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.
The fact that you are able to understand it from that perspective is proof that you are more objective than most, engaging in an intellectual pursuit rather than a knee-jerk emotional reaction.
Again your straw man and ad hominem do not follow from your premise, so that is a non sequitur as well.
Do you understand the sentiment expressed by this poster? ...
Stop, you have just argued others do not understand the sentiment, now you are asking if a poster does? You mean your first post was an invention, twice damned *?
(1) I made a statement in this thread about Bayesian probability analysis. (2) You challenged me for now discussing it, after previously dismissing it. (3) I said that I did not recall ever previously discussing or dismissing it and invited you to refresh my memory. (4) I further pointed out that, for the reasons discussed "above" (in this thread), I do not think Bayesian analysis is particularly useful in analyzing religious or paranormal claims. You are simply confused.
Stop playing games.
1) You showed your inability to make a rational Bayesian argument in a different thread, and ...
2) Either you do or do not remember making your claim. You can not hold both positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Again, you are very confused. I would not find Christianity meaningful unless I had first reached a conviction it was true. If I had reached a conviction Hinduism or naturalistic atheism were true, I'd look for my meaning there. I don't claim Christian morality is inherently superior - I claim it is true.
Ironically you are confused. You were talking about atheists who are free of religious guilt, and their opposites, religious people who do feel guilty. Religious homosexuals, for example. I responded to that, not your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
You declare - on what basis, I have no idea - that my Christian foundation is "irrational" even though billions of rational people hold to the same foundation. Why is it "irrational," other than the fact that you happen to hold different convictions?
I was not talking talking your Christian meaning, I was talking about your statement about 'theistic meaning', which includes all other religions. They also find religious meaning, but if your religion is true, theirs must be false. Which means their meaning is based on a false premise. You even quoted me making that argument. Perhaps if you think rationally instead of a knee jerk response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I don't care - truly don't care - what convictions you hold or what you think of my convictions. Your notions that I should care, or that I have some obligation to show you why I believe I'm right and you're wrong, are fallacious.
Ironically a straw man. I have no notions that you should care, I am just pointing out your fallacies and hyperbole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
You seem to assume your convictions are self-evidently correct.
No, I presume my convictions are more probably correct based on the evidence that I have.
I further pointed out that, for the reasons discussed "above" (in this thread), I do not think Bayesian analysis is particularly useful in analyzing religious or paranormal claims.
Then you can make NO religious claims, as they are all Bayesian.
To argue if your Christian beliefs are true or false IS Bayesian.
To argue if any religious or paranormal claims are true or false IS Bayesian.
Your beliefs are based on miracles or the supernatural, by definition a probability claim, and therefore open to Bayesian analysis.
To influence your belief one way or the other by looking at the evidence you have IS Bayesian.
Your problem with Bayesian analysis is that your position is based on the belief that improbable miracles or the supernatural happened, which in Bayesian terms means your beliefs are also improbable.
Or you are confusing your belief the supernatural happens with the Bayesian analysis of whether your beliefs are true or not. Because with the evidence we have now, Bayesian analysis will always argue against miracles, whether they exist or not.
And that is why arguing from miracles is not a good method, because we have no reason to believe improbable events. And your god would know this. One must ask why he has not told his followers this.
I think each Christian must decide for himself what it should look like. My response was to a challenge as to how the Christian perspective is deeper and richer than a naturalistic atheist perspective in any way other than the promise of an afterlife.
The Christian perspective is that the earth is the creation of a providential God who has created humans to exercise dominion over it. The Christian perspective is that the earth, its creatures and every human are precious to God and that humans have a responsibility to God, the planet, their fellow creatures and their fellow humans to exercise prudent stewardship.
This is an inherently different perspective from that of a naturalistic atheist, even if that atheist is a full-tilt environmentalist. The Christian perspective is simply very different and, I believe, deeper and richer. But part of the challenge of living as a Christian is to puzzle over and decide what being a good steward should entail.
Thank you. This is what I understand - the Christian persepective is different because they believe someone powerful loves us and cares for us. I agree the gift of unconditional love can provide a deeper layer of meaning. What makes it deeper is that it cannot be taken away.
I remember when I felt the power of God's love. It was the night when I decided to leave Christianity, when I decided to take full responsibility for my actions, when I decided that if anything unfortunate happened to me or my family, a god wouldn't be blamed. The only credit I give to god is the feeling of freedom that night, which continues to this very day. Freedom is how I feel loved.
I don't think there is any turning back. I have encountered good teaching that supports perspective. This is different from providing perspective and hoping good teaching follows (or in some cases, teaching was not even provided). This has been my experience with Christianity.
Irkle's long post has been ably answered by others, but there was one point he made about Morality. 'How do we account for the...hang on... "Then why do humans have such a wide variety of notions about morality? Why does the morality of some cultures leave other cultures aghast?
Have you read much about moral evolutionary theory? As with most efforts to overlay evolutionary theory on non-biological matters, it really doesn't work."
This is of course just what we would expect if it was a human construct (on evolved biological urges like music, dance and indeed religion) rather than something 'imprinted on our hearts' by a god.
As for the biological morality 'it doesn't work' is just too dismissive. It works fine as an explanatory hypothesis, but as for not being perfect, that's what you'd expect if it was man -made rather than an Absolute Morality handed down by a god.
