Convert Me...

[Balloon guy 158]

Of course you have a right to choose your beliefs. However, as I see it what separates a religious perspective from non-religious perspective is the application of a method for determining what the objective truth of the matter, since throwing rocks is not a reliable way to arrive at the truth. That's the whole point of the scientific method. What I find inconsistent about many religious folk is how they seem to apply a reasonable standard of evidence for most normal everyday circumstances but then suspend it for certain other issues. For example, a Christian and I probably apply the same standard of evidence for deciding on whether there is an elephant currently in Times Square, but when it comes to determining whether the saltine in his mouth has transmogrified into a piece of the corpse of an ancient human, that same reason seems to go out the window.

I'm not a Catholic so the transubstantiation thing falls short for me also.I think there is a little bit of disingenousness though about saying your side uses rational thought, or reason and then say our side uses Faith. It kind of poisons the argument, because of course rational logic is best right? It's rational and thought...There are many things that people that are agnostic/athiest can disagree on, such as an afterlife, forms of government, chemotherapy, abortion, or a soul. Some go one way some another. So to gain the label of 'reasonable thought' or 'application of methods for objective truth' you would have to make the argument that you are all correct. Which you can't be since there is a divergance of opinion.If you ask a math major to answer the God quesiton, he may use math to arrive there, a philosopher may use logic, a democrat may use lies, they each use the method they are most comfortable with.If a person uses their life experiences, to arrive at a truth that fits their emotional, physical and mental requirements, why would their 'truth' be less valuable than a math majors? Because math can be drawn out on paper? As long as infinity minus 1 is still infinity, then math takes a place in the line with the rest of the tests that are imperfect for ultimate truth.Having said that I do not have a problem with a person feeling they are correct in their belief, they'd be kind of stupid to think they were wrong. But to assume their methods are far superior and therefore they can tell another person they are wrong, that is where it's time to mock them and prod them into losing their composure, than acting superior for not blowing up.Obviously you will not be my victim. Big D is on the fence.

[vbnautilus 48]

There are many things that people that are agnostic/athiest can disagree on, such as an afterlife, forms of government, chemotherapy, abortion, or a soul. Some go one way some another. So to gain the label of 'reasonable thought' or 'application of methods for objective truth' you would have to make the argument that you are all correct. Which you can't be since there is a divergance of opinion.

That's a bit backwards though. The real value in the scientific method is that you can use it to prove yourself wrong. In fact, scientific theories are always provisional -- they are modified and changed as new evidence comes in (as opposed to a dogma, which never changes). As a scientist by profession, I expect to be proven wrong throughout my life. The problem with a religious "theory" like intelligent design is that it cannot be proven wrong by any means.

If a person uses their life experiences, to arrive at a truth that fits their emotional, physical and mental requirements, why would their 'truth' be less valuable than a math majors? Because math can be drawn out on paper? As long as infinity minus 1 is still infinity, then math takes a place in the line with the rest of the tests that are imperfect for ultimate truth.

The phase "their truth" has always seems kind of like an oxymoron to me, since I think truth refers to that which is independent of what anyone believes it to be. Life experiences can be an important indicator of truth, I don't disagree with that. But they can also be misleading; we are prone to all sorts of illusions, mirages, cognitive distortions, etc., and it's important to have a way to distinguish. That's the whole reason the scientific method was developed. And I'm not saying that current scientific techniques are perfect arbiters of truth -- I'm just saying there has to be some independent way to disprove a given belief otherwise we can never have any confidence in it, and the conclusions of microbiology will have the same credibility as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.

Obviously you will not be my victim. Big D is on the fence.

Phew!

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

If you ask a math major to answer the God quesiton, he may use math to arrive there, a philosopher may use logic, a democrat may use lies, they each use the method they are most comfortable with.If a person uses their life experiences, to arrive at a truth that fits their emotional, physical and mental requirements, why would their 'truth' be less valuable than a math majors? Because math can be drawn out on paper? As long as infinity minus 1 is still infinity, then math takes a place in the line with the rest of the tests that are imperfect for ultimate truth.

