Is Christianity worth serious consideration

[OldChurchGuy]

Did you test your hypothesis that your God was causing things to happen rather than their occurring by chance? How did you test it? Please provide the strongest example you have that your God caused something and show me how you reached the conclusion that it wasn’t the result of random chance or natural processes. I suspect that your conclusions will be due to post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and confirmation bias rather than being based on sound, objective evidence and objective tests. In fact by stating that your conclusions are based on personal experiences, you are signalling that your conclusions are not based on objective evidence at all.

Suppose I told you that I have faith that Santa Claus exists and that faith is based on various personal experiences in my life that I conclude are not due to random chance working in my favour. Would you think that I had reached a reasonable conclusion? Would you find my faith, on its own, to be a compelling argument for the existence of Santa Claus? Would you perhaps ask me for some evidence to support my claim?


Again, suppose I told you that I have experienced events that I interpret to indicate that Santa Claus exists. Would you think that I had reached a reasonable conclusion?


Has there ever been an occasion where the claim that your God performed a miracle was shown to be true? Has there ever been an occasion where the claim that your God answered a prayer was shown to be true? I don’t think it is leaping to a conclusion that your God doesn’t perform miracles or answer prayers when those claims have never been shown to be true. I think it is reasonable to hold the position that your God doesn’t perform miracles or answer prayers until those claims are shown to be true.


Why would you believe that when those claims have never been shown to be true?

Did you test your hypothesis that your God was causing things to happen rather than their occurring by chance? How did you test it? Please provide the strongest example you have that your God caused something and show me how you reached the conclusion that it wasn’t the result of random chance or natural processes. I suspect that your conclusions will be due to post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and confirmation bias rather than being based on sound, objective evidence and objective tests. In fact by stating that your conclusions are based on personal experiences, you are signalling that your conclusions are not based on objective evidence at all. At the time of the various events it did not occur to me to perform an objective field test to determine the authenticity of my experience. I will not rule out that my experiences and the resulting conclusion can be explained by random chance or natural processes. I don't believe that is the case but can't prove it to your satisfaction. So, if I am guilty of "post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and confirmation bias", so be it.

Suppose I told you that I have faith that Santa Claus exists and that faith is based on various personal experiences in my life that I conclude are not due to random chance working in my favour. Would you think that I had reached a reasonable conclusion? Would you find my faith, on its own, to be a compelling argument for the existence of Santa Claus? Would you perhaps ask me for some evidence to support my claim? There was a time in my life when I probably would have challenged your belief in Santa Claus. At this point in my life, I like to think I would not argue the point because, as I pointed out earlier, it is my understanding all religious beliefs are subjective. Combine that with what I consider to be one of the basic beliefs of my faith (love your neighbor as yourself) and I don't think I would argue against your belief. If you began to insist that your belief in Santa Claus is the only true and correct belief then I would probably make every attempt to listen politely, ask a few clarifying questions, and try to find a way to move to a different topic.

Again, suppose I told you that I have experienced events that I interpret to indicate that Santa Claus exists. Would you think that I had reached a reasonable conclusion? Personally, no, but since we are both discussing subjective understandings it seems silly to say my subjective understanding of the world is superior to your subjective understanding.

Has there ever been an occasion where the claim that your God performed a miracle was shown to be true? Has there ever been an occasion where the claim that your God answered a prayer was shown to be true? I don’t think it is leaping to a conclusion that your God doesn’t perform miracles or answer prayers when those claims have never been shown to be true. I think it is reasonable to hold the position that your God doesn’t perform miracles or answer prayers until those claims are shown to be true. I believe these questions are repeats of previous ones.

Would you be so kind to clarify something for me, please? Why does it make sense to apply scientific principles to religious belief? Science, as I understand it, is supposed to be objective. One can have "gut feelings" or flashes of inspiration but these must be verified before the scientific community accepts a given idea. Because religion is subjective it seems illogical to apply scientific principles to religious faith and belief.

The exchange and ideas presented by the various people on the site in response to your questions and follow-up questions lead me to wonder what you hope to gain from this exchange? A reinforcement of the idea that since God cannot be proven from a scientific viewpoint that God does not exist? An ego boost at the expense of the various people who have responded to the questions? An attempt to enlighten those who read this that since their faith cannot be proven it is irrelevant?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

 

[OldChurchGuy]

Why would you believe that when those claims have never been shown to be true?

I just realized that I neglected to answer this question in the earlier post.

I have wrestled with this question for years as a believer and as a Sunday School teacher.

At this point in my life, I am satisfied that God exists. The fact that belief cannot be proven in a scientific sense is not a problem for me. It has been said the role of science is to explain "how" while the role of religion is to explain "why". If that is true, then science and religion can easily co-exist as they are explaining two different sets of questions.

There have been times when I grew discouraged by the lack of solid irrefutable evidence plus an inability to so completely explain everything so I could have "God in a box". At those times I considered abandoning my faith. The problem was that for me turning away from my religion was not liberating but depressing. Depressing because there was nothing to fill the emptiness I felt.