The answer to that might be that the only reason that God's Morality hasn't worked is because it hasn't be faithfully observed by all the peoples' of the world. In fact a work colleague put it like this:
"Christianity hasn't failed; Christianity has never been tried".
Of course, in those pre - apologetics days, I had to think about that, but soon saw that any ism or ology can make the same argument. in fact this was just the argument the Soviets were using: "When everyone is faithfully adhering to Soviet thinking, it will work perfectly"
Also...in what respect has it 'never been tried?' we had a Roman Empire a Holy Roman Empire and a Western world that was Christian, and if it didn't work as well as secular morality seems to work (by and large) today, I see no valid reason to argue that it would work any better if all the world was Christian.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-30-2020 at 04:52 AM..
Yes, I was raised in a religious household, but it was not the best example. By the time I was 20 I abandoned Christianity and remained agnostic for over 3 decades, before I became convinced that Christianity is true. I am not Christian out of fear. I was searching for the clearest view of reality and that turned out to be Christianity. I am happy to answer any other questions you have, if any.
Thank you. I appreciate your honesty. From my observation, most religious people are raised to think a certain way from childhood. Some that I have talked to can not pivot away from what they were taught to believe and now believe it with their whole heart. I was just the opposite of you. I was raised in a house not only void of religion, but void of love. I too was searching for something better when I was a teenager and turned to the church. I was baptized in my late teens. As I matured, I had a lot of questions that could not be answered with anything other than just have faith. Well, no, I don't process that way. I've never been a follower, so I just can't relate to blind faith.
If religion brings you comfort? There's nothing wrong that. We all have to walk our own path and develop coping skills along the way. Nobody has the right to tell us how to think, or what to believe. The problem I have with religion that leaves a bad taste in my mouth is the one size must fit all crowd that insists they have the right to cross over into your personal space and life and dictate what you can and can not do with your own life and body. Isis is a good example of religion perverted into something negative and ugly.
I have religious friends, and they're good people. They don't try to convert me and I don't try to convert them. We get along just fine because we have mutual respect for each other. Sometimes extreme passion kills that respect, and that's sad.
Fear mongering is a great tool used to control people, and those fire and brimstone sermons I listened to in my younger years also left a bad taste in my mouth. So there are some negative sides to religion and some positive sides. It just depends on which side you choose to feed. Or not, if you find it too illogical to believe.
Thank you for being open to questions and honest discussion. I appreciate that.
Thank you. I appreciate your honesty. From my observation, most religious people are raised to think a certain way from childhood. Some that I have talked to can not pivot away from what they were taught to believe and now believe it with their whole heart. I was just the opposite of you. I was raised in a house not only void of religion, but void of love. I too was searching for something better when I was a teenager and turned to the church. I was baptized in my late teens. As I matured, I had a lot of questions that could not be answered with anything other than just have faith. Well, no, I don't process that way. I've never been a follower, so I just can't relate to blind faith.
If religion brings you comfort? There's nothing wrong that. We all have to walk our own path and develop coping skills along the way. Nobody has the right to tell us how to think, or what to believe. The problem I have with religion that leaves a bad taste in my mouth is the one size must fit all crowd that insists they have the right to cross over into your personal space and life and dictate what you can and can not do with your own life and body. Isis is a good example of religion perverted into something negative and ugly.
I have religious friends, and they're good people. They don't try to convert me and I don't try to convert them. We get along just fine because we have mutual respect for each other. Sometimes extreme passion kills that respect, and that's sad.
Fear mongering is a great tool used to control people, and those fire and brimstone sermons I listened to in my younger years also left a bad taste in my mouth. So there are some negative sides to religion and some positive sides. It just depends on which side you choose to feed. Or not, if you find it too illogical to believe.
Thank you for being open to questions and honest discussion. I appreciate that.
Good post. Religion tends to serve the agenda of men who comprise the religious leadership, NOT God, IMO. Belief in God and love for God and each other serves God, NOT religion. The religious focus on specific beliefs ABOUT God is misguided. Belief in God and what that helps us to BECOME serves God, NOT what we believe ABOUT God. We are not here to be slaves or pets of God performing all the appropriate tricks and behaviors. As children, we are here to reproduce, grow, and mature into adults like our Father.
Thank you. This is what I understand - the Christian persepective is different because they believe someone powerful loves us and cares for us. I agree the gift of unconditional love can provide a deeper layer of meaning. What makes it deeper is that it cannot be taken away.
I remember when I felt the power of God's love. It was the night when I decided to leave Christianity, when I decided to take full responsibility for my actions, when I decided that if anything unfortunate happened to me or my family, a god wouldn't be blamed. The only credit I give to god is the feeling of freedom that night, which continues to this very day. Freedom is how I feel loved.
I don't think there is any turning back. I have encountered good teaching that supports perspective. This is different from providing perspective and hoping good teaching follows (or in some cases, teaching was not even provided). This has been my experience with Christianity.
If religion brings you comfort? There's nothing wrong that. We all have to walk our own path and develop coping skills along the way. Nobody has the right to tell us how to think, or what to believe. The problem I have with religion that leaves a bad taste in my mouth is the one size must fit all crowd that insists they have the right to cross over into your personal space and life and dictate what you can and can not do with your own life and body. Isis is a good example of religion perverted into something negative and ugly.
I have religious friends, and they're good people. They don't try to convert me and I don't try to convert them. We get along just fine because we have mutual respect for each other. Sometimes extreme passion kills that respect, and that's sad.
...
Exactly, exactly, exactly.
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.