Still waiting for the successful Math and Logic answer to the god question. depends on what you mean by valuable. If you mean helping a person live a happy, healthy life, then a born again Christian's "truth" is very valuable to them. It is also extremely subjective. If a math major could mathematically prove god ( the idea of which is rather silly, I'd like to point out), then he could put a claim on objective truth. HE could have his claims checked out by other mathematicians, his work would be repeatable and verifiable and the logic of his work could be put under much Scrutiny. And, at the end of the day, if 2+2=Jesus, what could anyone say? Compare this to Christian guy who tells me he's a Christian because he heard a still small voice. Please prove this too me Christian guy... record the voice. I'm sorry, I can't, it was wasn't outloud, it spoke to my heart, my soul. So.. then how do you know it was real, and not just your mind playing a trick on you?Because I feel god's presence in my heart. Can't you see the way he's changed my life?Well, that's fantastic. A lobotomy will change your life too.

[Balloon guy 158]

That's a bit backwards though. The real value in the scientific method is that you can use it to prove yourself wrong. In fact, scientific theories are always provisional -- they are modified and changed as new evidence comes in (as opposed to a dogma, which never changes). As a scientist by profession, I expect to be proven wrong throughout my life. The problem with a religious "theory" like intelligent design is that it cannot be proven wrong by any means. The phase "their truth" has always seems kind of like an oxymoron to me, since I think truth refers to that which is independent of what anyone believes it to be. Life experiences can be an important indicator of truth, I don't disagree with that. But they can also be misleading; we are prone to all sorts of illusions, mirages, cognitive distortions, etc., and it's important to have a way to distinguish. That's the whole reason the scientific method was developed. And I'm not saying that current scientific techniques are perfect arbiters of truth -- I'm just saying there has to be some independent way to disprove a given belief otherwise we can never have any confidence in it, and the conclusions of microbiology will have the same credibility as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Phew!

I hear you, I guess I am more on the side that feels the scientific method is the wrong tool to use to determine truth in religion.It's a great tool for testing the harmful effects of cosmetics on rabbits and monkeys, but to determine the answers to life's meaning, it's a blunt tool with a busted servo.I also recognize that in a way the scientific method is the worst way for me to look at the God question, so I conveniently avoid the issue...maybe that's disingenuous, or maybe I am trusting in the many people that have taken the time and are comfortable with the results like A.E. Wilder Smith etc. I also do not understand how a capacitor can store electricty, but I know it does.Of course the easter Bunny that started all this is MIA, and just us rational thinkers are left to bring back normalacy...status quo

[vbnautilus 48]

I hear you, I guess I am more on the side that feels the scientific method is the wrong tool to use to determine truth in religion.It's a great tool for testing the harmful effects of cosmetics on rabbits and monkeys, but to determine the answers to life's meaning, it's a blunt tool with a busted servo.I also recognize that in a way the scientific method is the worst way for me to look at the God question, so I conveniently avoid the issue...maybe that's disingenuous, or maybe I am trusting in the many people that have taken the time and are comfortable with the results like A.E. Wilder Smith etc. I also do not understand how a capacitor can store electricty, but I know it does.Of course the easter Bunny that started all this is MIA, and just us rational thinkers are left to bring back normalacy...status quo

Please say something less reasonable so we can argue.

[Balloon guy 158]

Still waiting for the successful Math and Logic answer to the god question. depends on what you mean by valuable. If you mean helping a person live a happy, healthy life, then a born again Christian's "truth" is very valuable to them. It is also extremely subjective. If a math major could mathematically prove god ( the idea of which is rather silly, I'd like to point out), then he could put a claim on objective truth. HE could have his claims checked out by other mathematicians, his work would be repeatable and verifiable and the logic of his work could be put under much Scrutiny. And, at the end of the day, if 2+2=Jesus, what could anyone say? Compare this to Christian guy who tells me he's a Christian because he heard a still small voice. Please prove this too me Christian guy... record the voice. I'm sorry, I can't, it was wasn't outloud, it spoke to my heart, my soul. So.. then how do you know it was real, and not just your mind playing a trick on you?Because I feel god's presence in my heart. Can't you see the way he's changed my life?Well, that's fantastic. A lobotomy will change your life too.

Are you saying John Denver was crazy? Didn't you see the courtroom scene where He DISAPPEARED?Was that a trick too?Come out fo the darkness, the light is more fun.

