Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 104

Thread: When's the last time you heard something new from the Christians?

  1. Top | #31
    Veteran Member Sarpedon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    MN, US
    Posts
    2,847
    Archived
    8,446
    Total Posts
    11,293
    Rep Power
    65
    I've seen a few new things on here recently.

    Excreationist drew our attention to a "new" chronology for Noah's flood. Unfortunately, there's nothing new about christians changing the timeline based on no evidence.

    Christian booksellers banned books that described alleged near death experiences including visits to heaven after a major case of fraud where a father fraudulently spun his terribly injured 6 year old's imaginative, drug addled ramblings into a major cash cow (for himself, leaving his wife, still terribly disabled son and three other children penniless). This is what passes for Christian theology today. In absence of any recognized authority, book publishers decide what gets disseminated or not. But at least that annoying theological fad is over.

    The issue of excreationist's "new" flood chronology illuminates the disagreement we are having with Politesse: a disagreement about what constitutes "new" and "different." To me, there's nothing new about christians revising their flood chronology based on current events and present concerns. I've seen them do this so many times. To me, it is "different" but not "new." No new evidence was unearthed, merely the length of the assumed generations was changed (no justification, other than it worked better with regard to their end goal). But to Excreationist, this was a "new" thing that seemed to solve many problems, and the "new" interpretation of the length of generations was interesting and well grounded (note: it is neither). Our problem with Politesse seems to be similar.

  2. Top | #32
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    1,939
    Rep Power
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarpedon View Post
    I've seen a few new things on here recently.

    Excreationist drew our attention to a "new" chronology for Noah's flood. Unfortunately, there's nothing new about christians changing the timeline based on no evidence.

    Christian booksellers banned books that described alleged near death experiences including visits to heaven after a major case of fraud where a father fraudulently spun his terribly injured 6 year old's imaginative, drug addled ramblings into a major cash cow (for himself, leaving his wife, still terribly disabled son and three other children penniless). This is what passes for Christian theology today. In absence of any recognized authority, book publishers decide what gets disseminated or not. But at least that annoying theological fad is over.

    The issue of excreationist's "new" flood chronology illuminates the disagreement we are having with Politesse: a disagreement about what constitutes "new" and "different." To me, there's nothing new about christians revising their flood chronology based on current events and present concerns. I've seen them do this so many times. To me, it is "different" but not "new." No new evidence was unearthed, merely the length of the assumed generations was changed (no justification, other than it worked better with regard to their end goal). But to Excreationist, this was a "new" thing that seemed to solve many problems, and the "new" interpretation of the length of generations was interesting and well grounded (note: it is neither). Our problem with Politesse seems to be similar.
    I don't see the flood much differently from any other secular scholar. I suppose by the logic of this thread, I ought to be arguing with excreationist about this, but I don't really care a lot about the issue and I learned long ago that arguing with creationists is a bit like arguing with brick walls, except that in the case of actual brick walls, sledgehammers are actually pretty effective. I note that we did have a conversation on this forum about the Gilgamesh version of this mythic motif, not very long ago.

  3. Top | #33
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The North
    Posts
    8,897
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    18,411
    Rep Power
    44
    Without actually derailing the thread or causing further conversation, to Politesse, what are your beliefs and how do your arguments differ from others?

    I've been curious how an academic who's presumably schooled in the scientific method chooses faith.

  4. Top | #34
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    1,939
    Rep Power
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    Without actually derailing the thread or causing further conversation, to Politesse, what are your beliefs and how do your arguments differ from others?

    I've been curious how an academic who's presumably schooled in the scientific method chooses faith.
    Now that does seem like a derail. So perhaps I really should just start a thread.

  5. Top | #35
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The North
    Posts
    8,897
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    18,411
    Rep Power
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    Without actually derailing the thread or causing further conversation, to Politesse, what are your beliefs and how do your arguments differ from others?

    I've been curious how an academic who's presumably schooled in the scientific method chooses faith.
    Now that does seem like a derail. So perhaps I really should just start a thread.
    Well it's not a derail if you answer, and then I say 'thanks for the answer', and then we carry on with the thread.

    I'm not being disingenuous, I've actually been curious about this for a while. But if you don't want to answer publicly, feel free to PM, or just don't answer at all.

  6. Top | #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    665
    Archived
    1,250
    Total Posts
    1,915
    Rep Power
    0
    It is extremely hard for the Christian to show the Atheist proof that God does exist.
    Likewise, it is extremely hard for the Atheist to show the Christian proof that God does not exist.

    There really is nothing I can point to that says, "This proves God is real."
    There really is nothing atheists can point to that says, "This proves God is not real."

    All of the things atheists like to use as reasons for not believing: evolution, big bang, abiogenesis, do not in any way show that God does not exist. The atheist has no clue if God is needed for the processes or not. They say "none of these processes show that God exists," but how do those processes show that God does not exist? You're assuming the processes run by themselves.

    Then there's the laws of physics. No scientist has ever explained how the laws came into being, just that there are laws. The question of, "How, if there is no mind involved with the laws, does water freeze at 32 degrees fahrenheit instead of some other degree?" and questions like this, are unanswerable in a materialistic universe. All they can say is "that's just when it freezes" with no explanation. Mindless laws? No way.

    Another point is how there are no glitches in the universe. For example, sometimes people's computers freeze and they restart it and it works again. The universe doesn't work this way. It goes on without a hitch. No way mindless laws can be better at making a perfect system than a human mind actually focused on making that perfect system.

  7. Top | #37
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן ǝɥʇ
    Posts
    8,460
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,366
    Rep Power
    69
    A lack of conviction in the existence of a God or gods (atheism) is based on the absence of evidence to justify a conviction in the existence of a God or gods.....those who are convinced in the existence of a God regardless, hold their belief on the basis of faith, which requires no evidence in order to believe.

  8. Top | #38
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    14,999
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    39,499
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    All of the things atheists like to use as reasons for not believing: evolution, big bang, abiogenesis, do not in any way show that God does not exist.
    How many times have you seen an atheist say that the Big Bang is proof God does not exist?
    The atheist has no clue if God is needed for the processes or not. They say "none of these processes show that God exists," but how do those processes show that God does not exist?
    So, wait, do they or do they not say "This is proof God does not exist"? Seems like you're stepping on your dick, here.
    You're assuming the processes run by themselves.
    Ah, so scientists (=! Atheist) might say "we can explain ____ without having to invoke a god" but that is not "Evolution proves God does not exist." You're tilting at windmills again.
    Then there's the laws of physics. No scientist has ever explained how the laws came into being, just that there are laws. The question of, "How, if there is no mind involved with the laws, does water freeze at 32 degrees fahrenheit instead of some other degree?" and questions like this, are unanswerable in a materialistic universe.
    Maybe they're just fucking stupid questions.
    I mean, it may be an observed fact, but is there a reason to pose your question except to try to create a gap expressly for your god?
    All they can say is "that's just when it freezes" with no explanation. Mindless laws? No way.
    your incredulity is not terribly compelling as a reason to believe in a being with universe-creating power who gets upset if the apes on one planet masturbate
    Another point is how there are no glitches in the universe.For example, sometimes people's computers freeze and they restart it and it works again. The universe doesn't work this way. It goes on without a hitch. No way mindless laws can be better at making a perfect system than a human mind actually focused on making that perfect system.
    Okay, so you're saying that DESIGNED things glitch and fail, and The Universe is COMPLETELY UNLIKE a designy thingy? This us your (snicker) evidence for your god?

  9. Top | #39
    Veteran Member Sarpedon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    MN, US
    Posts
    2,847
    Archived
    8,446
    Total Posts
    11,293
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse
    I don't see the flood much differently from any other secular scholar. I suppose by the logic of this thread, I ought to be arguing with excreationist about this, but I don't really care a lot about the issue and I learned long ago that arguing with creationists is a bit like arguing with brick walls, except that in the case of actual brick walls, sledgehammers are actually pretty effective. I note that we did have a conversation on this forum about the Gilgamesh version of this mythic motif, not very long ago.
    I was using it as an illustrative example not an implication that this is what all christians believe. It was an example of the SORT of "new" christian idea that commonly comes up: merely a retread of an old one, tailored for the contemporary audience, and with no new evidence to support it. We have noticed that creationists do this constantly. While I certainly think your ideas are more respectable, I don't see them as being fundamentally different: they remain a retread of old ideas, with some of the more objectionable ones discarded, to tailor it to the contemporary audience. Perhaps if a christian were to rigorously reexamine christian theology and scripture on the basis of previous mythology, and seriously discuss the implications of that, that would be an interesting and 'new' approach. Comparing Noah's flood to Gilgamesh's is a good start, but do you explore the implications of that? If one major story in the bible simply a borrowing of an untrue story from a neighboring culture, how do you know other stories aren't also? I suspect the reason christians don't do this rigorously is because they don't like where it would lead. It is much easier to dismiss the occasional story as a borrowing and think no more about it.

  10. Top | #40
    Super Moderator Atheos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Heart of the Bible Belt
    Posts
    2,191
    Archived
    5,807
    Total Posts
    7,998
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Another point is how there are no glitches in the universe. For example, sometimes people's computers freeze and they restart it and it works again. The universe doesn't work this way. It goes on without a hitch. No way mindless laws can be better at making a perfect system than a human mind actually focused on making that perfect system.
    I'm interested. Please give us an example of what a glitch in the universe would look like. This would help immensely in appreciating the fact that they don't happen.

    I had a Timex Sinclair computer. When it glitched and I had to restart it, it had no idea that it had once been running and had been restarted. It only "knew" how long it had been running. My question is, "How do we know that the universe wasn't rebooted, say, Last Thursday?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •