Why I am a member here even though I am a Christian

[DrZoidberg]

Non-skeptics would also have to be welcome here if it really is a Freethought forum.

When I joined this forum it was called "Internet Infidels" and was clearly a Skeptics forum. I'm assuming that the same applies?

I'd also question the semantics of your statement. What in that case would be the difference between "free thought" and "no thought"? A mind that wanders aimlessly about with no shape or form isn't really free. Free implies that it is empowered somehow.

I avoid talking to non-skeptics because it's pointless. It would be like talking to Trump. Every fact is an alt fact. Everybody's version of reality has to be respected for no reason. No thank you. My limited time on this Earth is too valuable for me.

- - - Updated - - -

Non-skeptics would also have to be welcome here if it really is a Freethought forum.

You're here.

People examining the evidence and reaching a different conclusion than you isn't evidence of them not being skeptics. It's evidence of a disagreement.

 

[Syed]

i really hate talking to people who agree with me its just boring to me

 

[Tom Sawyer]

i really hate talking to people who agree with me its just boring to me

I'm the exact opposite. I prefer talking to people who agree with me because it helps validate my predefined positions within a self-reinforcing bubble. It also allows me to avoid intellectual strain, which can generate heat in the neurons and destroy brain cells.

 

[funinspace]

Personally, I don't care for the word 'proof' in studying history, I much prefer my friends: possible; plausible; & probable. But I get your thinking.

There are apparent contradictions in the gospel narratives but we don't know if they are simply due to human error or a rewriting of the gospel to make it fit someone's preconceptions. But none of these conflicts is sufficient to cause me doubt about my faith. The scriptures were written by men, and this is one of the things where I part company with the Southern Baptists; I don't think that these men's writings were simply "narrated" to them by God. They were men writing about things happening around them and they imparted these occurrences as best they could given their knowledge.

Ruth

Yep, the whole God-breathed Bible thingy. You sound a lot like a UMC or ELCA theological type if I may say... Anywho, thanks again.

You are welcome. But the "God-breathed" part is not really accurate for me; I totally disagree with it due to the whole inerrancy stance based on it.

Yep, I was trying to note that atypical aspect of the SBC people, not you.

And yes, the ELCA comes very close to my beliefs - but there is that "top down leadership" thing that I don't much like.

Don't know if you have spent any time in an ELCA church, but their top-down is pretty modest. Each church even has full control of who their preachers are.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Hi Ruth, it is nice to have you here, and we appreciate your kindness as well. We hold different religious views, but we can still be friends here.



It is that sort of response that is a problem though. That you associate having doubts with imperfection, flaws, and something to try and minimize, reduce, and avoid. We should instead be looking at doubts of our beliefs as something to embrace, to encourage, to see as a very helpful tool that allows us to identify which of our beliefs our supported by logic and evidence, and which ones we should discard (in favor of other ones that are supported). On any other topic or subject that is the approach we use as to determine which statements are likely to be true or false. Doctors run tests, scientists perform experiments, etc. It is because of the concept of doubt that people find flaws in their beliefs and then can discard them in favor of other beliefs which are more likely to be valid. We should not be encouraging people to be closed-minded and not open to doubt, not open to changing their views in light of invalidating data. Having doubts should not be associated with an imperfection in yourself, as if you are closer to perfection by never doubting yourself. That is an unhealthy approach to living life, both for the individual and especially when a whole population of people takes such a stance. I hope you are willing to doubt your views and to then instead see this as a very healthy approach, not something that you should be avoiding.

Brian

Brian: You are making my point. If I was perfect, I would not have doubts. Imperfections are what makes us human. But as we are not Vulcan logic and evidence are not our sole means of determining personal truth; we are also creatures of intuition and feelings. I am not in the least afraid to examine my beliefs when doubt occurs. And as of this point, I still hold my belief in God even after considering other viewpoints because, to me, this is the position that still "feels right" even though you may not agree.

I do always welcome friends with differing viewpoints. Thanks!

Ruth

I am not sure what you want tested about my faith since it is a personal viewpoint. Let's turn this around; can you test your atheism? And how?

Ruth

Atheism doesn't need to be tested for. It's what you arrive at if you found none of the existing religions convincing.

Also, you can answer it youself. You're mostly atheist. There's about 6000 known gods. Your atheist about 5999. How did you arrive at the conclusion that they were false? All gods are supported by the same arguments. If your god is true while they are false based on the same evidence then something ain't right.

DrZoidberg: You can see the best answer I can give you about how I came to my conclusion in the conversation with Brian63 above. There is no argument that I can or will pose to justify my choice of faith to you, and I won't even try. It is strictly a matter of personal truth to me.

But I do have one quibble with what you and "none" are positing, if I am understanding you correctly. Are you saying that atheism is provable fact and not testable? Can you prove, without a doubt, that there is no God? I assure you that I can't prove there is one and that is why I don't argue about my faith. But I can tell you that I can't be an atheist since I do believe in a God and that contradicts the definition of atheism.

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

Hi Ruth,

Snowing like blazes outside. Just got home. I'm sure to have some questions when I can read through the thread. Four pages in 12 hours?! Impressive! Give a man an audience...

After a read through I'll tell you I am a scientific naturalist, which for me means stars and planets don't stand still and then start moving again. Too Velikovskian.

The Sun does "stand still," however, for three days at the winter solstice after which it begins it's return journey. Of course it keeps moving the whole time and the ancients didn't know we were on a planet, tilted, spinning, rotating around an ordinary star like billions of others, etc. So we can cut them some slack for doing their best.

As to your Christian lean, I do the same thing, just leave religion and gods and demigods and impossible stories about visiting spacemen out of it. To me a god is like the trillion dollars I have in my basement. Everything I possess down to the penny on my dresser came from my having that trillion dollars. It's all visible, tangible proof that it's there. So why not believe in my trillion dollars?

Hi joedad! You can keep your snow up there; I don't want it

I understand your feelings about Velikovsky as I had some of the same immediate instincts reading his theories. But there is still the fact that this event was noted in multiple cultures, so there has to be something there.

As for your trillion dollars, who am I to argue with you? If you want to believe you have it then just go right ahead. But the results/effect you are offering is not proof that you have a trillion dollars; only the physical existence of the currency/coinage/bits in a bank's computer are proof of its reality. And I am assuming that you cannot offer that proof any more than I can offer proof that God exists. So each of us must be content with our own beliefs without physical proof of existence.

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

i really hate talking to people who agree with me its just boring to me

I'm the exact opposite. I prefer talking to people who agree with me because it helps validate my predefined positions within a self-reinforcing bubble. It also allows me to avoid intellectual strain, which can generate heat in the neurons and destroy brain cells.

So THAT is what happened to all those perpetual fussers and fighters!

I love your sense of irony. It is a rare thing to see it done well.

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

Personally, I don't care for the word 'proof' in studying history, I much prefer my friends: possible; plausible; & probable. But I get your thinking.

There are apparent contradictions in the gospel narratives but we don't know if they are simply due to human error or a rewriting of the gospel to make it fit someone's preconceptions. But none of these conflicts is sufficient to cause me doubt about my faith. The scriptures were written by men, and this is one of the things where I part company with the Southern Baptists; I don't think that these men's writings were simply "narrated" to them by God. They were men writing about things happening around them and they imparted these occurrences as best they could given their knowledge.

Ruth

Yep, the whole God-breathed Bible thingy. You sound a lot like a UMC or ELCA theological type if I may say... Anywho, thanks again.

You are welcome. But the "God-breathed" part is not really accurate for me; I totally disagree with it due to the whole inerrancy stance based on it.

Yep, I was trying to note that atypical aspect of the SBC people, not you.

And yes, the ELCA comes very close to my beliefs - but there is that "top down leadership" thing that I don't much like.

Don't know if you have spent any time in an ELCA church, but their top-down is pretty modest. Each church even has full control of who their preachers are.

Oops - thought you were referring to me with the "God-breathed" comment. Sorry for misunderstanding.

I haven't spent a lot of time in an ELCA church, but I do know our local Lutheran church (Missouri Synod) is die-hard 5 point Calvinistic and that is something I don't agree with and will never completely understand why they think it is so important. And they also require prospective members to take a new members class and agree with their church covenant - which includes the aforesaid 5 points. Not going to happen with me as I don't subscribe to creedalism - which is a big reason I am a Baptist. Soul competency, you know... probably the biggest Baptist distinctive there is.

Ruth

 

[funinspace]

Oops - thought you were referring to me with the "God-breathed" comment. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Uhh...no problemo, as I wasn't exactly specific.

I haven't spent a lot of time in an ELCA church, but I do know our local Lutheran church (Missouri Synod) is die-hard 5 point Calvinistic and that is something I don't agree with and will never completely understand why they think it is so important. And they also require prospective members to take a new members class and agree with their church covenant - which includes the aforesaid 5 points. Not going to happen with me as I don't subscribe to creedalism - which is a big reason I am a Baptist. Soul competency, you know... probably the biggest Baptist distinctive there is.

Yeah, the Missouri Synod is as close as to ISIS as it is to the ELCA (slight exaggeration ). Yeah, the Missouri Synod is hard core. The ELCA is still quite liturgical, but they aren't into forcing people to ascribe to creeds. From my past experience, I'd say they are much like UMC people who have no creeds, but aren't afraid of being spiritual. But like you said, small town, small choices....

 

[another1]

That's one road to happiness. Lower your standards. If you think this is perfect you're a sad sad man. We live in a world where almost everything will kill us in an instant. We have a tiny sliver of land where our chances are better. Still not good.

Can you put the tiny "sliver of land" into a numbers machine, ask it how likely even that is, and please get back to me with the percentages?

Ask me, I say it is totally impossible for what I suppose is ultimately "the math", without something more superior than ourselves at work. People who don't get that are either genetically to blame, or they are just sad, living contradictions. The most conflicted appear as the most certain in many, many cases. Especially when explaining to themselves why they wake to an impossibility everyday. How does one explain away each impossible day? It must get frustrating, Jesus Christ I can only imagine that burden. Not good man.

 

[Syed]

i really hate talking to people who agree with me its just boring to me

I'm the exact opposite. I prefer talking to people who agree with me because it helps validate my predefined positions within a self-reinforcing bubble. It also allows me to avoid intellectual strain, which can generate heat in the neurons and destroy brain cells.

dont worry you are in right place tom

 

[DrZoidberg]

DrZoidberg: You can see the best answer I can give you about how I came to my conclusion in the conversation with Brian63 above. There is no argument that I can or will pose to justify my choice of faith to you, and I won't even try. It is strictly a matter of personal truth to me.

Ok. Great. Then it is a false belief. If you can't explain it then it's just down to vague feelings. Well, human perceptions are fallible. If all you've got are feelings then you've got nothing but wishful thinking. Your faith can be dismissed. I love it when things are simple.

But I do have one quibble with what you and "none" are positing, if I am understanding you correctly. Are you saying that atheism is provable fact and not testable?

Sure it is. If no theist religion is testable then atheism is by default true and proven.

Can you prove, without a doubt, that there is no God?

God is a vague concept. You can't prove the lack of existence of vague concept. The pantheist God exists without a doubt. I can prove it. Still not saying much, and still doesn't disprove atheism. And if God is a metaphor, well metaphors exist. So that proves the existence of God.

How about starting with defining God? I can help you out. All religions keep it vague. That's a clue. Maybe that's a feature? Why do you think all religions seem to care so little if God really exists or not?