So, I choose to believe in the existense of God because the alternatives do not appeal to me. Perhaps if I had grown up in a different household where, for example, there was a rigid theology that did not allow for questions or critical thinking then atheism would be appealing.

In closing, while the questions and follow-up questions have been interesting, I get the impression neither of us are going to budge from our positions. I have enjoyed the exchange very much in that the challenging questions presented have forced me to once again think about what I believe and why.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

 

[3sigma]

At the time of the various events it did not occur to me to perform an objective field test to determine the authenticity of my experience. I will not rule out that my experiences and the resulting conclusion can be explained by random chance or natural processes. I don't believe that is the case but can't prove it to your satisfaction. So, if I am guilty of "post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and confirmation bias", so be it.

You didn’t provide the example I requested or justify your reasoning. You said you had various personal experiences that led you to your conclusion, but you haven’t described any of them and now you say you didn’t test them to check whether you may have been mistaken. If you have no sound, objective evidence to show that your God caused these things to happen then what is your justification for presuming that it did cause them?

If you began to insist that your belief in Santa Claus is the only true and correct belief then I would probably make every attempt to listen politely, ask a few clarifying questions, and try to find a way to move to a different topic.

Suppose I insisted that my belief was true. Suppose I knocked on your door on Saturday mornings and urged you to believe in Santa Claus as well, perhaps with threats of future torture if you didn’t. Imagine that I had laws passed that forced you to respect my belief in Santa Claus with threats of imprisonment or death. Suppose I campaigned to have the physics of flying reindeer taught in public school science classes. What would you think of my reasoning ability and character?

Personally, no, but since we are both discussing subjective understandings it seems silly to say my subjective understanding of the world is superior to your subjective understanding.

It appears that you are saying that there is no way to distinguish my hypothetical belief in Santa Claus from your belief in your God.

I believe these questions are repeats of previous ones.

Not exactly. Here I am asking if anyone has ever shown the claims of your God performing miracles and answering prayers to be true?

Why does it make sense to apply scientific principles to religious belief?

When those beliefs include assertions that your God affects the natural world in some way, such as by performing miracles or answering prayers, then those assertions can be examined using scientific principles.

The exchange and ideas presented by the various people on the site in response to your questions and follow-up questions lead me to wonder what you hope to gain from this exchange?

I hope to improve my critical thinking skills by detecting the logical fallacies and sophistry used by many religious believers when making their case and by attempting to form cogent arguments in reply. I hope to improve my writing skills through practice and by my attempts to formulate clear, unambiguous questions and concise answers. I hope to prompt readers here to apply critical thinking to their beliefs.

So, I choose to believe in the existense of God because the alternatives do not appeal to me.

I choose to believe things that are well grounded and justifiable.

 

[KCDAD]

3sigma;
Suppose I insisted that my belief was true. Suppose I knocked on your door on Saturday mornings and urged you to believe in Santa Claus as well, perhaps with threats of future torture if you didn’t. Imagine that I had laws passed that forced you to respect my belief in Santa Claus with threats of imprisonment or death. Suppose I campaigned to have the physics of flying reindeer taught in public school science classes. What would you think of my reasoning ability and character?

The obvious response is if it is not true, the threats of hell are meaningless, and again, if it is not true, then it is meaningless and why not just say " ok, I believe it"?

It appears that you are saying that there is no way to distinguish my hypothetical belief in Santa Claus from your belief in your God.

Santa Claus was a real person.

Not exactly. Here I am asking if anyone has ever shown the claims of your God performing miracles and answering prayers to be true?

Shown? You mean proved to your satisfaction, right?

When those beliefs include assertions that your God affects the natural world in some way, such as by performing miracles or answering prayers, then those assertions can be examined using scientific principles.

Examine away, then.

I hope to improve my critical thinking skills by detecting the logical fallacies and sophistry used by many religious believers when making their case and by attempting to form cogent arguments in reply. I hope to improve my writing skills through practice and by my attempts to formulate clear, unambiguous questions and concise answers. I hope to prompt readers here to apply critical thinking to their beliefs.

Good for you! Now try and apply those skills to real life.

I choose to believe things that are well grounded and justifiable.

Why do you believe the collapse of the WTC on 9/11/01 wasn't preplanned by our government?
It isn't because of lack of credible evidence; including the insurance on the buildings, the "inspections" that previous weekend, the failed attempts to sell the buildings, the vertical collapse of peripheral buildings, the addition explosions, etc etc etc

You choose to believe what you do, because there is no way you can allow yourself to believe anything else.

Since, back to the subject, you have chosen not to believe in God, there is nothing in the world that will change your point of view... if, on the other hand, you choose to believe that since everything has a cause, even cause itself must have a cause (which by logic would then be beyond "cause") ...that something can be called "God". If you chose to believe that... you wold be left with no other choice but to believe despite evidence to contrary or a peculiar lack of evidence in favor of...

Belief, to sum up, is not a conclusion drawn, but a choice made.

 

[3sigma]

The obvious response is if it is not true, the threats of hell are meaningless, and again, if it is not true, then it is meaningless and why not just say " ok, I believe it"?

So you think the obvious response is to evade my question? The question was: what would you think of my reasoning ability and character if I had behaved in the way described?

Santa Claus was a real person.

And here we have yet another example of equivocation. Nicholas of Myra may have been a real person, but it should have been obvious from my reference to flying reindeer that I meant the modern-day conception of Santa Claus—the imaginary, jolly, fat man in the red suit who is said to deliver presents to children all over the world every year in a sleigh drawn by flying reindeer. I don’t believe that imaginary Santa Claus exists, which is why I described my belief as hypothetical when I referred to my example. What distinguishes a belief in that imaginary Santa Claus from your belief in your God?

Shown? You mean proved to your satisfaction, right?

I mean shown to be true. You know, where the claim that a god caused the event was shown to be in accordance with the actual state of affairs; where there was sound, objective evidence supporting the claim; and where the claim was well grounded or justifiable. Have any claims of God performing miracles or answering prayers ever been supported by sound, objective evidence that shows that God could be the only possible cause of those events? Give me an example of a claim that God performed a miracle or answered a prayer that you would say is actually true and justify how you reached that conclusion.

Examine away, then.

Claims of God performing miracles and answering prayers have been examined using scientific principles and there has never been a case where one has been shown to be true. They are usually the result of errors, logical fallacies, misapprehensions or outright lies.

Good for you! Now try and apply those skills to real life.

I do try to apply those critical thinking skills to real life, which is why I think your God is imaginary.

Why do you believe the collapse of the WTC on 9/11/01 wasn't preplanned by our government?

I find it difficult to believe implausible stories from questionable sources that are supported only by slight or uncertain evidence especially when they are contradicted by more plausible and reasonable explanations from reliable sources that are supported by a mass of strong evidence. I’m just not that credulous. This is why, for example, I accept the theory of evolution rather than creationism as an explanation for the development and diversity of life on Earth.

Since, back to the subject, you have chosen not to believe in God, there is nothing in the world that will change your point of view...

I will believe the claim that a god exists when I am presented with some sound, objective evidence supporting that claim. By all means, please provide some.

Belief, to sum up, is not a conclusion drawn, but a choice made.

In other words, your belief is based on feelings you have rather than sound, objective evidence, logic and reasoning.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

 

[3sigma]

What does this response mean, LLoJ?

 

[KCDAD]

In other words, your belief is based on feelings you have rather than sound, objective evidence, logic and reasoning.

No,, I stated beliefs are based on choices made by the individual. We all evaluate sources of information, explanations of reality and perception of reality (which are all the same thing).

Now you can stay on your high horse and talk down to everyone who disagrees with your highly enlightened point of view, I am sure it is very rewarding for you.

OR... you can try and understand that life is more than intellectual consistency. There are parts of life that just don't make sense, and can only be enjoyed for their irony and illogic.

Santa Claus is a fairy tale based on St Nicholas. EVERYONE knows that. The fact that the fairy tale is embellished and modernized and turned into a comic strip reflects not one bit on the original man, his character or the lesson he leaves us.

It is the same with God. The fact that some groups of people gave him names and physical descriptions, attributed natural events to his interceeding in the natural order, that they concluded that anything that was unknowable was this God DOES NOT indicate anything about the true nature of God.

I asked you a serious question about the "first cause" argument... and you ignored it. Did you miss it?

God may not be what we (as a religion, people or species) think God is... but Something is.

 

[3sigma]

Santa Claus is a fairy tale based on St Nicholas. EVERYONE knows that.

The question is: how does everyone know that? Let’s take you, for example. What made you conclude that Santa Claus is a fairy tale, but that your God isn’t a fairy tale? There are millions of people who truly believe that Santa Claus exists so what distinguishes the belief in Santa Claus from the belief in your God?

I asked you a serious question about the "first cause" argument... and you ignored it. Did you miss it?

I must have. I’ve gone back over your recent posts in this thread and I can’t see a question from you about the first cause argument. You made some rambling and disjointed assertions about cause in your previous post that didn’t make enough sense for me to formulate a response. Is that the subject of your complaint? I didn’t see a question in there. If you can reword it to form a coherent question then I will attempt to answer it.

However, while we are on the subject of unanswered questions, please answer the questions and requests in my last post that you ignored? Here’s a list for you.

1. What distinguishes a belief in that imaginary Santa Claus from your belief in your God?
2. What would you think of my reasoning ability and character if I had behaved in the way I described in my example of a belief in Santa Claus?
3. Have any claims of God performing miracles or answering prayers ever been supported by sound, objective evidence that shows that God could be the only possible cause of those events?
4. Give me an example of a claim that God performed a miracle or answered a prayer that you would say is actually true and justify how you reached that conclusion.

When you’ve answered those, please answer the other questions I’ve asked you several times in this thread, but which you’ve repeatedly evaded or ignored.

