition "The FSM exists" is true, without any empirical evidence needed.

This objection fails, because no one seriously claims the FSM exists. It was created in 2005 by Bobby Henderson.

Now perhaps the Muslim could make a similar claim about Allah. But why not indeed! Just because there are people who are mistaken doesn't invalidate one bit what I believe! That there are creationists doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution!

Some people might say that I might be the one who is mistaken. But in the absence of a defeater, I see no reason why I should reject my belief in God, the same way that I don't see any reason to reject the belief that the world is real, even if some people believe the world is an illusion.
In the end, if your personal delusion makes you happy, who the fuck am I to disturb your equlibtium... :roll:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

thedistillers
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity - A respectful dialogue

Post by thedistillers » Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:03 pm

It is a harsh assessment that nonbelievers are wicked, but according to Christian theology, us humans are broken, which is why Christ died on the cross, to atone our sins.

If God wants a relationship with all, and some humans don't believe in Him, the corollary is that there must be something wrong with the nonbeliever.

User avatar
normal
!
!
Posts: 9071
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:23 pm
About me: meh
Location: North, and then some
Contact:

Re: Christianity - A respectful dialogue

Post by normal » Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:08 pm

thedistillers wrote:So as previously mentioned, we know in our heart that God exists. Some people might object: that humans have a sensus flyus spaghetticus monsterous which allows them to know that the proposition "The FSM exists" is true, without any empirical evidence needed.

This objection fails, because no one seriously claims the FSM exists. It was created in 2005 by Bobby Henderson.
Welcome. I'll just poke a bit at this.

The FSM was created by humans in 2005. Yahweh was created by humans some thousand years before this. You will have to point to where the difference between these two come in. Sure, some people actually believe in this Yahweh charachter, but that has been true for all gods created by humans. Believing in something does not make it true. It only means you believe in something.
thedistillers wrote:It is a harsh assessment that nonbelievers are wicked, but according to Christian theology, us humans are broken, which is why Christ died on the cross, to atone our sins.

If God wants a relationship with all, and some humans don't believe in Him, the corollary is that there must be something wrong with the nonbeliever.
This is true for other religions as well. So if your view was right you would be risking A LOT by not accepting Muhammed as the true prophet.

Now since there excist no valid evidence for ANY god excisting, none whatsoever, the default position must be atheism.
Image
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable, let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   -Douglas Adams

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Christianity - A respectful dialogue

Post by Animavore » Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:09 pm

thedistillers wrote:It is a harsh assessment that nonbelievers are wicked, but according to Christian theology, us humans are broken, which is why Christ died on the cross, to atone our sins.

If God wants a relationship with all, and some humans don't believe in Him, the corollary is that there must be something wrong with the nonbeliever.
Broken? God isn't really such a great designer if his toys break so easily.
But tell me, why did a guy have to die on a cross because we broke? Couldn't God just fix us with some glue and soldering iron?

EDIT: Spelling.
Last edited by Animavore on Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

Babel
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:22 am
Contact:

Re: Christianity - A respectful dialogue

Post by Babel » Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:09 pm

thedistillers wrote:So as previously mentioned, we know in our heart that God exists. Some people might object: that humans have a sensus flyus spaghetticus monsterous which allows them to know that the proposition "The FSM exists" is true, without any empirical evidence needed.

This objection fails, because no one seriously claims the FSM exists. It was created in 2005 by Bobby Henderson.

Now perhaps the Muslim could make a similar claim about Allah. But why not indeed! Just because there are people who are mistaken doesn't invalidate one bit what I believe! That there are creationists doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution!

Some people might say that I might be the one who is mistaken. But in the absence of a defeater, I see no reason why I should reject my belief in God, the same way that I don't see any reason to reject the belief that the world is real, even if some people believe the world is an illusion.
My bold.
I do not know that. In fact, I won't believe that, until you give me something to work with to determine this as a valid starting point of this discussion, as everything you say, starts with that.
Until then, the only thing in my heart, is blood. Coming in, going out.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74133
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Christianity - A respectful dialogue

Post by JimC » Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:14 pm

thedistillers wrote:It is a harsh assessment that nonbelievers are wicked, but according to Christian theology, us humans are broken, which is why Christ died on the cross, to atone our sins.

If God wants a relationship with all, and some humans don't believe in Him, the corollary is that there must be something wrong with the nonbeliever.
You do realise that we see the very concept of god as absurd, don't you... ;)

Hopefully, you are not clinging to a thought that we will have a road to Damascus moment...

But the interesting bit is "humans are broken" :eddy:

Many atheists may be dismissive of this insight, but it approximates a truth. We are evolved hominids with a shitload of imperatives written in our genes, many of which work in opposition to rational thought or ethical precepts.

You call this original sin, I call it human nature.

You want a supernatural entity to make it all better.

I want us to work out real, here-and-now solutions, using the brains 6 million years of evolution have given us. Bronze age goat-herder mythologies no longer cut the mustard...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests