Cf and religion

[Mockingbird]

<blockquote>Quote<br><hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>Emily65Roses</b></i><br>lol Jarod. I didn't mean I had superpowers and was able to just go *poof* and have the whole thing disappear. I just meant: So what if someone tears me down? I don't really care. Not only that, but they left no name, and I have no known affiliation with them. I laid my own personal defense, said my peace, and that was enough to appease me. But my mom is right, I made some good friends here, and I do much appreciate anything and everything you all said that was of a positive nature about me. <img src="i/expressions/heart.gif" border="0"><hr></blockquote>

ha ha, I didn't mean you have superpowers, either. What I meant was.... well, what you said. =-)

 

[Mockingbird]

<blockquote>Quote<br><hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>Anonymous</b></i><br>
Jarod, I did some surfing and found 'Mockingbirds', a soul- provoking piece of poetry, The Greek couple, 'almost nothing to give, but there willingness to be attentive.' Sometimes our lives can be so busy we don't take the time to listen, we need to, right? I also read another poem of Mary Olivers and really liked her 'Swans'. I gleaned she was at one time, Secretary for Edna St. Vincents Millay's sister, and there was some evidence of Millay's influence in Oliver's earlier poetry. Her writing as they comment, has few human subjects, but goes on to say, she draws us into her humanity through her acute focus on nature. I live in the most beautiful scenic region of New Zealand, Moana. Sounds like I am totally biased, [for sure], I am surrounded by native bush and would never tire of all this beauty. Anyway before I bore the socks off everyone, it's 11.30pm Tueday night here, and I'm off to get some sleep. I will find time to read more of her works, she's received some pretty remarkable honours thru' her literary achievements!

Cheers Eileen. <img src="i/expressions/sun.gif" border="0"><hr></blockquote>


Ha ha, That's Mary Oliver, all right. =-) I didn't know about the connection with ESVM, that's really neat. i've read Swans before, too, and I liked that one. =-)

 

[Mockingbird]

<blockquote>Quote<br><hr>I consider it bunk, with at least a major portion of its claims (out-of-body-survival, divine creation, etc.) self-evidently false now that we've investigated them at length.
Respectfully,

--Allan<hr></blockquote>

Investigated them? It sounds to me like you're only listening to one side of the issue, getting completely biased information. Myself, i've found that for every question science has, religion has it's answers, and for every question religions have Science has it's answers, and everthing goes around in circles until you realize there aren't really any answers, just guesses on both sides. It's important to look at both sides with an open mind, 'cause otherwise you're only getting half the story. It's like two kids who get into a fight. If you only listen to kid A, he'll tell you that Kid B started the fight, and it'll be easier to believe him 'cause that's all you know. Talking to Kid B, however, you'll find that it was actually Kid A that started the fight. Of course they're probably both lying, but only by hearing them both out can you get a better idea of what happened.

By the way, I did look up the website you posted, and it is not unbiased, it only pretends to be. If I wanted to, I could list a dozen "unbiased" christain sites and resouces, but they're only pretending, too.

Jarod
22 w/cf

 

[WinAce]

Mockingbird,

We've learned a lot since the centuries past, when religious answers (and I use the term loosely) actually seemed credible. We didn't know much about the world back then, and even less so about why hexes can <i>seem</i> to work, dreams can <i>seem</i> prophetic, prayers can <i>look</i> answered, and so on. Nowadays, religious gurus are still fond of <i>claiming</i> they have answers, but these tend to evaporate into an assortment of logical fallacies and appeals to emotion on even the lightest scrutiny. There <i>are</i> answers. Good, reasonable ones, substantiated with the same exact techniques as make computers work, power our cars and increase our lifespans. Demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt with experiments that reduce or eliminate the possibility for innocent self-deception, error, and hoax that's pandemic to non-scientific claims (like used car sales, late-night TV commercials for assorted gadgets, and religion). Then there are the "answers" substantiated by the same people who read goose entrails for profit back in the day, which you'll (curiously) be required to take on faith, as opposed to evidence. It's very suggestive that only things that are <i>true</i> can generally be substantiated with evidence, as opposed to every claim--true or untrue--being potentially believable on faith.

There are, of course, unanswered <i>questions</i> remaining in a great number of areas. But just because one <i>can</i> postulate an answer (gods, extraterrestrials, shadow people, unicorns), doesn't mean it's a good one. Some techniques for generating answers have good track records, mainly because they have in-built quality control and take into account their own limitations, while others don't, with their conclusions considered infallible and unquestionable. I know which I'd suggest AimeeSue pursue, but she looks sharp enough to pick on her own.

Feel free to list all the websites you want, as you'll only be helping my case. The Secular Web offers decent information on atheism and related issues from the horse's mouth, so to speak. It also offers arguments for their various positions and, since it's not a homogenous entity, but rather a huge collection of areligion-related essays, some by Christians (in response to posted articles), will overall be as unbiased as you get. When was the last time you saw a Christian site linking to an atheist rebuttal, and why do you think they generally don't? ;-)

When one side is so clearly in the wrong, a comparison side-by-side with their opponents should be very eye-opening. Despite the fact our culture is so saturated with pro-religious notions, even a very minor bit of exposure to the dark side of reason did it for me, once I saw just how easily--and consistently--it was all debunked.

Respectfully,
--Allan

 

[Purplelungs]

I like this saying:
"I would rather live like there is a God and die to find out there isnt, than to live like there is no God and die to find out there is."

Inturpt (sp?) that how you will. I just like it.
The thing is about religion you cant get anywhere when one person is faithfully religious and one is faithfully not. They both will argue their points till death. They both will say the other is wrong. They both will be concerned for the other, the believer concerned for the non believers soul, the non believer concerned the believer is into something thats a waste of time. We have seen this already in this thread, and its not a very long thread at that. So before this thread gets firery lets all just agree to disagree. Believers and Nonbelievers may never ever see eye to eye. So we have seen both sides points here so lets leave it at that. Agree to disagree....if we dont people will be left angry and the thread will be locked.

That is all.

 

[Mockingbird]

Allan, you just proved my whole point. =-) All I'm saying is be more open minded. Pay attention to the things around you, and don't look for answers, just see things for what they are. I know youre not gonna do it, 'cause you're so deep in your beliefs. I was at the same point once. To tell the truth, It doesn't make that much of a difference to me weather you're open-minded or not. I try to encourage people as much as I can, but I also know it's human nature to wonder, to explore, to imagine the "impossible" with my help or without it. You can suppress it as much as you like, but it's always there, in everyone, christians, muslims, jewish, buddhists, wiccans, and atheists. (I didn't list agnostics, 'cause that would be redundant. =-) Doubting their beliefs, what they "know" to be true; it ebbs and flows like the tide. And we all have two choices, we can ignore it, and try to stay above the tide line, or we can embrace it, and find what the tide has left for us (even if it happens to be just a bunch of mucky seaweed. =-)

Jarod
22 w/cf

 

[anonymous]

This topic is such a hard topic because there are so many people that will not agree, and there are so many different beliefs. I do feel as a Christian,i should say i know as a Christian, that once you have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior we are to witness to others and spread the Gospel ( The Great Commision ) Matthew 28:19-20.Go ye therefore,and teach all nations.

Kaitsmom<img src="i/expressions/rose.gif" border="0">

 

[WinAce]

<blockquote>Quote
<hr><i>Originally posted by: <b>Purplelungs</b></i>
I like this saying:

"I would rather live like there is a God and die to find out there isnt, than to live like there is no God and die to find out there is."<hr></blockquote>

Surely you'd know better than to like <a href="http://www.jhuger.com/pascal.php">Pascal's Wager</a>. That's about the worst argument for theism that exists, the equivalent of "I prayed for someone to get acne, and they didn't, so God doesn't exist." For one thing, it might make the sincerity of any religious belief you adopt out to be a mockery, effectively a hedged bet on the off chance it's true. For another, liberal gods likely wouldn't care for your religious preference in the first place, and the gods of fundamentalist religions are just plain nasty; if the stricter branches of Islam or Christianity was true, merely believing in <i>God</i> would be as useful as not, unless you got all the peripheral details correct, too. (And when you start adding up Shia/Sunni, Catholic/Protestant, and every other case where the heretics are going to the same--or worse--Hell than the outright infidels, you begin seeing just how awkward believing on this basis is.)

But in addition to that, why would you rather live like there was a sociopathic god, one who'd eternally condemn his own creations for sincerely concluded, if mistaken, beliefs? Why would you want to worry about best friends with CF--or Jews who died in the Holocaust--waking up to much worse, and everlasting, torture than they ever had the joy of experiencing in the life he gave them, just for being wrong on something most of us will admit there IS room for legitimate disagreement on?