1. If not the Christian God then what god do you believe exists?
2. What constitutes your god? Is it matter, energy, a force or something else as yet undefined?
3. Did your god create anything?
4. Does your god affect the natural world in any way?
5. What sound, objective evidence do you have to support any claims you may make about your god?
6. Please explain how Christian beliefs are valid when they depend solely on the unsubstantiated claim that a God exists?
7. Why should any heed be paid to Christian demands when their underlying justification is unsubstantiated?
8. Why should Christianity be treated with any deference or respect when its basis is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim?

 

[KCDAD]

3sigma;The question is: how does everyone know that? Let’s take you, for example. What made you conclude that Santa Claus is a fairy tale, but that your God isn’t a fairy tale? There are millions of people who truly believe that Santa Claus exists so what distinguishes the belief in Santa Claus from the belief in your God?

Historical evidence... Santa Claus did live and die on this planet. He left footprints. Some thing was before the first cause... BECAUSE the first cause existed and left its footprint.

I must have. I’ve gone back over your recent posts in this thread and I can’t see a question from you about the first cause argument. You made some rambling and disjointed assertions about cause in your previous post that didn’t make enough sense for me to formulate a response. Is that the subject of your complaint? I didn’t see a question in there. If you can reword it to form a coherent question then I will certainly attempt to answer it.

And your posts are NOT ambling self flagellations of nonsense?

Here's your question. First cause... there was one, right? The implication is that there must a cause to the cause but we are talking about FIRST CAUSE. So there must something out side of this logical loop... call it whatever you like.. I call it God.

However, while we are on the subject of unanswered questions, please answer the questions and requests in my last post that you ignored? Here’s a list for you.

1. What distinguishes a belief in that imaginary Santa Claus from your belief in your God?
2. What would you think of my reasoning ability and character if I had behaved in the way I described in my example of a belief in Santa Claus?
3. Have any claims of God performing miracles or answering prayers ever been supported by sound, objective evidence that shows that God could be the only possible cause of those events?
4. Give me an example of a claim that God performed a miracle or answered a prayer that you would say is actually true and justify how you reached that conclusion.

Belief is belief.
I didn't pay attention to your example.
I don't believe in magic

When you’ve answered those, please answer the other questions I’ve asked you several times in this thread, but which you’ve repeatedly evaded or ignored.

If not the Christian God then what god do you believe exists?

"What" god? What 5 year old told you to ask that?

What constitutes your god? Is it matter, energy, a force or something else as yet undefined?

Did your god create anything?

Every thing.

Does your god affect the natural world in any way?

In every way.

What sound, objective evidence do you have to support any claims you may make about your god?

Things exist.

Please explain how Christian beliefs are valid when they depend solely on the unsubstantiated claim that a God exists?

I can't answer for "Christian beliefs"... there is no such single thing to which to respond.

Why should any heed be paid to Christian demands when their underlying justification is unsubstantiated?

I don't know. Do you feel compelled to? Why? To what consequence are you subject if you don't?

Why should Christianity be treated with any deference or respect when its basis is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim?

I don't think it should. It is a belief system, a religion. People and other living things should be treated with respect. Not ideas.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

You didn’t provide the example I requested or justify your reasoning. You said you had various personal experiences that led you to your conclusion, but you haven’t described any of them and now you say you didn’t test them to check whether you may have been mistaken. If you have no sound, objective evidence to show that your God caused these things to happen then what is your justification for presuming that it did cause them?

The example that immediately comes to mind goes back to 1975 when my father died of a heart attack. After the funeral I was concerned if my father's soul was in Heaven. I prayed about this and 2 days after the funeral I experienced a dream while asleep.

I saw my father looking directly at me. He was dressed in his traditional outfit (khaki shirt, khaki slacks, and a white Panama hat) complete with a pipe in his mouth. To his right was what appeared to be a human shape dressed in white but with a face so radiant that I could not distinguish any features.

My father had his arm around the entity and had a huge smile on his face showing pure joy and peace.

I awoke the next morning remembering the dream and feeling completely at ease about him. I interpreted the dream to be a message from God saying, in essence, "It's OK. He is with me now. No need to worry."

Can I prove that experience was an act of God? No.
Could it be that the dream was constructed by my subconcious to resolve my concern? Could be.

I only know that my concern was erased with that dream and I have not worried about him for the past 33 years.

Suppose I insisted that my belief was true. Suppose I knocked on your door on Saturday mornings and urged you to believe in Santa Claus as well, perhaps with threats of future torture if you didn’t. Imagine that I had laws passed that forced you to respect my belief in Santa Claus with threats of imprisonment or death. Suppose I campaigned to have the physics of flying reindeer taught in public school science classes. What would you think of my reasoning ability and character?

• Since we are dealing with hypotheticals I can see discussions with you regarding Santa Claus on a Saturday morning as a real possibility.
• The threats of torture would probably stike me as odd.
• To have laws passed forcing respect for Santa Claus with threats of punishment for disobeying the law indicates this is a widespread belief with many many followers. Otherwise, I do not see how you as a lone person could persuade legislators in any state to agree to a state sponsored / sanctioned religion much less stand up to a review by the Supreme Court.
• Personally, I have no problem with flying reindeer being taught in a philosophy class but would like to see the science substantiating flying reindeer before supporting the idea for a science class.
• Regarding your character and reasoning ability I would probably conclude you are a person with great faith in your beliefs. A faith so strong that alternative ideas / beliefs cannot be considered as they appear to threaten your core beliefs. I think I would also wonder why you are so intent to justify your faith in Santa Claus and flying reindeer outside of religion and into other areas of life such as science.

