Religion among Premeds

[deleted407021]

I don't understand a faith in something for who's existence there is absolutely no evidence.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Angel252]

Man, this thread has been going for a while haha I am a Christian who does not believe in religion. I stopped going to church and tried other religions for a while in order to make sure that what I believed was right for me, without just being ignorant and saying yes without trying others. Two of my best friends are atheist. Just be happy with who you are and learn what you think best fits for you from others. Don't charge in and make comments that would offend either side. Be happy

 

[RJGOP]

Were you raised in your faith?

Yeah, I was. My family wasn't very religious, but we tried to observe our religion.

 

[Jcthoma3]

Yeah, I was. My family wasn't very religious, but we tried to observe our religion.

Have you ever considered how things may have turned out had you not been raised that way?

 

[Theafoni]

Man, this thread has been going for a while haha I am a Christian who does not believe in religion. I stopped going to church and tried other religions for a while in order to make sure that what I believed was right for me, without just being ignorant and saying yes without trying others. Two of my best friends are atheist. Just be happy with who you are and learn what you think best fits for you from others. Don't charge in and make comments that would offend either side. Be happy

Surprisingly, this thread has been pretty civil.

 

[InsertMemberNameHere]

I don't dwell too much into religious thought, but I'd probably classify myself as something close to agnostic.

 

[allantois]

We discovered a new hot topic on SDN in addition to URM and Affirmative Action

 

[Jcthoma3]

Orthodox Christians--like myself--emphasize "mystery" in their practice of faith, rather than certainty. Aside from the fact that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of scholars of ancient history around the world, who have commented on these things extensively, I still wouldn't say I know these things to be true, but like many things in life, I trust them to be true. I'm also open to adapting my way of thinking based upon new information. This is what science is all about (which I love), and I see no reason why my belief in God can't be the same way. But, for the most part, new information about the natural world does not change what I believe about God, rather, it informs what I believe about God. It may seem like a subtle distinction, but it is quite important. For instance, for the longest time it was understood that Earth was flat. New information was gained, and it became known that Earth is round. I would expect had I been someone living at that time that such new information would not have changed what I believe about God, because I would still have believed (as I do now) that God created the world, whether it was flat or round, but it informed my understanding of how God created. The same goes for evolution, quantum physics, neuroscience, cosmology, and so on.



The bolded is hubris on your part. Can you think of a society that, at the time, didn't consider themselves enlightened and modern? The difference with us is that we are actually enlightened and modern, whereas societies of the past were not, right? Plus, I don't know of any Christians advocating for strict laws re: eating shrimp, not wearing certain fabrics...and being condemned to death for working on Sunday.

Listen, the value systems of cultures change and adapt over time. It has always been this way. It hasn't anything to do with a society becoming more enlightened and modern, but just has to do with the fact that things change--and these changes are not always for the better. In 100 years, I bet we won't even be able to recognize people--if any are left--living with the enlightened and modern values we have in 2014. But just because things will change does not mean the values we had today were of no use, or were primitive, or harmful, or whatever. They were probably quite useful for us at this time, but without a good understanding of the history and context, it will be impossible to understand why or how.

In the Christian faith, the understanding is that God is working closely with people, not absent and independently of them. Some of the things central to the Jewish culture 8,000 years ago may seem odd to us today, and don't really have a place in our current society (this is not to suggest we are better in any way than they were, we are just different) and that would make sense. It isn't that we believe God changes, but we understand that, given enough time, people do. There are certain foundational directives God has given to all people throughout all time to abide by--and even people who do not believe in a god know these things to be valid and consistent--and there are things that God gives to different people at different times, because maybe a particular context demands it. I don't think any of us should judge the past harshly, without first attempting to understand it.

How can you just "trust" something to be true without evidence? I'm happy you share a love for science but I don't know that you really understand the way of thinking at the heart of science. The ENTIRE point of science is to withhold belief until sufficient evidence is present. You can't just go in with a predisposition for believing in god and then make everything fit into your cookie cutter view of the world as it is discovered. For thousands of years we were supposedly the center of the universe because god made the universe for us, the most important of his creations. When it was discovered that this obviously wasn't the case and the church was forced to concede they just said "Oh well god still meant it to be this way." The seemingly impossible complexity of organisms was for thousands of years used as a justification for the belief in an intelligent creator, but when Darwin showed complexity could very reasonably arise from far less complex things the church basically backed out and said "well god created the laws that allow evolution to take place." Once the big bang became irrefutable they again fell back on the whole "he set forth the laws that allowed the big bang." They just keep backing out and making reality fit their little preexisting view of how things are even though there is literally NO evidence for such claims.

