The Religion subforum.

Like a guy told me on ex-gay forums: The Lord is just looking for a few good men and women. In the parable of the sower, only a few seeds land on good ground. Seeds sown in sciforums fall by the wayside. Nothing there to cry about.

There is plenty to understand. This is probably the most divisive issue in the history of the protestant churches.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bully for you! (is that intelligent enough?)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh yes, because you kow my thoughts better than I. Forgive me.

I didn't say it should be respected more than any other area of human activity, only that it should be accorded the same level of respect.

Whoa. Don't you understand the definition of supernatural? I'll give you one:

Supernatural \Su`per*nat"u*ral\, a. [Pref. super- + natural: cf.
OF. supernaturel, F. surnaturel.]
Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature;
miraculous.
[1913 Webster]

There you go. The very nature of the belief places it beyond empirical observation, and you people continually insist that empirical observation be the standard by which such claims are judged. That's what I'm talking about. You don't seem to understand the nature of the belief before you start ridiculing and deriding anyone who professes it. It makes you look either, A) Impatient, and/or uninterested in having an honest intellectual discussion, or B) Unwilling to reconsider your initial understanding on the terminology that an individual uses, which makes you stubborn and prideful. By no means am I singling you out, I am generalizing.

There is a fundamental difference between the claims of religious people and people who claim to have seen UFOs or experienced ESP. Religious people claim that what they experience is supernatural, as I have said above. People who claim to have seen UFOs or experienced ESP do not. They claim that what they have seen or experienced is here, now, and observable, which is why they call their field of study a science. They are labeled as pseudosciences because they have been found to have little or no evidence in support of their claims, even though their position has always been that evidence can be found to support their position. Seriously religious people have never claimed that, to my knowledge. It seems that those who are hostile to religion on this message board refuse to discuss religion from the standpoint that, hypothetically, there is a supernatural realm. They don't believe in the supernatural (understandably), but instead of admitting that there is no common ground with which to argue with theists, they lambaste their position until the person they are arguing with gives up. Now, you can say that claiming their experience to be supernatural in nature is a copout (and I would agree), but that becomes the end of the argument.

No, they do not claim that God himself is subjective, but they do claim that God can only be experienced, not found through empirical observation, or logical deduction. It is intrinsic to religious belief. Call it silly, or a copout, or illogical, or unreasonable all you want, but the point is that you cannot debate the existence of God with a religious person by using the tools of science, as I have said, because the very nature of the concept places God outside of the range of those tools. Perhaps this is the reason why so many totally ardent atheists on this message board think that religious people are stupid, and can't understand the simple logic of the atheist position? Consider it for a moment, before bashing my post, if you will.

For the most part, but I also recognize that religious belief is not arbitrary, nor is it primitive or stupid. Call it a feeling, but it seems to have a very important function in the human psyche, so I do treat it with respect.

Thanks for the ad-hominem, I do appreciate a good psychological dissection of myself, especially when it's off the mark. I actually only find myself in this position on Sciforums, funny enough. It must have something to do with all the very humble, respectful, and reasoned debate I find in this place, no doubt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ahhhhhhh


It all becomes clear now why JM wants the religion forum closed.

 

Whoa. It seems that we have more than just a few mind readers around here. Perhaps I should just make a thread on Sciforums whenever I am unsure of my position on a topic.

 

well aren't you alleging you want it closed as it is is too argumentative, when really you want it closed as it does not suit your personal agenda and it is the ultimate stab in the chest for the theists?

Pity your evil plan isn't working Monsieur Vadar

 

Question: Assume I am a Christian (I'm not.. but assume). I say I want the religion forum closed. Why? Is it because I am religious?

Question: Assume I am an athiest (I'm not.. but assume). I say I want the religion forum closed. Why? Is it because I am athiest?

I am not supporting the closing of the religion forum. It isn't hurting anyone. Keep it. I am just asking why being an athiest means he wants the forum closed.

 

(my lat night jab at winding up the locals Absane

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

My position is that it should be closed as it is not only biased towards one viewpoint (of course there is nothing about this message board that says it shouldn't be), but that any thread begun by a theist is immediately trashed by atheists who aren't interested in an actual discussion. It was more of a rhetorical suggestion (if there is such a thing), since I didn't think it'd actually work.

It seems, however, that you've caught me. Sshh... don't tell anyone.

 

In response to superliminal:

Hey, you're really getting the knack about how things work around here with only 180 posts no-less...

Keep it up and you'll earn some pretty labels too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Actually there is some logical deduction involved, check out this classical argument for the existence of God:

 

Actually, I have been here for a while under several different names, stemming all the way back to '01, at least. I am well acquainted with the local customs and even a bit of their language.