It appears that you are saying that there is no way to distinguish my hypothetical belief in Santa Claus from your belief in your God.

As one subjective belief compared to another subjective belief you are correct. I have not experienced Santa Claus as you apparently have and it appears you have not experienced God as I have. If there were a widespread movement of legally competent adults all professing belief in Santa Claus, then I might need to reconsider.


Not exactly. Here I am asking if anyone has ever shown the claims of your God performing miracles and answering prayers to be true?

As with the above story about my father, I believe the dream was from God but have no way to prove it. Because it cannot be proven, does that mean I am obligated to reject it as a message from God?


When those beliefs include assertions that your God affects the natural world in some way, such as by performing miracles or answering prayers, then those assertions can be examined using scientific principles.

Agreed they can be examined but very unlikely that science will ever justify them. As I have stated previously, until the entire known universe can be fully explained, I think there is room for God and science to co-exist. Would you agree or disagree with that idea?


I hope to improve my critical thinking skills by detecting the logical fallacies and sophistry used by many religious believers when making their case and by attempting to form cogent arguments in reply. I hope to improve my writing skills through practice and by my attempts to formulate clear, unambiguous questions and concise answers. I hope to prompt readers here to apply critical thinking to their beliefs.

I get the impression you have had multiple experiences of well intentioned Christians intent on bringing you to salvation. It appears you think your life would be much happier if they simply left you alone. If so, you are probably correct.

If living a life that allows only critical thinking appeals to you then go for it. I hope you find happiness in such an endeavor. If there are parts of your life that are the result of subjective thought rather than critical thinking (choice of clothes, favorite color, type of music, relationships with others, for example) is that a sign of weakness? Put another way, is there a facet(s) in your life where critical thinking does not apply?

I choose to believe things that are well grounded and justifiable.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

 

[3sigma]

Historical evidence... Santa Claus did live and die on this planet. He left footprints. Some thing was before the first cause... BECAUSE the first cause existed and left its footprint.

Hold on there a moment. You just said, “Santa Claus is a fairy tale based on St Nicholas.” The Santa Claus I’ve been referring to all along is the imaginary, fairy-tale Santa Claus. What made you conclude that the imaginary Santa Claus is a fairy tale, but that your God isn’t a fairy tale? There are millions of people who truly believe that the imaginary Santa Claus exists so what distinguishes the belief in that imaginary Santa Claus from the belief in your God?

And your posts are NOT ambling self flagellations of nonsense?

Well, I don’t think they are, but, of course, I wouldn’t. Let’s ask others what they think. Who else here thinks my posts are ambling, self-flagellations of nonsense (make of that what you will)? Please point to examples to justify your conclusion either way. Of course, there is the possibility that we will receive somewhat biased responses, given that no other non-Christian is allowed to respond in this thread, but let’s see whether others agree with you and can substantiate the claim.

Here's your question. First cause... there was one, right? The implication is that there must a cause to the cause but we are talking about FIRST CAUSE. So there must something out side of this logical loop... call it whatever you like.. I call it God.

I’m not sure whether you are talking about the cause of the Big Bang or a logical first cause here.

If you are talking about the cause of the Big Bang then, yes, I presume there was some process that initiated the Big Bang (though in a situation where there is no time, the concept of cause and effect is questionable). What this process was, no one knows. One possibility is that it was some as-yet-undiscovered, stochastic process, but we just don’t know. For some unknown reason, you choose to give this process a name, but that doesn’t help define it or explain it in any way. It doesn’t tell us how it operated or whether it still operates in the universe today. Naming it tells us nothing. Anything else you think you know about it is pure imagination.

If you are talking about a logical first cause then you are expecting an answer to a logical paradox for which there is no answer. You are making up a finite solution to an infinite regress and giving this imaginary solution a name. It is a pointless exercise.

"What" god? What 5 year old told you to ask that?

See this post for context. You said, “I never said I believed the Christian God, or Biblegod as some call him, exists. In fact I think I said the opposite.” I pointed out that your profile states that you have been a Christian for 38 years so I asked you if you don’t believe the Christian God exists then which god do you believe exists. Furthermore, don’t the forum rules require you to believe in the Christian God to represent yourself as a Christian? If you don’t believe the Christian God exists then why are you representing yourself as a Christian?

Every thing. … In every way. … Things exist.

If everything constitutes your God, every effect is your God and everything is evidence that your God exists then that’s pantheism, not Christianity.

I can't answer for "Christian beliefs"... there is no such single thing to which to respond.

Fair enough. If you aren’t actually a Christian then I wouldn’t expect you to answer for Christian beliefs.

I don't know. Do you feel compelled to? Why? To what consequence are you subject if you don't?