To the second part (i don't know how to separate the quotes like you did) we ARE a more enlightened and modern society. Morality is definitely subjective, I completely agree with you, but we now know much more about the universe and the way things work than we ever did. We know for instance that women are just as capable as men and shouldn't be subjugated, different skin colors don't represent curses from god and those bearing them should be treated the same, enslaving entire races of people based on their ethnicity makes no sense, treating people differently for being attracted to the same sex also makes no sense (modern science has shown it is not a choice, not that it mattered to begin with), shooting stars, eclipses, and birds flying in weird patterns don't mean we should sacrifice people or go to war. Whether or not these things were okay, in a subjective way, to the peoples of their respective times, we have gained OBJECTIVE knowledge about the world since then and know these things don't make any OBJECTIVE sense now or then. When you say god has given us directives and dictates what is right and wrong in a given context (i think i understand you correctly) how on earth do you know that? Where is the evidence to support this?

 

[Dancing Bull]

@J Senpai
By saying that you base your morality in not doing to others what you wouldn't like done unto yourself you actually are basing your morality in what the Savior teaches in the Bible in Matthew 7:12. #justsayin'

So you're saying Christians came up with the Golden Rule first? I guess everyone that lived before the start of Christianity were immoral barbarians and no one practiced mutual respect, kindness, and compassion before the Christians came along, huh?

I've pointed this out elsewhere, and I will do so again here to make a point: It is next to impossible for any modern atheist to say their sense of morality is not derived from Judeo-Christian scriptures, due to the incalculable influence Christianity, in particular, has had on the development of the Western world. One of my philosophy professors in undergrad, who was an outspoken atheist, admitted this much.

It's very convenient for atheists to talk extensively about their ability to be "moral without God," while benefitting so greatly from the moral ethos established and cultivated by Christianity. This is evident, especially, by those like @J Senpai, who say they do not derive anything from the Bible, while framing their morality in the next sentence by Christian principles.

Sigh. So what would you say to an atheist whose ancestors comes from Asia? Where do my morals come from, hmm? I was never indoctrinated or brought up in a religious household for reference. It is extremely foolish and facetious to argue that Christians have the monopoly on morals and have been the only ones to perpetuate them. Last time I checked, regardless of racial, ethnic, religious, etc groups, there are good moral persons and the exact opposite everywhere.

 

[Jcthoma3]

I've pointed this out elsewhere, and I will do so again here to make a point: It is next to impossible for any modern atheist to say their sense of morality is not derived from Judeo-Christian scriptures, due to the incalculable influence Christianity, in particular, has had on the development of the Western world. One of my philosophy professors in undergrad, who was an outspoken atheist, admitted this much.

It's very convenient for atheists to talk extensively about their ability to be "moral without God," while benefitting so greatly from the moral ethos established and cultivated by Christianity. This is evident, especially, by those like @J Senpai, who say they do not derive anything from the Bible, while framing their morality in the next sentence by Christian principles.

The moral culture in general can be said to have derived from peoples INTERPRETATION of the scriptures. If it was literally derived directly from the scriptures we would kill people for working on Sunday, not eat shrimp, subjugate women, still have slaves, and not wear certain mixed fabrics (I've already said all this i know). But this is no surprise considering you find the writings of the old testament in the big three religions of the last thousand years (a little earlier for Islam). Of course the moral culture would be shaped by these moral codes. Today though we should be able to look back at religion and see that we don't need it in any way to derive our morality. The only rule we need is the golden rule which was around long before the first scriptures were written. And the golden rule isn't something that god was much concerned about in the old testament anyway, flooding the world and wanting to destroy cities and all. Most likely the golden rule is ingrained in our DNA as en evolutionary survival mechanism. God is a construct of the human mind AKA imaginary. That's what we call things for which there is no evidence.

 

[allantois]

That's what we call things for which there is no evidence.

 

[basketcase0a0]

So you're saying Christians came up with the Golden Rule first? I guess everyone that lived before the start of Christianity were immoral barbarians and no one practiced mutual respect, kindness, and compassion before the Christians came along, huh?.

The "golden rule" predates Jesus/Yeshua by about 2000 years. (I know you were being facetious, but a good thing to read all the same)

 

[didymus]

Sigh. So what would you say to an atheist whose ancestors comes from Asia? Where do my morals come from, hmm? I was never indoctrinated or brought up in a religious household for reference. It is extremely foolish and facetious to argue that Christians have the monopoly on morals and have been the only ones to perpetuate them. Last time I checked, regardless of racial, ethnic, religious, etc groups, there are good moral persons and the exact opposite everywhere.

Wow. You completely missed the point, and actually fashioned a straw man argument from my post. Try again.

 

[deleted407021]

Wow. You completely missed the point, and actually fashioned a straw man argument from my post. Try again.

Perhaps you could make a more comprehensive statement? If you didn't want people to think that you feel christianity holds some kind of monopoly on morality, you shouldn't have made this statement:

It is next to impossible for any modern atheist to say their sense of morality is not derived from Judeo-Christian scriptures, due to the incalculable influence Christianity, in particular, has had on the development of the Western world. One of my philosophy professors in undergrad, who was an outspoken atheist, admitted this much.

It's very convenient for atheists to talk extensively about their ability to be "moral without God," while benefitting so greatly from the moral ethos established and cultivated by Christianity. This is evident, especially, by those like @J Senpai, who say they do not derive anything from the Bible, while framing their morality in the next sentence by Christian principles.

So, what was your point?

 

[Jcthoma3]

Bertrand is the man

 

[deleted407021]

@J Senpai
By saying that you base your morality in not doing to others what you wouldn't like done unto yourself you actually are basing your morality in what the Savior teaches in the Bible in Matthew 7:12. #justsayin'

This is a pretty ridiculous statement. It neglects that the idea of "the golden rule" did not begin with Jesus. You don't need a god to tell you to be compassionate and to be considerate of other's needs. Your reference to Jesus as "the savior" is also laughable, seeing as there is no evidence for the existence of god, much less that a carpenter's son in the iron age was his son sent to rescue man from its folly. I could say the same about any other holy book possessing religion on the planet, because they also make claims of the divinity of god and certain humans. Why are they wrong and christianity right? Is a spiderman comic evidence that a superhuman spiderman exists?

 

[deleted407021]

The ENTIRE point of science is to withhold belief until sufficient evidence is present.

This x ∞

 

[didymus]

How can you just "trust" something to be true without evidence?

Did I ever say I trust in something without evidence? If I did, I need to correct that misconception. There is ample evidence affirming the existence of a god, in general, and the Christian God, in particular. Of course, there is a difference between evidence and proof. I don't think God's existence can be proved. So a better way to word it would be, "I trust something to be true that I cannot prove, but for which I have enough evidence to be convinced."

I'm happy you share a love for science but I don't know that you really understand the way of thinking at the heart of science.

I understand it just fine, thanks.

The ENTIRE point of science is to withhold belief until sufficient evidence is present. You can't just go in with a predisposition for believing in god and then make everything fit into your cookie cutter view of the world as it is discovered. For thousands of years we were supposedly the center of the universe because god made the universe for us, the most important of his creations. When it was discovered that this obviously wasn't the case and the church was forced to concede they just said "Oh well god still meant it to be this way." The seemingly impossible complexity of organisms was for thousands of years used as a justification for the belief in an intelligent creator, but when Darwin showed complexity could very reasonably arise from far less complex things the church basically backed out and said "well god created the laws that allow evolution to take place." Once the big bang became irrefutable they again fell back on the whole "he set forth the laws that allowed the big bang." They just keep backing out and making reality fit their little preexisting view of how things are even though there is literally NO evidence for such claims.

I mean this in the best possible way: you have a piss-poor understanding of the history of these things. You have employed a condescending tone to attempt to diminish and discredit "the church" (which church are you referring to, exactly?), without acknowledging that many of these scientific views that have come to be accepted as baseline concepts were fought by the scientific community as well. It wasn't like "the church" (still no idea which one you're talking about) had some kind of monopoly on arguing with these heroes and revolutionaries of science you admire so much. Please tell me you are aware of the backlash many of the major discoveries of science faced within the scientific community. Please tell me you are aware of major scientific contributions made by devout Christians (ever heard of Gregor Mendel?).

Your point is a red herring, and is one that numerous atheists have used as an attempt to show that faith and science are incompatible, or are opposed in some way. It is just not true. It really shows a strong dishonesty or ignorance on the part of the one making the argument. So are you being dishonest or ignorant?

To the second part (i don't know how to separate the quotes like you did) we ARE a more enlightened and modern society.

There it is.

We know for instance that women are just as capable as men and shouldn't be subjugated, different skin colors don't represent curses from god and those bearing them should be treated the same, enslaving entire races of people based on their ethnicity makes no sense....

Do you honestly--and I am genuinely curious--believe these are foundational beliefs of Christianity? Since you are posting these things to me, a Christian, you must think they apply to me somehow.

treating people differently for being attracted to the same sex also makes no sense (modern science has shown it is not a choice, not that it mattered to begin with)

Modern science has certainly not shown this, but your confirmation bias is certainly starting to show.

shooting stars, eclipses, and birds flying in weird patterns don't mean we should sacrifice people or go to war...

This doesn't apply to me or to Christianity.

When you say god has given us directives and dictates what is right and wrong in a given context (i think i understand you correctly) how on earth do you know that? Where is the evidence to support this?

I already explained my position on this. I explicitly stated that I do not know these things for a fact. That said, there are historians that have commented on the historical understanding of these things in Judaism and Christianity. What I have instead are evidences that compel me to trust that 1) there is a god, and 2) this god is revealed through Judaism and Christianity. From there, I rely on the historical evidence, the unbroken traditions of the Church (Orthodox), my wits and capacity for reason, as well as the world around me--demonstrating intricate design--to guide me to a place of trust, not unquestionable, immutable fact.

I know there are some people who treat religion like a fact--something that can be known scientifically and irrefutably. I am not one of those people. Trying to argue on those terms won't get you far, because I don't approach it that way. I really approach these things as an agnostic Orthodox Christian. Meaning, the God of the Christian scriptures makes the most sense to me of my experience of the world, but I am always aware that I could be wrong. Ultimately, if you are right and I'm wrong, I will have lost nothing at the end of my life. I am a rational and clear-minded individual who has thoroughly considered and weighed these things for years. Nothing you argue is novel or surprising. This is the life I care to live and I have not yet seen anything in any atheist I have ever known that I feel I am missing out on myself. I'm not jealous of your uninhibited and "modern" and "enlightened" skepticism. It's just very blah to me. I'm sure you could say the same about the feeling Christianity/religion gives you.

 

[allantois]

"If people are good only because they fear punishment,and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein

That's what Christianity does: it promises rewards to those who behave as the Bible/church/Pope commands and threatens with punishment those who disobey. The sacred scripture is the last place human morality could have possible come from. And the break through the horrors of the medieval ages came when state separated itself from church.

 

[didymus]

How can you just "trust" something to be true without evidence? I'm happy you share a love for science but I don't know that you really understand the way of thinking at the heart of science. The ENTIRE point of science is to withhold belief until sufficient evidence is present.

Perhaps you could make a more comprehensive statement? If you didn't want people to think that you feel christianity holds some kind of monopoly on morality, you shouldn't have made this statement.....

So, what was your point?

My point was explicitly and clearly stated in my post, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity having a monopoly on morality. That was a reckless extrapolation.

Christianity has massively influenced Western history, from political movements and governments, to philosophical thought, the Renaissance and Enlightenment, art, culture, and so on. Morality is an overflow from these things in a society. It is seriously just simple history that Christian thought has been the underlying and seminal factor in most of the major historical and cultural developments in the West. It is convenient for an atheist to wax philosophical about morality, while listing off a number of morals (as @J Senpai did), while criticizing Christianity, when people who are atheists, who were raised in the West, have Christianity to thank (or to blame, depending on your perspective) for the development of their moral sense.

Finally, if you--or anyone--honestly believes morality is encompassed in the big 3 (don't kill, don't steal, don't rape), you are a simpleton. Morality is complex and nuanced, and deals with every minute detail of every facet of life. One can argue that all cultures (Christian or not, Western or otherwise) have moral principles like these in common, but that only scratches the surface. Christianity's delineation of morality is unique and has had an incalculable influence on the West; an influence many of the most outspoken of the modern atheists take for granted.

That was my point.

 

[didymus]

"If people are good only because they fear punishment,and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein

That's what a small, minority segment of the global Christian population does: it promises rewards to those who behave as the Bible/church/Pope commands and threatens with punishment those who disobey. The sacred scripture is the last place human morality could have possible come from. And the break through the horrors of the medieval ages came when state separated itself from church.

FTFY

 

[deleted407021]

There is ample evidence affirming the existence of a god, in general, and the Christian God, in particular.

Let us have it, then. I'm very confident that whatever you produce will not be evidence.

"Modern" science has certainly not shown this, but your confirmation bias is certainly starting to show.

I'll assume you are referring to the possible misuse of the term "modern" and not just being completely ignorant.

 

[Lambda Phage]

I already explained my position on this. I explicitly stated that I do not know these things for a fact. That said, there are historians that have commented on the historical understanding of these things in Judaism and Christianity. What I have instead are evidences that compel me to trust that 1) there is a god, and 2) this god is revealed through Judaism and Christianity. From there, I rely on the historical evidence, the unbroken traditions of the Church (Orthodox), my wits and capacity for reason, as well as the world around me--demonstrating intricate design--to guide me to a place of trust, not unquestionable, immutable fact.

I know there are some people who treat religion like a fact--something that can be known scientifically and irrefutably. I am not one of those people. Trying to argue on those terms won't get you far, because I don't approach it that way. I really approach these things as an agnostic Orthodox Christian. Meaning, the God of the Christian scriptures makes the most sense to me of my experience of the world, but I am always aware that I could be wrong. Ultimately, if you are right and I'm wrong, I will have lost nothing at the end of my life. I am a rational and clear-minded individual who has thoroughly considered and weighed these things for years. Nothing you argue is novel or surprising. This is the life I care to live and I have not yet seen anything in any atheist I have ever known that I feel I am missing out on myself. I'm not jealous of your uninhibited and "modern" and "enlightened" skepticism. It's just very blah to me. I'm sure you could say the same about the feeling Christianity/religion gives you.

What kind of evidence would convince you that your position is incorrect?

 

[allantois]

At least on SDN creationists are willing to discuss things such as "scientific evidence", try some other forum - you won't get any rational discussion out of this beyond threats of burning in hell

 

[didymus]

What kind of evidence would convince you that your position is incorrect?

Great question! There are several things I would take as evidence that I was wrong about what I believe. One example would be some kind of ancient document or set of documents that outlined a plan to create a religion for the sake of exploiting or controlling people/gaining some kind of political power--something that predates the primary sources of the Scriptures, and identifies the historical parties involved, effectively proving that Judaism, and, therefore, Christianity, was a sham.

A second example would be if neuroscientists/neurobiologists were able to identify in other species of the eukaryota a biological and evolutionary source for belief in a deity, which is, currently, something unique to humans (there would obviously be several components to this, but I'm just simply stating it).