Perhaps you were merely joking in thinking it was a thought-provoking comment; I certainly hope so, but for the benefit of any questioning lurkers, it might help to see just on how many levels it's bad.

<b>Mockingbird,</b>

I will appreciate you not making unnecessary assumptions about me. I'm about as open-minded as you can be; because of that, though, I became convinced the version of open-mindedness which <i>isn't</i> afraid to label some things as bunk--after careful scrutiny, and the benefit of the doubt at first--is the best one. You might prefer another one, so whatever. Whether fortunately or not, every single reason I've ever heard for accepting religion is fallacy-ridden on even the lightest informed cross-examination, although some not as completely as 'ole Pascal's, above. There <i>are</i> reasonable ways almost any religion's major claims, if true, could be substantiated; it's just that when we look, we're forced to acknowledge they aren't. We see that, instead of reasonable things, their proponents (in all seriousness) use arguments so bad, a reasonably sharp 5-year old could point out the flaws. And in almost all cases I've looked at, they've got at least a few metric tons of self-evidently false baggage that lowers the credibility of whatever we can't yet conclusively debunk.

Respectfully,
--Allan

 

[Mockingbird]

<blockquote>Quote<br><hr><b>Mockingbird,</b>

I will appreciate you not making unnecessary assumptions about me. I'm about as open-minded as you can be;
Respectfully,

--Allan<hr></blockquote>

I wasn't making assumptions; you said yourself you're not open minded. Here, I'll get it for you.

<blockquote>Quote<br><hr>I'm one of the most religiously cynical, skeptical and blasphemous people you'll ever encounter online<hr></blockquote>

=-) Maybe I just misread it, but I thought to be a skeptic is to be closed-minded. It doesn't matter if you used to be open-minded, or if you gave something the benefit of the doubt once. Closed-minded is closed minded, and open-minded is open-minded. There are no different types, no varying degrees. If you look at the previous posts on this site, you'll see other people who were just as convinced as you are, and they changed. As humans we are like a river. A river is never the same from one second to the next; water, fish, and sediment all moving through it, each instant in a different position than the last. And for each instant we change, every experience we have it is a chance to see things in a different light. If you refuse to look, though, and only rely on your past experiences, then that is closed-minded, and blind. =-) That's all.

jarod
22 w/cf

 

[WinAce]

Skepticism is merely the opposite of gullibility, an unwillingness to give a blank check of credibility to any claim just because it's made, or because others believe it. Any other connotations you associate with it are your own, and--given things like <a href="http://randi.org/research/index.html">James Randi's $1,000,000 grant</a> for anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal ability under controlled conditions--saying skeptics are "closed-minded" or unwilling to acknowledge evidence can be more than a little patronizing. There just isn't any of it that holds up to even the lightest scrutiny.

Respectfully,
--Al

 

[Mockingbird]

Heh heh, yeah, okay. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0"> i'm sure that's <i>exactly</i> what you meant. I am so.... completely convinced now. You, my friend have acheived the height of enlightenment. I mean, for years people have been trying to get this stuff, but with your skeptisism and research, you have decoded the truth and set it out for all to see. I humbly bow to your skepticism... oh, I'm sorry, <i>ungullibility</i>, which has proven countless numbers of philosophers and thinkers completely and undeniably wrong. Well, not only that, but the religious ideals of a majority of the <i>planet</i> all crumble before you. Now, everyone can know the truth... and, probably riot accordingly, but they will know the truth! For, surely nothing, none of the indefinite amount of philosophic writings, religious faiths, teachings, and understandings which have accumulated over the ages can <i>possibly</i> stand against your battering ram of reason.

Jarod
22 w/cf
[rosseau is great]

 

[WinAce]

So, basically, you're:

* Appealing to popularity--lots of people believe it, so it's more likely to be true;
* Appealing to authority--lots of philosophers and teachers and other smart people believe(d) it, so it's more likely to be true;
* Arguing that we should be careful to draw conclusions, since lots of people in the past were wrong.

