Christians vs. Atheists...And Other Thingies. (behavior, preach, created, best)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Scientific thinking is a rather precise way of looking at a premise. It isn't just swallowing what your parents did. It isn't just doing what the majority of people in your community do. Those two ways of approaching religion are based on sloppy, lazy thinking. And frankly, it's the way most Americans become christians, the way most Saudis become muslim, and the way most Thais become buddhist.
No. Christianity doesn't transcend scientific or even logical thinking. Because transcend means to be above. Reading a 2,000 year old book and saying, "Hey, look, that dude walked on water", is not transcending any logical or scientific way of thinking.
Although I consider myself to be a Theravada Buddhist, I would actually respect a Thai christian more than the average Thai Buddhist because that Thai would have gone beyond mere cultural influences. He/she would have had to have actually thought about their faith.
Most christians in this nation have not actually read the entire New Testament. They let a man in a special robe tell them certain stories and decided that, "Well, it was good enough for ma and pa, so I guess it's good enough for me". That is sloppy thinking.
And it has nothing to do with being insulting. I'm in the process of selling myself to move to another state. The number of buyers that I had stopping in that simply were not thinking...or doing sloppy thinking...was stunning. I would even tell some of them, "Well, you need to thinking about...", and they'd just move on to, "Well, I really like the house". And then we've got someone trying to pass religion off as pizza. I'm sorry...I'm not impressed.
I wasn’t debating science - or whether most Christians have read anything. I wasn’t debating it was an insult, either. I agree with your position - I was merely debating your use of ‘not being able to stand sloppy thinking’ as a legit stance for anything (or worse, as a motivating factor behind your arguments). It’s a conclusion, rather than a specific ‘angle’. It’s the same as saying ‘you are stupid’. Well, yeah, maybe it’s true in some cases but it can’t be used as effective debate - lol.
Last edited by CorporateCowboy; 03-03-2019 at 07:38 PM..
I wasn’t debating science - or whether most Christians have read anything. I wan’t even debating it was an insult. And I agree with your position - I was merely debating your use of ‘not being able to stand sloppy thinking’ as a legit stance for anything. It’s a conclusion, rather than a specific ‘angle’. It’s the same as saying ‘you are stupid’. Well, yeah, maybe it’s true but it can’t be used as effective debate - lol.
Well, frankly I've gotten way past trying to be warm and fuzzy about religion.
Well, frankly I've gotten way past trying to be warm and fuzzy about religion.
I’m talking ineffective debate (and stupid arguments). It has nothing to do with being warm and fuzzy. That you think it is about politeness makes it clear you have a hard time separating emotion from a ‘fair’ debate. Saying someone has sloppy thinking (and that you can’t stand sloppy thinking) - is sloppy debate.
one liners don't make your less valid stance more valid. you have been sussed out and debunked as holding a less valid statement of belief.
basing your life on a statement of belief about god is just so confining. It must be frustrating as all get out.
"Based upon observations...of how the Universe works"
THAT is the primo "belief statement".
And that is the one AA goes by.
Nothing is more logical, reasonable, and sensible...and, thus, that is what he's being by promoting that concept.
I’m talking ineffective debate (and stupid arguments). It has nothing to do with being warm and fuzzy. That you think it is about politeness makes it clear you have a hard time separating emotion from a ‘fair’ debate. Saying someone has sloppy thinking (and that you can’t stand sloppy thinking) - is sloppy debate.
Frankly, I don't see much real debate on this or other such forums. Stating one's opinion, and then having the other person state their opinion is not really debate. But then again, this is not an actual debating forum. This is a mere discussion of usually opposing opinions. There are not more than a handful of posters on this forum that I respect as approaching anything close to intelligent debate. Most are pretty good at having a basic conversation.
I'll give you an example of what I consider to be an intelligent way to look at religion. A few months ago a former student of mine contacted me because he was thinking of converting from christianity (even though he's ethnic Indian (as in heritage from India) to islam. And since I had converted religions (from christianity to buddhism) he wondered what my opinion was. I asked him why he was making what seemed to be a rather unusual decision, particularly considering his ethnic background. He told me he was finally seriously dating a girl and she was muslim, and her parents expected her to marry a muslim. I was not pleased, because I think that's a sloppily thought out reason to change religions (yes, I used that word sloppy again intentionally). But then he was able to neutralize my opinion because he had been receiving instruction from an imam and had been doing a lot of independent reading on islam. He had actually become quite knowledgeable. I'm not thrilled with islam, but he was coming to a decision by not sloppy thinking, but based on developing a knowledge base.