I assure you that I can't prove there is one and that is why I don't argue about my faith. But I can tell you that I can't be an atheist since I do believe in a God and that contradicts the definition of atheism.

If you don't think you can prove the existence of God then you're an atheist. That's what the word means. The rest is just down to you looking up the long words.

I can give you definitions of God that I can prove exists. I don't think you've thought this through enough.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm the exact opposite. I prefer talking to people who agree with me because it helps validate my predefined positions within a self-reinforcing bubble. It also allows me to avoid intellectual strain, which can generate heat in the neurons and destroy brain cells.

dont worry you are in right place tom

Don't worry, you are in right place, Tom.

 

[DrZoidberg]

dont worry you are in right place tom

Don't worry, you are in right place, Tom.

Blocking Syed is the best thing for my blood pressure I ever did

 

[Tom Sawyer]

nm.

 

[sdelsolray]

Can you put the tiny "sliver of land" into a numbers machine, ask it how likely even that is, and please get back to me with the percentages?
...

The probability is 1. It already exists.

 

[ronburgundy]

So how do you prove Christianity is logical and the correct way? I can't – and have no intention of trying.

So why are you REALLY here? Simple. I like reading conversations between intelligent well informed people, and there are a lot of them here.

So, these two statements are curious together. I the attitude in your second statement. However, the reason I like reading intelligent discussions is because I have respect for rational thought and evidence as the most valid way by which any idea can be evaluated. So, I want to hear the most informed and rational arguments, so i can inform and change my own beliefs to be more accurate. The #1 sign that one's beliefs are wrong is that you have no rational argument that can support them, so much so that you don't even attempt to do so. Thus, I would change any belief that I cannot provide something that at least seems to me to be a sound rational argument. Yet, you admitted in the your first statement above that you cannot even bother to muster a rational argument for your most core beliefs.

 

[Ruth Harris]

So how do you prove Christianity is logical and the correct way? I can't – and have no intention of trying.

So why are you REALLY here? Simple. I like reading conversations between intelligent well informed people, and there are a lot of them here.

So, these two statements are curious together. I the attitude in your second statement. However, the reason I like reading intelligent discussions is because I have respect for rational thought and evidence as the most valid way by which any idea can be evaluated. So, I want to hear the most informed and rational arguments, so i can inform and change my own beliefs to be more accurate. The #1 sign that one's beliefs are wrong is that you have no rational argument that can support them, so much so that you don't even attempt to do so. Thus, I would change any belief that I cannot provide something that at least seems to me to be a sound rational argument. Yet, you admitted in the your first statement above that you cannot even bother to muster a rational argument for your most core beliefs.

And you find my reasons for not trying to argue my position logically in the paragraph following your first quote from my post. Let's be honest here - I have never known an atheist who had their core belief changed here on this board by any attempt at a rational step by step argument for the validity of a believer's faith. All I am doing with my post is attempting to explain why as a Christian I find this an interesting place to read intelligent discussions on wide ranging subject matter.

And truthfully, don't you all get tired of someone who insists that their "logical proof" of God is all that should be needed when in actuality the overwhelming majority of those posters are seriously lacking any training in apologetics or semantics? I have no training in either one and therefore I refuse to subject others to my lack of knowledge in these areas.

Ruth

 

[funinspace]

And truthfully, don't you all get tired of someone who insists that their "logical proof" of God is all that should be needed when in actuality the overwhelming majority of those posters are seriously lacking any training in apologetics or semantics? I have no training in either one and therefore I refuse to subject others to my lack of knowledge in these areas.

Yeah, you wouldn't want it Said that you were Lumped in with such others

 

[Shadowy Man]

I am not sure what you want tested about my faith since it is a personal viewpoint. Let's turn this around; can you test your atheism? And how?

Ruth

My atheism is constantly tested, as it is difficult to go even a day without being exposed to some reference to gods and/or other supernatural forces.