Thirdly, if archeologists could find and identify the biological remains of Jesus of Nazareth my faith would instantly be rendered worthless.

 

[Dancing Bull]

didymus calls himself an agnostic Christian - which means he believes in God (the Christian one in his case) but cannot claim to know for sure that this God exists. This is the definition of an agnostic theist. He then states "There is ample evidence affirming the existence of a god, in general, and the Christian God, in particular."


Night y'all, this has been entertaining.

 

[didymus]

Let us have it, then. I'm very confident that whatever you produce will not be evidence.

Srsly? You seem capable enough to use Google yourself to find the evidences that are well documented. I'm not going to go through them with you here.

I'll assume you are referring to the possible misuse of the term "modern" and not just being completely ignorant.

I was pointing out the careless use of the argument "modern science has shown..." for something that has not been shown. Sexual attraction is not black and white (Kinsey Scale), and it also fails to account for other variables (environmental and otherwise) that can influence a person to act out his or her personal identity in any number of ways, and so on.

It was the "Gays are gay because science!!!11" that I was chastising.

 

[didymus]

didymus calls himself an agnostic Christian - which means he believes in God (the Christian one in his case) but cannot claim to know for sure that this God exists. This is the definition of an agnostic theist. He then states "There is ample evidence affirming the existence of a god, in general, and the Christian God, in particular."


Night y'all, this has been entertaining.

Reading is difficult. Seriously, you should have just read the very next sentence:

Of course, there is a difference between evidence and proof. I don't think God's existence can be proved. So a better way to word it would be, "I trust something to be true that I cannot prove, but for which I have enough evidence to be convinced."

Therefore, I maintain that I am agnostic because I cannot know for sure that God exists, and I could be wrong about being convinced by what I understand to be evidence affirming God's existence--but I am also an Orthodox Christian because this perspective makes the most sense of my personal experience of the world.

 

[Dancing Bull]

Reading is difficult. Seriously, you should have just read the very next sentence:

Therefore, I maintain that I am agnostic because I cannot know for sure that God exists, and I could be wrong about being convinced by what I understand to be evidence affirming God's existence--but I am also an Orthodox Christian because this perspective makes the most sense of my personal experience of the world.

My bad bro for missing the very next sentence. It's late at night, and I got a test tomorrow. Stupid physiology is kickin my butt. Ok, I feel you on being an agnostic theist.

Anyways, last post for tonight. You said that "There is ample evidence affirming the existence of a god, in general, and the Christian God, in particular." and you wanted J Senpai to google it. I was curious and I did google it for myself but I'm not finding much other than a few stories, blogs, things like that. I did find this following source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence_for_God's_existence

Is that what you're talking about?

Or does this source ample evidence enough for your God's existence? http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

 

[didymus]

My bad bro for missing the very next sentence. It's late at night, and I got a test tomorrow. Stupid physiology is kickin my butt. Ok, I feel you on being an agnostic theist.

Anyways, last post for tonight. You said that "There is ample evidence affirming the existence of a god, in general, and the Christian God, in particular." and you wanted J Senpai to google it. I was curious and I did google it for myself but I'm not finding much other than a few stories, blogs, things like that. I did find this following source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence_for_God's_existence

Is that what you're talking about?

Or does this source ample evidence enough for your God's existence? http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

The rationalwiki one made me LOL. Very clever

The second link you posted is pretty good, but still a little Evangelical-heavy for my tastes.

Take a look at this video:



And read the story of Leah Libresco, a former prominent atheist blogger turned Christian

Both of these individuals are Catholic (which I'm not, but we share a religious history), and they both are pretty good at discussing these things.

*EDIT* It sucks that the video I embedded has to be viewed on YouTube's site. I hope you'll still check it out.

 

[Jcthoma3]

Did I ever say I trust in something without evidence? If I did, I need to correct that misconception. There is ample evidence affirming the existence of a god, in general, and the Christian God, in particular. Of course, there is a difference between evidence and proof. I don't think God's existence can be proved. So a better way to word it would be, "I trust something to be true that I cannot prove, but for which I have enough evidence to be convinced."




I understand it just fine, thanks.



I mean this in the best possible way: you have a piss-poor understanding of the history of these things. You have employed a condescending tone to attempt to diminish and discredit "the church" (which church are you referring to, exactly?), without acknowledging that many of these scientific views that have come to be accepted as baseline concepts were fought by the scientific community as well. It wasn't like "the church" (still no idea which one you're talking about) had some kind of monopoly on arguing with these heroes and revolutionaries of science you admire so much. Please tell me you are aware of the backlash many of the major discoveries of science faced within the scientific community. Please tell me you are aware of major scientific contributions made by devout Christians (ever heard of Gregor Mendel?).

Your point is a red herring, and is one that numerous atheists have used as an attempt to show that faith and science are incompatible, or are opposed in some way. It is just not true. It really shows a strong dishonesty or ignorance on the part of the one making the argument. So are you being dishonest or ignorant?

There it is.