No, I don’t feel compelled to pay any heed to Christian demands because I think they have no foundation. However, that doesn’t mean that I’m not subject to Christian demands. The laws against blasphemy (though now largely toothless) are one example where I’m forced to comply with Christian demands. There are other areas where Christians are making demands and forcing people to comply with them. Some examples that spring to mind are Proposition 8, the ban on government funding of stem cell research and the constant efforts to have creationism taught in public school science classes.

I don't think [Christianity] should [be treated with any deference or respect]. It is a belief system, a religion. People and other living things should be treated with respect. Not ideas.

I agree with you on these points.

 

[3sigma]

I interpreted the dream to be a message from God…

I hope you’ll forgive me for not finding this anecdote to be either sound or objective evidence.

Regarding your character and reasoning ability I would probably conclude you are a person with great faith in your beliefs. A faith so strong that alternative ideas / beliefs cannot be considered as they appear to threaten your core beliefs. I think I would also wonder why you are so intent to justify your faith in Santa Claus and flying reindeer outside of religion and into other areas of life such as science.

I’m sure the metaphor wasn’t lost on you even though you chose to disregard it.

If there were a widespread movement of legally competent adults all professing belief in Santa Claus, then I might need to reconsider.

Why? If the belief remains unsupported by any credible evidence then the sheer number of credulous people who hold the belief should not influence you to reconsider it.

Because it cannot be proven, does that mean I am obligated to reject it as a message from God?

It means you should treat it with scepticism. Do you actually think your dreams are a reliable guide to reality? Do you believe other dreams you have when they are completely unsupported by any sound, objective evidence?

As I have stated previously, until the entire known universe can be fully explained, I think there is room for God and science to co-exist. Would you agree or disagree with that idea?

I would agree with that idea as much as I agree with the idea that there is room for astrology and science to co-exist. Millions of people still strongly believe that astrology is true even though scientific knowledge shows us that astrology is nonsense. Astrology and science co-exist, but that doesn’t mean that astrology is true. Similarly, religious beliefs and science co-exist, but that doesn’t mean that religious beliefs are true. Until there is some sound, objective evidence supporting religious beliefs, there is no valid reason to believe they are true. That isn’t to say there is no valid reason for holding religious beliefs. They apparently provide much-needed emotional support to many people, though they do cause a good deal of unnecessary harm as well. It just doesn’t make them true.

If living a life that allows only critical thinking appeals to you then go for it. I hope you find happiness in such an endeavor. If there are parts of your life that are the result of subjective thought rather than critical thinking (choice of clothes, favorite color, type of music, relationships with others, for example) is that a sign of weakness? Put another way, is there a facet(s) in your life where critical thinking does not apply?

Of course. There are many facets of my life where critical thinking does not apply. The examples you gave are all good examples where subjective thought plays a part in my choice, but none of them is a belief about reality. They are just personal preferences. Having a preference for a particular colour doesn’t mean I am credulous. However, being ready or willing to believe things are real especially on slight or uncertain evidence would mean I am credulous and I think that credulity could lead me to make poor decisions that could adversely affect my life and the lives of others. There are numerous examples of religious beliefs and other forms of credulity causing people to make decisions that cause unnecessary harm to themselves and others. That is why I try to apply critical thinking to help me distinguish reality from make-believe.

 

[KCDAD]

3sigma;Hold on there a moment. You just said, “Santa Claus is a fairy tale based on St Nicholas.” The Santa Claus I’ve been referring to all along is the imaginary, fairy-tale Santa Claus. What made you conclude that the imaginary Santa Claus is a fairy tale, but that your God isn’t a fairy tale? There are millions of people who truly believe that the imaginary Santa Claus exists so what distinguishes the belief in that imaginary Santa Claus from the belief in your God?

How do you distinguish between any historical figure and the actual human being that existed? Santa Claus in whatever fairy tale form is the story of St Nicholas of Turkey. God, in whatever religious form, is the story of the creator; first cause of all that is.

Well, I don’t think they are, but, of course, I wouldn’t. Let’s ask others what they think. Who else here thinks my posts are ambling, self-flagellations of nonsense (make of that what you will)? Please point to examples to justify your conclusion either way. Of course, there is the possibility that we will receive somewhat biased responses, given that no other non-Christian is allowed to respond in this thread, but let’s see whether others agree with you and can substantiate the claim.

Alright! A popularity contest...if you vote for me I will increase your bank accounts! If you vote for him you will suffer an agonizing spiral into depression and death.

I’m not sure whether you are talking about the cause of the Big Bang or a logical first cause here.

How convenient. What difference does it make? They are both hypotheticals.

If you are talking about the cause of the Big Bang then, yes, I presume there was some process that initiated the Big Bang (though in a situation where there is no time, the concept of cause and effect is questionable). What this process was, no one knows. One possibility is that it was some as-yet-undiscovered, stochastic process, but we just don’t know. For some unknown reason, you choose to give this process a name, but that doesn’t help define it or explain it in any way. It doesn’t tell us how it operated or whether it still operates in the universe today. Naming it tells us nothing. Anything else you think you know about it is pure imagination.