But that's silly. The first is <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html">a logical fallacy</a>, the second is a fallacy <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html">as you've used it</a>, and the last is quite ironic, given your use of the first two. Barring an epidemic collapse of civilization into another Dark Ages, our insights are getting much better, not worse. A kindergartener's astronomy book--with black and white pages, for coloring--will be more informative, and correct, than the ancient Babylonians' state-of-the-art philosophical musings on the nature of the universe. If you're going to bet on our knowledge vs. that of any other culture at any time in past history, especially in areas where a <i>ton</i> of research has been done for decades (or even centuries), you're going to lose the vast majority of the time. And you may not want to embrace this post-Enlightenment trend for discovery, but others are perfectly reasonable to do so.

By the way, the sheer variety of religious "understandings" you mention is perhaps one of the best giveaways they're bunk. Where a real phenomena, like electricity, existed, we've come to a reasonable understanding of it with <i>far</i> less effort than thousands of years of investigation that led to nothing but increased confusion and--in the last few centuries--an understanding of the emotional, socioeconomic and anthropological reasons it became so prevalent in the first place.

Respectfully,
--Allan

 

[Mockingbird]

man, you're not even listening to me. =-) Either that, or you don't know who Rosseau is. That's all right though. This is starting to get boring. I mean, it was kinda fun getting into the philosophy thing for a while, but it's kinda pointless. Anyway, see you around.

Jarod
22 w/cf

 

[anonymous]

Wow, I've been away from the boards for awhile and it looks like I've missed some excitement.
As a Christian, I have to say to the annonymous poster....."Ye that are without sin, cast the first stone." I'm in no position to judge Emily or anyone else for their belief or lack of belief in God or their personal actions/decisions.
Are they going to come to Christ if I belittle them and come across as "holier than thou"? Not a chance.
My Bible does not place a degree of seriousness on sin, so my gossiping with friends is no better than someone else's sin. Society has placed degrees on sin, but I don't believe my bible says for instance "sleeping with someone who is not your spouse is worse than lying" etc, so on that note, I am in no place to judge others, because we're all sinners.
I also think that Emily is here to be helpful and she is very upfront, which is fine. I may not agree with everything she or others say and others sure won't agree with everything I've said here, but we can all be respectful of each other.
Just my 2cents. I'll get off the soap box now<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
Elle

 

[anonymous]

This thread is very long and I admit I didn't read it all but I did want to share my own thoughts and favorite quotes.
I was Baptist as a child and about 3 years ago declared myself Agnostic. The reason why is I am a feminist. I don't know if this was discussed yet. However, I feel most religion is degrading to women.

The bible teaches that women brought sin and death into the world, that she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was arraigned before the judgment seat of Heaven, tried, condemned and sentenced. Marriage for her was to be a condition of bondage, maternity a period [of] suffering and anguish, and in silence and subjection, she was to play the role of a dependent on man's bounty for all her material wants, and for all the information she might desire... Here is the Bible position of woman briefly summed up. -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. -- Albert Einstein

God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them? -- Epicurus (from "The Epicurus Reader", translated and edited by Brad Inwood and L.P. Gerson, Hackett Publishing, 1994, p. 97)

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (Pensees, 1670)

It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong. -- Thomas Jefferson, (letter to Rev. James Madison, July 19, 1788)

The twin doctrines of separation of church and state and liberty of individual conscience are the marrow of our democracy, if not indeed America's most magnificent contribution to the freeing of Western man. -- Clinton Rossiter, American historian

Jennifer

 

[anonymous]

Hi my name is Marie. I don't know how to answer your question, but I do know what Jesus Christ has done for me in my life. I grew up very healthy. At 15 I started drinking alcohol and partying. It lasted a long time. My drinking made me miserable and I wanted to stop, but I couldn't. I began searching for another way. I found God. In December 1992 I gave my heart to Jesus. I tried to learn everything I could and love the Lord and stop drinking. But I kept on drinking and I went in and out of church. In 1997 I was married and had 3 year old twins....still drinking. Finally, I walked into the doors of AA. It still took me 10 months to finally have my last drink. Through the 12 steps of AA and returning to church, I really began to learn about the power of God.

Jesus Christ has set me free. He set me free from the bondage of alcohol and depression. He has shown me a new way to live. He has been my best friend and he has shown me how to love myself. It's not about "religion". It's about a personal relationship with the one who created us. Jeremiah 29:11-13 says something like this. I know the plans I have for you says the Lord. Plans to prosper you and not harm you. When you seek me, you will find me, if you seek me with all your heart. If you are seeking for God with all your heart you will find him. But you have to have the desire to want him in your life, otherwise you will never find him.