Do you honestly--and I am genuinely curious--believe these are foundational beliefs of Christianity? Since you are posting these things to me, a Christian, you must think they apply to me somehow.



"Modern" science has certainly not shown this, but your confirmation bias is certainly starting to show.

This doesn't apply to me or to Christianity.



I already explained my position on this. I explicitly stated that I do not know these things for a fact. That said, there are historians that have commented on the historical understanding of these things in Judaism and Christianity. What I have instead are evidences that compel me to trust that 1) there is a god, and 2) this god is revealed through Judaism and Christianity. From there, I rely on the historical evidence, the unbroken traditions of the Church (Orthodox), my wits and capacity for reason, as well as the world around me--demonstrating intricate design--to guide me to a place of trust, not unquestionable, immutable fact.

I know there are some people who treat religion like a fact--something that can be known scientifically and irrefutably. I am not one of those people. Trying to argue on those terms won't get you far, because I don't approach it that way. I really approach these things as an agnostic Orthodox Christian. Meaning, the God of the Christian scriptures makes the most sense to me of my experience of the world, but I am always aware that I could be wrong. Ultimately, if you are right and I'm wrong, I will have lost nothing at the end of my life. I am a rational and clear-minded individual who has thoroughly considered and weighed these things for years. Nothing you argue is novel or surprising. This is the life I care to live and I have not yet seen anything in any atheist I have ever known that I feel I am missing out on myself. I'm not jealous of your uninhibited and "modern" and "enlightened" skepticism. It's just very blah to me. I'm sure you could say the same about the feeling Christianity/religion gives you.

What evidence is there for God? I'm speaking of religion in general but many of the things I mentioned are in the bible, and according to you . My point was that we know more about the world now and are able to see that these things don't make any sense. Modern science has show that it is not a choice. I'll send you some good research papers when I have the chance.

Did I ever say I trust in something without evidence? If I did, I need to correct that misconception. There is ample evidence affirming the existence of a god, in general, and the Christian God, in particular. Of course, there is a difference between evidence and proof. I don't think God's existence can be proved. So a better way to word it would be, "I trust something to be true that I cannot prove, but for which I have enough evidence to be convinced."




I understand it just fine, thanks.



I mean this in the best possible way: you have a piss-poor understanding of the history of these things. You have employed a condescending tone to attempt to diminish and discredit "the church" (which church are you referring to, exactly?), without acknowledging that many of these scientific views that have come to be accepted as baseline concepts were fought by the scientific community as well. It wasn't like "the church" (still no idea which one you're talking about) had some kind of monopoly on arguing with these heroes and revolutionaries of science you admire so much. Please tell me you are aware of the backlash many of the major discoveries of science faced within the scientific community. Please tell me you are aware of major scientific contributions made by devout Christians (ever heard of Gregor Mendel?).

Your point is a red herring, and is one that numerous atheists have used as an attempt to show that faith and science are incompatible, or are opposed in some way. It is just not true. It really shows a strong dishonesty or ignorance on the part of the one making the argument. So are you being dishonest or ignorant?

There it is.



Do you honestly--and I am genuinely curious--believe these are foundational beliefs of Christianity? Since you are posting these things to me, a Christian, you must think they apply to me somehow.



Modern science has certainly not shown this, but your confirmation bias is certainly starting to show.

This doesn't apply to me or to Christianity.



I already explained my position on this. I explicitly stated that I do not know these things for a fact. That said, there are historians that have commented on the historical understanding of these things in Judaism and Christianity. What I have instead are evidences that compel me to trust that 1) there is a god, and 2) this god is revealed through Judaism and Christianity. From there, I rely on the historical evidence, the unbroken traditions of the Church (Orthodox), my wits and capacity for reason, as well as the world around me--demonstrating intricate design--to guide me to a place of trust, not unquestionable, immutable fact.

I know there are some people who treat religion like a fact--something that can be known scientifically and irrefutably. I am not one of those people. Trying to argue on those terms won't get you far, because I don't approach it that way. I really approach these things as an agnostic Orthodox Christian. Meaning, the God of the Christian scriptures makes the most sense to me of my experience of the world, but I am always aware that I could be wrong. Ultimately, if you are right and I'm wrong, I will have lost nothing at the end of my life. I am a rational and clear-minded individual who has thoroughly considered and weighed these things for years. Nothing you argue is novel or surprising. This is the life I care to live and I have not yet seen anything in any atheist I have ever known that I feel I am missing out on myself. I'm not jealous of your uninhibited and "modern" and "enlightened" skepticism. It's just very blah to me. I'm sure you could say the same about the feeling Christianity/religion gives you.

What evidence do you think there is for the existence of god?

 

[Jcthoma3]

Did I ever say I trust in something without evidence? If I did, I need to correct that misconception. There is ample evidence affirming the existence of a god, in general, and the Christian God, in particular. Of course, there is a difference between evidence and proof. I don't think God's existence can be proved. So a better way to word it would be, "I trust something to be true that I cannot prove, but for which I have enough evidence to be convinced."




I understand it just fine, thanks.