Yes, and you point is?

If you are talking about a logical first cause then you are expecting an answer to a logical paradox for which there is no answer. You are making up a finite solution to an infinite regress and giving this imaginary solution a name. It is a pointless exercise.

How can you believe in "infinity" as an explanation of anything? It is a logical impossibility.

See this post for context. You said, “I never said I believed the Christian God, or Biblegod as some call him, exists. In fact I think I said the opposite.” I pointed out that your profile states that you have been a Christian for 38 years so I asked you if you don’t believe the Christian God exists then which god do you believe exists. Furthermore, don’t the forum rules require you to believe in the Christian God to represent yourself as a Christian? If you don’t believe the Christian God exists then why are you representing yourself as a Christian?

There is no which or what God... there is only one source, one beginning... you can only begin something once.

If everything constitutes your God, every effect is your God and everything is evidence that your God exists then that’s pantheism, not Christianity.

Call it what you want. The name is irrelevant. Do you feed the hungry, visit the sick and clothe the naked? Do you seek justice, love mercy and act humbly? Do you love your neighbor as you do yourself?

Fair enough. If you aren’t actually a Christian then I wouldn’t expect you to answer for Christian beliefs.

Thanks. What many Christians don't realize is that they are selling their soul to the Roman Catholic Church and Holy Roman Empire when they espouse certain dogmatic beliefs from the creeds, the Canon and the traditional teachings of the church.

No, I don’t feel compelled to pay any heed to Christian demands because I think they have no foundation. However, that doesn’t mean that I’m not subject to Christian demands. The laws against blasphemy (though now largely toothless) are one example where I’m forced to comply with Christian demands. There are other areas where Christians are making demands and forcing people to comply with them. Some examples that spring to mind are Proposition 8, the ban on government funding of stem cell research and the constant efforts to have creationism taught in public school science classes.

Laws against blasphemy? Where do you live? Prop 8 is a civil law... you don't like it, protest it and get enough people to vote it down. Stem cell research is an ongoing process, embryos are not necessary. (There is a medical ethics issue in the buying and selling of human body parts) Creationism is a harmless fantasy story.

I agree with you on these points.

See... we can all get along.

 

[KCDAD]

I had a dream that my bathtub was stolen and after I entered the bathroom the door disappeared and I couldn't get out...

Do you think I ran down stairs to see if it were true or not? Of course not. I am sure that OLDCHURCHGUY considered the possibility that his dream was just a dream as well. But what is more important? The actual empirical truth of life, or the actual experiential truth of life?

As Dr. Phil likes to ask: "How's that working for you?"

My guess is that feeling good about your experience in life is more important than whether or not it is PROVABLE.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

I hope you’ll forgive me for not finding this anecdote to be either sound or objective evidence.

No offense taken. Frankly, any other response would have surprised me greatly.


I’m sure the metaphor wasn’t lost on you even though you chose to disregard it.

If you were alluding to actions by the Roman Catholic Church in centuries past as well as the Protestant movement, then I confess to understanding to what you were alluding. But since the hypotheticals were in the present tense I decided to respond based on this day and age.


Why? If the belief remains unsupported by any credible evidence then the sheer number of credulous people who hold the belief should not influence you to reconsider it.

You are probably correct but I like to think I am willing to at least examine an alternate religious belief.


It means you should treat it with scepticism. Do you actually think your dreams are a reliable guide to reality? Do you believe other dreams you have when they are completely unsupported by any sound, objective evidence?

Based on your values and sum of life experiences I "should"? How does this differ from what I understand to be an issue that grates on your nerves which is someone attempting to push their agenda down your throat?

While the nature of dreams is still a matter of study for neuro scientists, the dream I related seemed to so closely respond to a very personal concern that I had difficulty dismissing it as a subconcious attempt to cope with my fathers death. I don't recall any other dreams which impacted me like this one. But, as I said earlier while I believe it was an assurance from God, there is no way I can prove it.


I would agree with that idea as much as I agree with the idea that there is room for astrology and science to co-exist. Millions of people still strongly believe that astrology is true even though scientific knowledge shows us that astrology is nonsense. Astrology and science co-exist, but that doesn’t mean that astrology is true. Similarly, religious beliefs and science co-exist, but that doesn’t mean that religious beliefs are true. Until there is some sound, objective evidence supporting religious beliefs, there is no valid reason to believe they are true. That isn’t to say there is no valid reason for holding religious beliefs. They apparently provide much-needed emotional support to many people, though they do cause a good deal of unnecessary harm as well. It just doesn’t make them true.

Fair enough.


Of course. There are many facets of my life where critical thinking does not apply. The examples you gave are all good examples where subjective thought plays a part in my choice, but none of them is a belief about reality. They are just personal preferences. Having a preference for a particular colour doesn’t mean I am credulous. However, being ready or willing to believe things are real especially on slight or uncertain evidence would mean I am credulous and I think that credulity could lead me to make poor decisions that could adversely affect my life and the lives of others. There are numerous examples of religious beliefs and other forms of credulity causing people to make decisions that cause unnecessary harm to themselves and others. That is why I try to apply critical thinking to help me distinguish reality from make-believe.

