Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth

On 17 Jan 2006 19:41:09 -0800,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> AC wrote:
>> On 10 Jan 2006 19:52:57 -0800,
>> Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > AC wrote:
>> >> On 2 Jan 2006 13:37:14 -0800,
>> >> Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > shane wrote:
>> >> >> Jim Spaza wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>On 2005-11-15, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [...]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>It possible for one person's science to legitimately be more inclusive
>> >> >> >>>of subjects of strudy than another's?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>We don't call such people scientists anymore.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Not trying to be argumentative or anything, but...why do you guys alone
>> >> >> > get to determine for the rest of us what is officially science and who
>> >> >> > is officially a scientist?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In the same non-argumentative vein, why do christians alone get to
>> >> >> decide what christianity is, and who is, nominally, a christian. Why not
>> >> >> get input from the muslims and sihks etc.? If you can answer that
>> >> >> question honestly, then I think the answer to your question will become
>> >> >> clear.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Shane
>> >> >
>> >> > Christians don't get to decide what Christianity is. The Bible clearly
>> >> > says what a person needs to do in order to become a Christian, be
>> >> > saved, go to Heaven, and be made right with God. Christians don't get
>> >> > to interpret the Bible as they personally see fit, either, treating the
>> >> > Bible as a buffet line or salad bar.
>> >>
>> >> And yet there are Christians of different flavors that have some pretty darn
>> >> different views on what Christianity is.
>> >
>> > Some people, even some of those in this forum, have some very different
>> > views on what science and its appropriate practice is.
>>
>> Not from what I can see of those on the pro-science side.
>
> Well, look back at some replies to my posts. I've been told, by
> supposed scientists, that science both can and cannot handle the
> supernatural.

I would like to see the post where a scientist claims that science can deal
with the supernatural. I suspect that you simply misunderstood what was
being said.

> Personally, I think that it can. Just because something
> or someone didn't have a naturalistic cause doesn't mean that they
> don't show up on radar, cannot be recorded, or cannot be experienced by
> more than one person at a time.

A man is murdered. There is a large conical indent in his right temple.

I suggest that a baseball bat or other blunt instrument was used to kill the
man.

YOu suggest an evil spirit did it.

Which one of these assertions can be falsified, Jim?

>
>>
>> > Such views
>> > don't change proper and legitimate science, does it?
>>
>> I'd love you to give me two examples of what you claim here.
>>
>> > Same thing with
>> > Christianity. Reality is reality regardless of perception and belief.
>>
>> The Bible is simply not a clear document, which is precisely why there is
>> disagreement.
>
> I agree with you on that. There are many parts that boggle the mind.

And wasn't it you that said at some points you had to rely upon prayers and
dreams?

>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > If the Bible is hopeless inaccurate, then there really are no such
>> >> > things as Christians, God doesn't exist as the Bible says, and then
>> >> > everyone gets to determine the aspects of Christianity for themselves.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think one follows the other at all.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Aaron Clausen
>> >> mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > Well, if the God of the Bible is real and the Bible is an accurate
>> > depiction of Him and His will, then the definition of Christianity has
>> > been given by Him. How people choose to interpret this is irrelevant
>> > to what is really the true definition.
>>
>> The problem is the true definition, Jim. And you've already admitted that
>> some of your methods of finding the "true" definition involve things so
>> subjective and untestable that you are essentially requesting we take your
>> word for it.
>
> To some extent, yes.

Not to some extent, Jim. In some areas you have stated that prayers and
draems are used. Can you imagine a means by which I could test your claim
as opposed to your next door neighbor whose dream in fact finds a separate
interpretation of a scripture?

> It's more important that you not stand off at a
> distance and evaluate these definitions, but rather step in and
> experience (or try to) Christianity for yourself.

And yet I hear different Christians, who, by their own claims, have done
that.

Here's the problem, Jim. You really don't have an objective means of
demonstrating some of your beliefs, and simply have to lean on to a "if you
were a Christian you would understand".

>
>>
>> >
>> > If the Bible is pure myth, then human minds alone have conjured up the
>> > notion of Christianity. Such human-made Christian definitions are no
>> > more true for all humanity than one's ideas of what is great poetry,
>> > good music, and bad tasting food. It would be all relative to one's
>> > desires.
>>
>> It strikes me that even if the Bible is a complete load of hooey, that
>> different kinds of people may not actually follow their desires. I have a
>> hard time believing, for instance, that the most conservative of Puritans
>> were actually following their desires.
>>
>> --
>> Aaron Clausen
>> mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> You're very right about desires.

So your accusation is really just some handwaving designed to dispense with
interpretations you don't accept.

>
> Just because some Christians don't have sex outside of marriage, don't
> get drunk, and don't use bad language doesn't mean that they don't have
> some desire to do so. It's a little tempting to have sex outside of
> marriage when a pretty young thing in a miniskirt starts flirting with
> you. It's tempting to have one too many beers after a LONG week at the
> office. And it's VERY tempting to use bad language when some blonde
> driving a minivan and talking on her cell phone while putting on makeup
> cuts you off in traffic.
>
> These are the times that try men's souls. :-)

That really doesn't deal with my point, Jim. You accuse certain individuals
and groups who claim to be Christian of giving in to personal desires. An
Orthodox monk who lives a life of solitude could hardly be accused of giving
in to personal desires, and yet you seem to use that accusation as a
justification for rejecting his theology.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxxxx

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The savage athiest evil of uranium
    ... Lets say the carbon level was very high a million years ago. ... WAY to use carbon dating to figure out which was older, ... Western Civ is based on Christianity. ... the west is due to science, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 2 questions about Inteligent Design vs Evolution
    ... I would like to ask two questions related to Intelligent Design. ... valid, it couldn't jump to a conclusion (i.e., a creator). ... benevolent God as defined by Christianity. ... proven false by science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... them to walk away from the church. ... I don't think Christianity and science are compatible. ... deleting the passages that are inconsistent with the ToE--while ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... I don't think Christianity and science are compatible. ... kinds of other stuff that is inconsistent with the rest of science. ... that their God bless with rain and wells breaking forth. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... I don't think Christianity and science are compatible. ... deleting the passages that are inconsistent with the ToE--while ... Should the Jews stop celebrating Passover, if no evidence can be found ...
    (talk.origins)