I mean this in the best possible way: you have a piss-poor understanding of the history of these things. You have employed a condescending tone to attempt to diminish and discredit "the church" (which church are you referring to, exactly?), without acknowledging that many of these scientific views that have come to be accepted as baseline concepts were fought by the scientific community as well. It wasn't like "the church" (still no idea which one you're talking about) had some kind of monopoly on arguing with these heroes and revolutionaries of science you admire so much. Please tell me you are aware of the backlash many of the major discoveries of science faced within the scientific community. Please tell me you are aware of major scientific contributions made by devout Christians (ever heard of Gregor Mendel?).

Your point is a red herring, and is one that numerous atheists have used as an attempt to show that faith and science are incompatible, or are opposed in some way. It is just not true. It really shows a strong dishonesty or ignorance on the part of the one making the argument. So are you being dishonest or ignorant?

There it is.



Do you honestly--and I am genuinely curious--believe these are foundational beliefs of Christianity? Since you are posting these things to me, a Christian, you must think they apply to me somehow.



Modern science has certainly not shown this, but your confirmation bias is certainly starting to show.

This doesn't apply to me or to Christianity.



I already explained my position on this. I explicitly stated that I do not know these things for a fact. That said, there are historians that have commented on the historical understanding of these things in Judaism and Christianity. What I have instead are evidences that compel me to trust that 1) there is a god, and 2) this god is revealed through Judaism and Christianity. From there, I rely on the historical evidence, the unbroken traditions of the Church (Orthodox), my wits and capacity for reason, as well as the world around me--demonstrating intricate design--to guide me to a place of trust, not unquestionable, immutable fact.

I know there are some people who treat religion like a fact--something that can be known scientifically and irrefutably. I am not one of those people. Trying to argue on those terms won't get you far, because I don't approach it that way. I really approach these things as an agnostic Orthodox Christian. Meaning, the God of the Christian scriptures makes the most sense to me of my experience of the world, but I am always aware that I could be wrong. Ultimately, if you are right and I'm wrong, I will have lost nothing at the end of my life. I am a rational and clear-minded individual who has thoroughly considered and weighed these things for years. Nothing you argue is novel or surprising. This is the life I care to live and I have not yet seen anything in any atheist I have ever known that I feel I am missing out on myself. I'm not jealous of your uninhibited and "modern" and "enlightened" skepticism. It's just very blah to me. I'm sure you could say the same about the feeling Christianity/religion gives you.

What evidence is there for god? (ignore the other reply. I had thought I omitted all the other stuff)

 

[deleted407021]

Srsly? You seem capable enough to use Google yourself to find the evidences that are well documented. I'm not going to go through them with you here.

There is no evidence of a god. If that were a false statement, as you claim, and there were strong evidence, especially for the Christian god, then 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences wouldn't be atheists.

A google search turns up nothing but pseudo science and anecdotal accounts. Nonsense, which is just as passable as evidence as me saying I've seen unicorns, so I believe in them and you should too.

I was pointing out the careless use of the argument "modern science has shown..." for something that has not been shown. Sexual attraction is not black and white (Kinsey Scale), and it also fails to account for other variables (environmental and otherwise) that can influence a person to act out his or her personal identity in any number of ways, and so on.

It was the "Gays are gay because science!!!11" that I was chastising.

Science does take into account environmental factors. Ever wondered why you have feminine gay men and butch lesbians? There's you intrauterine hormonal influence. Homosexuality has a concurrence of about 0.80, meaning it is ~80% genetic and 20% environmental, as twin studies have shown. These are non controllable, mostly biochemical environmental factors. In other words, a gay man no more chooses to be gay than a straight man chooses to be straight.

 

[touchpause13]

I have a sincere question for the atheists and/or agnostics. Among that community, what is the belief about life after death and the belief about the purpose of life?

This is just a copy pasta of my post from the atheist thread in allo, but I think it answers ur question. Also this is just my opinion and I have no idea if it's representative of atheists as a whole:


Personally, I find peace in my own mortality. I have this one beautiful amazing life and I want to use it the best I can. I want to try and leave this world better than what I found it. I don't like how much emphasis is put on the afterlife in some religions, as it just doesn't make sense to me. What I have now is enough, more than enough really. Living my life to get into heaven just doesn't work for me, I want to live my life to live my life. Perhaps others may think that it's depressing or cold, but I think it's incredibly freeing. I am completely responsible for myself, for my successes and my failures, I don't think anyone is pulling the strings. And I made a conscious decision to try and live my life in service to others, not because a creed told me to, but because I want to.

 

[deleted407021]

This is just a copy pasta of my post from the atheist thread in allo

Tis a sign! You must have been touched by his noodley appendage.

 

[plumazul]

The second link you posted is pretty good, but still a little Evangelical-heavy for my tastes.

What was "good" about it in your opinion? I found nothing.

 

[RJGOP]

Have you ever considered how things may have turned out had you not been raised that way?

Not really. That is a good question. I will say this though. I have pondered the question of G-d's existence several times before and I still do it now sometimes. Whether or not G-d exists, I think I have personally discovered reasons to believe G-d is real. Perhaps if I didn't care whether or not G-d existed in the first place, I would not believe in him.