[Balloon guy 158]

Please say something less reasonable so we can argue.

Michelle Obama called us all Whitey from the pulpit and there is a video of it?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I had a hippy once use the life experiences argument to try and defend astrology. He said that not only did his Zodiac sign fit himself so perfectly, but that he's found it to be an incredibly valuable tool in helping him understand other people, and it was an excellent predictor of people's personality's and whom he could and couldn't get along with. I said that astrology was ridiculous, and that if you conducted a scientific experiement where you took the zoological chart, and then switched the personality descriptions with the sign on the exact opposite of the chart, labeled them something else, said that they were an ancient Mayan form of astrology, and gave people their new "Mayan" astrological sign, people would think that it described themselves to the exact same rate people think traditional astrology explains themselves.The hippy then looked at me, and said something like " So, you trust science more than you trust your own life experiences? and I said "yes" and he he said "That's so sad" and looked at my with a combination of pity and horror.I think there's nothing funnier than an atheist who believes in astrology. I've had them tell me stuff like "well, it's like.. the tides man.. you know, the stars pull on your brain when it's forming and help form your personality in utero." When I pointed out that tides were effected by the Moon and not the stars, he didn't really know what to say. I see no fundamental difference between believing in astrology and believing in jesus, nor much difference in the crazy arguments used to try and defend them. It both just boils down to gut feelings and your mind playing tricks on you.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Are you saying John Denver was crazy? Didn't you see the courtroom scene where He DISAPPEARED?Was that a trick too?Come out fo the darkness, the light is more fun.

What a weird movie " Oh god" was.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Of course the easter Bunny that started all this is MIA, and just us rational thinkers are left to bring back normalacy...status quo

I'd also like to point out that this little tiff started with me defending you from anonymous attack, which I feel I deserve some points for.

[Balloon guy 158]

I had a hippy once use the life experiences argument to try and defend astrology. He said that not only did his Zodiac sign fit himself so perfectly, but that he's found it to be an incredibly valuable tool in helping him understand other people, and it was an excellent predictor of people's personality's and whom he could and couldn't get along with. I said that astrology was ridiculous, and that if you conducted a scientific experiement where you took the zoological chart, and then switched the personality descriptions with the sign on the exact opposite of the chart, labeled them something else, said that they were an ancient Mayan form of astrology, and gave people their new "Mayan" astrological sign, people would think that it described themselves to the exact same rate people think traditional astrology explains themselves.The hippy then looked at me, and said something like " So, you trust science more than you trust your own life experiences? and I said "yes" and he he said "That's so sad" and looked at my with a combination of pity and horror.I think there's nothing funnier than an atheist who believes in astrology. I've had them tell me stuff like "well, it's like.. the tides man.. you know, the stars pull on your brain when it's forming and help form your personality in utero." When I pointed out that tides were effected by the Moon and not the stars, he didn't really know what to say. I see no fundamental difference between believing in astrology and believing in jesus, nor much difference in the crazy arguments used to try and defend them. It both just boils down to gut feelings and your mind playing tricks on you.

And yet you keep hanging out with hippies and Christians and argue with them.........who's the irrational one?The one who does the same thing over and over again expecting a different result?or the one who cruises through life in a VW van and gets chicks to buy into the free love thing.Enjoy that microscope...nutcase.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'd also like to point out that this little tiff started with me defending you from anonymous attack, which I feel I deserve some points for.

Yes you did, and you know I am fond of you, like the main ant in the ant farm fond...That's hot

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

And yet you keep hanging out with hippies and Christians and argue with them.........who's the irrational one?

hippies have the best pot, and xians give the best head.

[brvheart 1,751]

xians give the best head.

I think this is probably a correct statement. "Xians" probably do give the best head. Rebellious people that don't care about God will sometimes go all out.

[Balloon guy 158]

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I think this is probably a correct statement. "Xians" probably do give the best head. Rebellious people that don't care about God will sometimes go all out.

I'm not using that term in the sense that they are some edgy, gen-x Christians. I was most talking about those crazy christian girls who want to fck but don't want to sin, so they just blow half the school. Apparently they didn't study "Sodomy's" definition too close, and thank god for that.