Also fair enough.

It is my impression that we probably have much in common. The biggest difference is whether or not religious belief is worthy of consideration. I believe it is and am OK with not needing to prove it from the viewpoint of science. As stated before, religions are a matter of faith and are therefore subjective.

As a result I do not feel any need to share my beliefs onto others without their consent. Nor do I feel an urge to judge them if my beliefs are rejected.

Based on our correspondence I get the impression you grew up in a theistic household and probably asked various hard questions about the faith. The response was less than satisfying, probably something like "Don't worry about such items. Just have faith; You shouldn't question God." Or similar responses that didn't give the questions any credibility or respect. If so, that is a shame and someone did you a great disservice.

It is my impression the correspondence between us is evenly divided to reinforce your views of the world plus bring enlightenment to theists of the advantages science has over faith. While I have enjoyed the exchange, I doubt there is much more new which can be said.

There is a school of psychology which says the things one cannot stand in others tend to be the things one is guilty of doing. Take care that your dislike of "theistic evangelicals" who try to force their faith on you doesn't translate into you becoming an "evangelical atheist".

As always,

OldChurchGuy

 

[3sigma]

Yes, and you point is?

My point is that the process that initiated the Big Bang is unknown so calling it God is unwarranted.

How can you believe in "infinity" as an explanation of anything? It is a logical impossibility.

Actually, I said there is no explanation that answers the first-cause paradox. However, you seem to think there is an explanation and you call that explanation God. So let me ask: how long has your God been around? Has it been around forever? If so then you believe in an explanation that needs to invoke infinity for it to work. If not then your God must have had a beginning. In which case, something caused it to come into being so your God wasn’t the first cause.

Do you feed the hungry, visit the sick and clothe the naked? Do you seek justice, love mercy and act humbly? Do you love your neighbor as you do yourself?

I do some of those things directly and others indirectly. What does any of that have to do with pantheism?

Laws against blasphemy? Where do you live? Prop 8 is a civil law... you don't like it, protest it and get enough people to vote it down. Stem cell research is an ongoing process, embryos are not necessary. (There is a medical ethics issue in the buying and selling of human body parts) Creationism is a harmless fantasy story.

There are laws against blasphemy in many predominantly Christian countries around the world. I said they are now mainly toothless, but they remain as examples of Christians forcing others to comply with their demands. You can make light of them if you wish, but Proposition 8, the ban on government funding for embryonic stem cell research and the constant attempts to have creationism taught in public school science classes are still more examples of Christians seeking to force people to comply with their demands.

 

[3sigma]

If you were alluding to actions by the Roman Catholic Church in centuries past as well as the Protestant movement, then I confess to understanding to what you were alluding. But since the hypotheticals were in the present tense I decided to respond based on this day and age.

Actually, I was alluding to the behaviour of many modern-day Christians. Many modern-day Christians insist their unfounded beliefs are true, proselytise with threats of hell and damnation, seek to pass laws forcing others to comply with their belief-driven demands and try to insinuate their unsupported beliefs into public school science classes.

Based on our correspondence I get the impression you grew up in a theistic household and probably asked various hard questions about the faith. The response was less than satisfying, probably something like "Don't worry about such items. Just have faith; You shouldn't question God." Or similar responses that didn't give the questions any credibility or respect. If so, that is a shame and someone did you a great disservice.

Well, it just goes to show how wrong some impressions can be. I grew up in an atheist household. My grandparents were atheist, my parents were atheist, all my other close relatives are atheist, all my friends are atheist and my work colleagues are atheist. I have always been an atheist. I had never paid much attention to the religious and their unfounded beliefs until several years ago when I began to notice just how much harm around the world is caused by people behaving according to their religious beliefs.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

Actually, I was alluding to the behaviour of many modern-day Christians. Many modern-day Christians insist their unfounded beliefs are true, proselytise with threats of hell and damnation, seek to pass laws forcing others to comply with their belief-driven demands and try to insinuate their unsupported beliefs into public school science classes.


Well, it just goes to show how wrong some impressions can be. I grew up in an atheist household. My grandparents were atheist, my parents were atheist, all my other close relatives are atheist, all my friends are atheist and my work colleagues are atheist. I have always been an atheist. I had never paid much attention to the religious and their unfounded beliefs until several years ago when I began to notice just how much harm around the world is caused by people behaving according to their religious beliefs.

Yes, unfortunately, there are those who conclude that for the good of mankind their particular theology (which is, of course, true to their understanding of God) should be applied to all.

My sincere apologies for totally misunderstanding your background. My experience in corresponding with atheists is that they tend to be first generation. From my experience, you are a rare bird being 3rd generation atheist.

Am I correct in thinking your concern about the harm caused by people behaving according to their religious beliefs applies to all religions?


Are there specific actions by religious people you consider harmful? Are there specific actions by religious people you consider "unharmful" or possibly even positive?

As always,

OldChurchGuy