 

[WillburCobb]

I may have alluded to these previously in this thread, but given the direction of the current discussion I'll mention them again. I strongly encourage (especially for a certain self proclaimed "philosophical" poster) checking out The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker, the film Flight from Death, or doing some research into terror management theory.

 

[LMBLBM]

Well God cannot be proved or disapproved. I do not understand when people are trying to logically argue that God exists or not. Belief has no place in science field.

 

[Laureatebarrel]

Born Buddhism/Ancestry Worship, attended SDA school, studied Zen & Taoism. Maybe Agnostic? I don't really know for sure.

 

[WillburCobb]

Well God cannot be proved or disapproved. I do not understand when people are trying to logically argue that God exists or not. Belief has no place in science field.

 

[LMBLBM]

"I am irrational, thus I have faith and believe in God. I will, however, decide writings in bible to be either literal or symbolic to create pseudo rationalism for myself "

 

[KobeshouldbeaMD]

Well God cannot be proved or disapproved. I do not understand when people are trying to logically argue that God exists or not. Belief has no place in science field.

Belief has no place in a science field?
Do you understand what an induction is? Evidence for something will never bring someone to complete certainty--you will always need a film of faith to surround all of your ideas, scientific or not.

Also, why is there an atmosphere of scientific realism floating around in this thread?

Meaning why do you guys all believe that the only way to bring truth into the world is only through the scientific method? That's why you believe God cannot be proved or disproved. God is classically defined as an disembodied mind who is all powerful, all-knowing, personal being. God is defined as transcendent and above the physical world. Certainly it would be very inappropriate to use physical methods to try to identity a non-physical God.







Rutgers New Jersey Medical School class of 2019!

 

[LMBLBM]

Belief has no place in a science field?
Do you understand what an induction is? Evidence for something will never bring someone to complete certainty--you will always need a film of faith to surround all of your ideas, scientific or not.

Also, why is there an atmosphere of scientific realism floating around in this thread?

Meaning why do you guys all believe that the only way to bring truth into the world is only through the scientific method? That's why you believe God cannot be proved or disproved. God is classically defined as an disembodied mind who is all powerful, all-knowing, personal being. God is defined as transcendent and above the physical world. Certainly it would be very inappropriate to use physical methods to try to identity a non-physical God.







Rutgers New Jersey Medical School class of 2019!

Inductive reasoning leads to hypothesis and experiential design. Belief leads to nowhere. Do you understand the difference between induction and belief?

Also, if you are all-powerful and all-knowing, you have to know all possible variables and outcomes of your action. If you 'know' what is gonna happen, where is your free will? Once someone knows future, including all deviation, one cannot change it. Thus, becoming powerless

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

This strange thing is happening here, people keep saying "evidence", singular. But what they seem to mean is "scientific evidence", we're all aware that there are many types of evidences, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

An eyewitness account is evidence. If people see a Jewish palestinian man after his death and widely circulate a report of this account, this is evidence. It's not the strongest type of evidence, but let's stop implying that there is only one kind of evidence, it's odd, ignorant, or intellectually dishonest.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Inductive reasoning leads to hypothesis and experiential design. Belief leads to nowhere. Do you understand the difference between induction and belief?

Also, if you are all-powerful and all-knowing, you have to know all possible variables and outcomes of your action. If you 'know' what is gonna happen, where is your free will? Once someone knows future, including all deviation, one cannot change it. Thus, becoming powerless

There are several beliefs behind the scientific method that one must take for granted. Examples: Reality is knowable, reality is rational, reality is consistent. These can not be proven by the scientific method, they are assumed to be true and then the scientific method is built around them.

 

[NorthernMav]

This thread is still alive?!

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

This thread is still alive?!

Resurrected, it seems.

 

[LMBLBM]

There are several beliefs behind the scientific method that one must take for granted. Examples: Reality is knowable, reality is rational, reality is consistent. These can not be proven by the scientific method, they are assumed to be true and then the scientific method is built around them.

Those are not beliefs. Those are facts. Whether you don't 'believe' in those, they are always held true

 

[KobeshouldbeaMD]

Inductive reasoning leads to hypothesis and experiential design. Belief leads to nowhere. Do you understand the difference between induction and belief?

Also, if you are all-powerful and all-knowing, you have to know all possible variables and outcomes of your action. If you 'know' what is gonna happen, where is your free will? Once someone knows future, including all deviation, one cannot change it. Thus, becoming powerless

Induction requires belief. And how do beliefs not lead to anywhere? A belief that living a just and moral life is obligatory to a Christian means that they will try their best to be good and kind to others. There is knowledge that is valuable that is not scientific. Science isn't the only means to value and truth.


Just because God knows what's going to happen, doesn't mean that God's prior knowledge influenced any action, that's what you call a non-sequitur. Having freedom of the will doesn't equate with being totally unpredictable.




Rutgers New Jersey Medical School class of 2019!