[CaneBrain 95]

Well as someone in the Chrisitan community, there is a lot of vocalness about false teachings and people who get more national news. Just because it doesn't reach the news shows more of what the news wants to focus on, not failure on our part to disown it. As someone who has personally mocked the same guys who carry the God hates fags signs to funerals, I can tell you that we are just not getting the press, because who wants to hear a story about a rarional Chrisitan when there are nut cases to lead with?

come on Balloon Guy....I specifically said that it is something that cannot happen on a small level. It would take something big. Like a Christian demonstration outside a Falwell types church. that WOULD get media attention.....you let him know that you are tired of his hate, tired of the way he takes something you love and makes it disgusting, tired of him making people associate you with him (unfairly but still).the nuttiest people run the show religiously in this country and it s-s-s-sucks.

[Loismustdie 0]

come on Balloon Guy....I specifically said that it is something that cannot happen on a small level. It would take something big. Like a Christian demonstration outside a Falwell types church. that WOULD get media attention.....you let him know that you are tired of his hate, tired of the way he takes something you love and makes it disgusting, tired of him making people associate you with him (unfairly but still).the nuttiest people run the show religiously in this country and it s-s-s-sucks.

But then you have stooped to that level, and right back where you started. Sure, the nuttiest people run the show religously, but it's just that, a show. You don't see cops picketing The Shield, it's just a show. The thing is this- those that mistake the show for the real thing aren't looking for the real thing, they want a show. Those who hate the real thing because of the show aren't looking for the real thing either. They just want to be left to live, which, magically, somehow this happens. The truth of the matter is everyone gets what they want- the show goes on, the real do there thing, and the haters get to do what they do as well. In a sick way everybody is happy.

[crowTrobot 2]

You don't see cops picketing The Shield

if the shield had a powerful radical right-wing political lobby representing them you might

[Loismustdie 0]

if the shield had a powerful radical right-wing political lobby representing them you might

Doesn't apply to the comparison, but thanks for playing.

[crowTrobot 2]

Doesn't apply to the comparison, but thanks for playing.

your comparison was stupid because religious nutjobs running things are not a "show". they have a real impact and influence on the views of millions of people who look up to them.

[Loismustdie 0]

your comparison was stupid because religious nutjobs running things are not a "show". they have a real impact and influence on the views of millions of people who look up to them.

Of course it's a show, just like politics is a show, with bit players and stars and themes and everything that shows do. Friends had an impact on people, it doesn't mean it's not a show. My comparison is right on, it's not my fault you are to blinded by your hate to see it. If you weren't so wrapped up in the dark side this wouldn't even be an argument.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

the only real problem with religion is the 90% of people who practice it responsibly in a way that is good and healthy and enriches their lives are not vocal enough in denouncing the 10% who use religion to do things that are bad.