I've heard quite a few christians tell me they, "know all about islam". And when they say that, I usually ask them to tell me what they actually know about islam. And what I usually get is a lot stuttering and stammering. Or the dumb things that christians say to me about Buddhism. Like, "Oh, Buddha's the fat guy", or "How can you be Buddhist. You're not Indian". Or, "Is Buddha his first name or his last name?"
Or the pay off was the parent at out school who would come in and pat me on the belly and, "You're our little Buddha". And I see Buddhists doing some awfully sloppy thinking, too. The majority of Thai Buddhists can't separate Buddhist thought from animism. And it's disgusting because it means they haven't paid any attention to the actual teachings.
If a person came to me and said that they had been thinking that they needed religion in their life, and they had seriously looked at perhaps buddhism, christianity, and islam, and after some study of each, and a lot of thinking they decided on christianity, I wouldn't be negative about that because they made their decision based on the opposite of sloppy thinking.
Frankly, I don't see much real debate on this or other such forums. Stating one's opinion, and then having the other person state their opinion is not really debate. But then again, this is not an actual debating forum. This is a mere discussion of usually opposing opinions. There are not more than a handful of posters on this forum that I respect as approaching anything close to intelligent debate. Most are pretty good at having a basic conversation.
<snipped for brevity>
I agree. Except on the Great Debates forum (the content of which is not usually all that "great), I don't think of City-Data as a debate forum, and it always surprises me when someone accuses me of not debating the way they think I should.
To me, this is a place for discussion. Debate may break out, but that's not what most posters are here for.
Debate or discussion (or whatever you call it), it’s more of a reflection on the person who uses those types of ‘sloppy’ or ‘stupid’ remarks than it is about the person it is directed at. It’s simply not effective in any type of discussion - it has the reverse effect, it shuts communication down; and I assume that isn’t the goal in most forums.
Last edited by CorporateCowboy; 03-03-2019 at 10:38 PM..
Debate or discussion (or whatever you call it), it’s more of a reflection on the person who uses those types of ‘sloppy’ or ‘stupid’ remarks than it is about the person it is directed at. And in this case, I call it out because I don’t like it being associated with atheists in general.
<<snip>>
Kewl.
Last edited by mensaguy; 03-04-2019 at 07:41 AM..
Reason: Somebody got their feelings hurt.
That's what a lot of believers Trust is going to be the criterion for being saved, which will mean that religious belief is immaterial, other than encouraging people to do good - I have to recognise that aspect.
But the religions teach rather than doing good will Not get you into heaven - only believing the right things will do that.
This is primarily a Christian and somewhat Jewish school of thought, in my opinion.
Even though there are millions of Christians who believe in doing good works and so are such Jews.
In the Christian doctrine - the primary and fundamental condition of the "way out" is to believe.
The "works", even though encouraged, are then not so important.
You know, Once saved, always saved. You are done, soon as you believe that Jesus is your savior. No more worries.
Somewhat same goes with the Jewish school of thought - and correct me if I am wrong - but there is no hell, no punishment for Jews. If you are lucky to be born a Jew, you are through. Easy peasy.
For the naughty Jews who are sinful, I think there is some sorta cosmic rehab of a few days before they are sent to heaven.
So actions really don't seem to matter much in the Jewish and Christian school of thoughts.
This is primarily a Christian and somewhat Jewish school of thought, in my opinion.
Even though there are millions of Christians who believe in doing good works and so are such Jews.
In the Christian doctrine - the primary and fundamental condition of the "way out" is to believe.
The "works", even though encouraged, are then not so important.
You know, Once saved, always saved. You are done, soon as you believe that Jesus is your savior. No more worries.
Somewhat same goes with the Jewish school of thought - and correct me if I am wrong - but there is no hell, no punishment for Jews. If you are lucky to be born a Jew, you are through. Easy peasy.
I think there is some sorta cosmic rehab of a few days before they are sent to heaven.
So actions really don't seem to matter much in the Jewish and Christian school of thoughts.
This is actually something which never made sense to me, even as a kid. A person can essentially do what they want (even murder) - but in theory, in the end if you ‘accept Jesus as your savior’, you are ‘free’. So what’s the point - or any benefit, to people living a life of Christianity? (And it seems like such a shallow goal/objective compared to any ‘sin’ such as murder, etc.).
I think many people believe in Christianity as sort of a built-in self help ‘book’. It makes it easier for some people to have something to lean on (and something to look forward to) rather than accepting this is all there is.
Last edited by CorporateCowboy; 03-03-2019 at 11:01 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