 

You are ahead of me. Here's my link:

Cosmological argument for the existence of God

It's based on logical reasoning.

I nominate you as the new religion sub-forum administrator, only if you wanted to be of course.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As administrator you should have the right to shut it down. Cheers and adieu to the religion sub-forum. I'm not at all sad about the loss. How about deleting the whole religion subforum database. What will someone think that comes along 100 years from now?

 

Best of buddies.

 

Well, I didn't start this thread to actually argue the existence or non-existence of God, so I won't respond to that part of the post. You should put it up in the Religion subforum.

And I absolutely do not want to be an administrator, and besides, I don't have anywhere near the standing in this place to oust Cris and Q, and I also admit that, in past attempts to moderate, I have overdone it because of a personal quarrel I had with one of the members. So I would not be a good candidate anyhow, even though the entire discussion is somewhat far fetched and silly, in my opinion.

 

Why the obfuscation? Is that an observation, an opinion or a response?

 

Well I put it on the cosmology forum. Q deleted the part about "God" of course. Nice job of censorship. The thread didn't belong in the religion forum, and the "G" word didn't belong in the cosmology forum. How convenient. Oh well, the rights of administration. Even when I win one, I still lose.

Here's the link:

Thread

Yes, I certainly wouldn't want the job. I was jesting a bit.

 

<--- Not surprised. Although, I did notice that there were a few flaws pointed out in your logic, namely regarding cause and effect, etc. However, we shouldn't be debating this within this thread, since it is way off topic and I'd rather this thread not be moved to another location or locked because of it. Thank you.

I got that part, but I figured I'd respond seriously just in case.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I actually did want you to respond to that really long post I made. Thanks for making it go to waste.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I forgive you my son/daughter/indeterminate.

No, you didn't. You clearly implied that religion had special dispensation, especially religion...

Why, I had no idea. Thank you.

Then let's all go have some tea and crumpets.

*cough* closet theist *cough*

More fucking mind readers. Can you just believe the gall of some people...?

I understand perfectly well that theists attribute all kinds of actual phenomena to their god(s) without one shred of convincing evidence.

No. The discussions have been had (for me) over the last 20+ years, and resolved.

1) The testimony of individuals is worthless (if you don't believe me, ask a scientist)

2) Stubborn? Pot calling something some non-reflective lack of color?

3) I have honest intellectual discussions with theists, but not about the reality of their claims, which are 100% baseless in reality. I am quite interested in the psychological phenomenon of religious delusion. Fascinating stuff the mind is made of, fascinating indeed.

4) I will, like any honest person, reconsider my position on anything, anytime, given sufficient reason to do so.

Obviously I disagree.

You should research things a bit more, or be less rash before stating absurdities. Many, many UFO and ESP enthusiasts attribute these phenomena to supernatural entities and forces.

As do almost all theists, regarding their living or omnipresent god.

They do? Good for them. Tom Cruise is a scientologist.

Hmmm...

What?!? Would some serious theist here please enlighten this gentle poster? That your god is real and the evidence of His exsistence is all around us? In the form and beauty of every living and non-living thing?

That would be pretty intellectually bankrupt, unless you are proposing treating the theists here like six year olds and humoring them?

Agreed. Hence I very rarely post in the religion forums anymore. It really is utterly useless to argue the issue since resolution of a position based on the the absurd idea that your belief is beyond objective testing by any human means, is clearly impossible.

Which is at the heart of the intellectual depths to which adherents of religion have subjugated themselves. Translation: That's just fucking stupid. Provably so.

Or just fucking stupid. See response above.

Which places it squarely in the realm of delusion. I completely agree.

Oops. Too late.

In any event, I for one have never ascribed generic stupidity to theists. I know what it is. It's one of my favorite psychological tricks that the mind does - dichotomous thinking. The awesome compartmentalization of reasoning and knowledge to accommodate two wildly differing world views in the same head. It's what allows some people to be good lawyers or scientists, observing the rules of evidence on one hand, and theists, disregarding the fantasy nature of their belief on the other.

Of course it's not arbitrary. It's completely culturally deterministic within a tiny tolerance. It is certainly primitive as it has it's roots in the complete lack of understanding and fear of the natural world in our common prehistory. And stupid? No, it's dichotomous, and the reasons for it are probably as varied as the people who subscribe to it. It is however, highly irrational I'm sure you'll agree?

My pleasure.

Keep a positive outlook. Remember, we're all here for entertainment anyway. Either gods or each others. It's a cosmic stand-up routine.

Now that was funny!

 

A joke?