You've got your figures exactly backward. 90% of people use religion as sheep use a shepherd (and yep, that's an analogy unironically used in the church). They want to be told what to think and what to do. Most of them never actually read the bible themselves to find out everything that's in it, they just leaf through and read the "greatest hits" their pastor recommends (John 3:16, Romans, Psalm 22, etc.) rather than the really challenging verses like the ones, in God's voice, saying slavery is okay and ordering his followers to murder everyone in a village, including women, babies, the sick, and the elderly, when the village has done nothing to provoke them. To go off on a bit of a tangent, most Christians will never consider questions like these:The obvious question -- who does Cain marry? His sister, or did God create races that he had already determined would not believe in him?After the flood, God says, "Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the devisings of man's mind are evil from his youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living being as I have done." Okay, so if man was intrinsically evil before the flood, and God is here conceding that he will continue to be intrinsically evil, 1) how did God screw up the creation of man so badly? and 2) what exactly was the flood supposed to accomplish? Whatever it was, it seems to have failed.Why doesn't God stop Lot's daughters from having sex with him in the cave by pointing out to them that, duh, only two towns were destroyed, and if they walk around awhile they'll find the rest of humanity alive and well? Why does he allow incest without a peep (repeatedly, if Cain marries a sister), while killing people for burning the wrong incense, or a guy who's just trying to steady the ark when its bearers stumble?What is going on in 2 Samuel 24? The Lord puts it in David's heart to perform a census. David performs the census, then immediately feels guilty. Sure enough, a prophet tells him the Lord is hugely pissed at him (despite the fact that He ordered the census in the first place). He tells David, you get a choice: seven years of famine, three months of being chased by enemies, or three days of pestilence. David takes the pestilence. 70,000 men (apparently people whose only crime was standing still to be counted) die. But before the Lord's angel, who's administering this pestilence, can destroy Jerusalem, "the Lord repented," as the KJV says, and he stops the angel. Leaving aside the utterly ridiculousness of getting pissed off when someone does something you inspired them to do, what does it mean if the Lord can repent? It means that he can make mistakes and he knows himself that he can and has. His followers never seem to read enough to notice this. [by the way, this isn't the only mistake the infallible, perfectly good God makes: in 1 Samuel 15, "the Lord repented that he had made Saul king."]Anyway, like I said, that's a bit of a tangent (and there are dozens of other questions that could go in this list), but my point is that 90% of Christians don't even know that these ARE questions, because they don't know the bible well enough to know they're in there. They don't know that at least three times, the Messiah is said to be "like Moses," i.e., fully human, not divine. Fact is, they don't know, and they don't _want_ to know. To know it would require thinking about it. Thinking about it might require questioning it. Far easier to just sit in church once a week, do what the pastor tells you, act self-righteous all week long, and ask Jesus to help your hand hold up in the Main Event.It would be generous to say that fully 10% of Christians really engage with their faith, thinking about it, questioning it, arguing with it, and -- the most egregious fault to my scholarly, history-oriented mind -- researching it, seeing how it has evolved over the centuries (the KJV didn't just fall on our heads out of the sky one day), why what was included was included, what was left out and why it was left out, how people over the centuries have used and understood the text, etc. On a moral level, I'd say not even close to 10% of Christians actually believe in total obedience. If there's anything God wants, it's total obedience to his will -- if anything, that is the message behind Uzzah's death, isn't it (or is God just being kind of a jerk there)? And not too many people, especially not Americans, are willing to surrender their egos utterly to obedience. As I said earlier here, the very few who do are the standouts of mystical Christianity, like Merton, King, Avila, Assisi, Kierkegaard, Mother Teresa, etc. The best most Americans can do is like DN, asking God to make them a better person and to help them show that good soul whenever they can. Lois understands this issue of obedience. He has struggled with it for years, and confesses that he can't do it. But at least he knows what's being asked of him, instead of pretending it isn't.Yep, your figures are backward -- about 10%, generously, of Christians are actually using their religion in a useful way. Ninety percent are just sheep happy to be led around, duped, deluded, and conned by power-hungry, Mammon-worshipping, mega-church-wannabe assholes like Pat Robertson.

[Randy Reed 0]

Of course it's a show, just like politics is a show, with bit players and stars and themes and everything that shows do. Friends had an impact on people, it doesn't mean it's not a show. My comparison is right on, it's not my fault you are to blinded by your hate to see it. If you weren't so wrapped up in the dark side this wouldn't even be an argument.

Which dark side? Anti-matter? Are you on the light side? It's this specific type of drivel that makes me nuts. Why can't you attempt to refute his argument instead of accusing him of being blinded by hate by some mysterious dark side. Can't you see how ridiculous that is?It's like when BG refers to following the laws that God gave him. If you ask him to explain when and how God actually gave him these laws he'll do a 360 and change the argument. sighAnd those that were earlier saying science can't disprove religon isn't quite as precise as that. It can disprove a whole lot of what is actually in the bible. It also seems to me that even the Faith based crowd here doesn't understand their own reasoning as far as freewill vs predetermination.And finally, jbrad is a F I S H so I will excuse him.****ing indiana shit head kidding!

[Southern Buddhist 1]

So in the blanket world of labels, Christian vs Atheist; it's Christians 5 million deaths, Atheist 400 million deaths.

Sorry, BG -- you know I love you, but this isn't the blanket world of labels, this is the blanket party of bad math. It's a silly way to prove either side right, but your numbers are way off. You would have to count every war in Europe since roughly AD 500, since that was when Europe became predominantly Christian (can't leave out Christians butchering Christians, now can we?). That alone, not counting all the deaths from US-led wars, adds up to way more than five mil.