I personally don't see how I could live my life without his love and holy spirit. I believe this life is not about me, it's about Him. It's about living for Him and bringing people to Him. I am grateful I was born with CF. I am such a selfish person already. If I was not sick, then I wouldn't have to have Faith in God and depend on him for my joy. The greatest faith I need, is to know that I am going to be alright, no matter what my physical status is. Whether I die young or I die old isn't important. What is important is that I live a joyous life here on earth. I do not depend on my health to make me happy or sad. I depend on God and his son Jesus Christ. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Including facing this progressive disease that has no cure. Being sick forces me to depend on God and forces me to acknowledge that I am powerless over this disease. For that I am grateful because I live my life with love, meaning, peace, hope and understanding. If I did not have CF to make me depend on God. I would just be a selfish alcoholic only caring about me and mine and I know I wouldn't be happy, Just like I was before I accepted Jesus into my heart.

If you truly want to know why God did his to you---gave you CF. Then first you have to get to know him to know how he thinks. Ask him for yourself. Then he will tell you why he gave you this disease and you just may be surprised at his answer.

Love to all.

 

[WinAce]

Your post scares me, Marie. If what you said <i>was</i> true, God would be the equivalent of a spouse who broke people's spirits by putting them through Hell, just so they'd feel defeated, lonely and dependent enough to stay with him. While I'm glad AA worked for you, you probably underrate yourself by just assuming what your fate would have been if you didn't enroll. And IMO, there are <i>far</i> less disturbing cures for alcoholism or depression, should you really need one, than the morbid claim that God gives people debilitating illnesses, largely because of his ego. Does it really make sense that a <i>god</i> (an all-powerful one, no less, not your run of the mill Apollo or Chemosh) would use such a questionable <i>modus operandi</i> to save people from alcoholism, when even we <i>humans</i> can think of better ways?

You say that to find God, you have to believe one's out there. But if you entertain any doubt (a perfectly justified starting position), you're as likely to conclude there's no one out there, that there are multiple (feuding?) gods, that there's no interventionist god, that the universe itself is God in a way, and so on. But obviously, you can't have that, because then reasonable disbelief would exist; reasonable disbelief that would drive a stake through the heart of any religion claiming all unbelievers were wickedly stubborn, as opposed to, say, sincerely mistaken, lacking some facts, already perfectly happy with another religion/god, or so on. So you have to introduce additional claims ("those who don't find this particular God were never really sincere"), which are like the <a href="http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html">epicycles</a> that astronomers used to awkwardly rationalize away facts which <i>seemed</i> to debunk a Ptolemaic universe.

But if God doesn't exist, after all, you'll never realize it this way, and could just wind up on a wild goose chase. Not only would you never realize it--and truth-seeking is a worthwhile goal in and of itself, IMO--but you could potentially be contributing to a wide variety of social ills caused by defeatist, anti-humanistic thinking, if you made important decisions based on an assumption so far off (or a holy book from an ancient culture so unlike, and less advanced than our own). Some people are comfortable with that risk, but they should know there are other options. If no gods or demons are engaged in interstellar war as we speak, it's up to ourselves to fix humanity's problems--like CF--and reach for the stars, because no one will hand us Heaven on a silver platter. And if there's no afterlife, the time we have here becomes all that much more precious, with every single wrong we commit on another thinking, breathing person (or ourselves, for that matter) taking on a whole new grave meaning.

 

[anonymous]

Ace,
I'm just curious, what kind of person do you consider yourself to be?
How would your friends describe you?
From what I see...negative, pessimistic, unhappy, unfulfilled? Please, I hope you can prove me wrong.
I hope you say things such as: "you can do it" "hang in there" "this disease sucks, but you can handle it" "You're doing a good job", etc.??
Nonnie

 

[luke]

Allan,

I have been keeping up with all of your posts and it is quite apparent you put a lot of thought into your believes. You quote philosphers and theories like their your own but as far as I can tell you really can't prove there isn't a god anymore than I can prove there is one. Which leads me to wonder, you have worked so hard on disproving god to others I wonder who you are trying to talk out of believing, others or yourself. I admit part of the reason I believe is comfort, comfort in life and death. From all of your posts it dosen't seem that you are comfortable in either. Maybe you should reconsider your concrete belief system for something a little more abstract?


Luke

 

[Mockingbird]

I really liked your story, Marie. =-) It was very good. Someone I know has similar story, but not only did he find God, but he found his wife as well! =-) That's a really good story, too. =-)