Is Anybody On Here A Hardcore Christian?

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

I might write a book about it and call it the 'elbib' that way i can just refer to it whenever anyone calls me up on my hypocritical, contradicting and unreasonable points.

You wouldn't have to refer to it because people wouldn't be able to call you out on many points because it would actually be based on fact, reality and sense rather than a load of bollocks!!

Evolution happens over millions (and billions!) of years - a timescale that may be difficult to comprehend if your blatantly wrong belief is that the earth is 6000 years old.

I guess that leads to one of the many things that actually makes me angry about Christianity- their total ignorance in the face of fact and evidence. To me it is a sign of a form of stupidity and complete lack of reasoning. There, I've said it .

[Krisboats]

You wouldn't have to refer to it because people wouldn't be able to call you out on many points because it would actually be based on fact, reality and sense rather than a load of bollocks!!

Ah, how very right you are. I guess i'll still do it anyway though to reinforce how acceptable it should be to just believe it and it always helps to self contradict by having to re-iterate something that i self confess to not needing re-iteration.

[ilikeriding]

Again, you keep going into the old testiment. Look to the new testiment and God not smiting people. Ive read your replies fully, you need to do the same for mine. Ive not been vague, but I dont think anyone -as stated in previous replies- can answer all your questions. Even if they did you still would have issues with it. Lets just agree to disagree as theres no point dragging it out if youre just out to get christians which it seems youre doing. I dont mind, I sleep just fine at night -when Im not packing for Aus all night long!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH They're both the word of god right!? You have been very vague when I asked how 'evil' can exist in the word if god is all powerful you went on about luck and how people shouldnt sulk and all that stuff. I would not have issues with it if you provided reasonable evidence that was stronger than evidence for science.

I'm hardly out to get christians... i havent said anything personal or insulting all ive done is question the fundamental aspects of your faith in the hope that you may see how flawed they are.

Edited June 6, 2009 by ilikeriding

[manuel]

If you dont believe the human race is evolving then you are a bit of a tool...

there have been countless statements laid down here by the TF HC Christian that are just blatently wrong, they go against pretty much everything that is actually known just to believe in the completely impossibly unknown ...

Sounds a bit desperate to me.

[Bol Maaaaaaing]

How come the people that dont believe in Christ just respect what the people that do believe, believe?

I respect what all you non-Christians believe and think you have a lot of faith in thinking that you jsut die at the end of your life.

Why cant you just have respect back?

Instead of constantly picking away at the believers?

Why do you have such a hard time comprehending the faith and love that Christians have toward God and Jesus and The Holy Spirit?

Whats so hard about it?

[Tom_]

Yeah to be honest I think everyone is being a little harsh. I do not belive, and ultimatly think religion is a cop, however I realise people belive, and it gives them direction in life etc. fair enough, if thats what you choose to belive, and you dont preach it to me, and just respect I dont belive, it doesnt bother me

[manuel]

Why do you have such a hard time comprehending the faith and love that Christians have toward God and Jesus and The Holy Spirit?

Whats so hard about it?

Whats so hard is that all the actual facts point towards it all being bull. I have no problem speculating there could be a god. But what is being said here is just plain rediculous.

If I wrote a book that said that my dog was a god amongst men with lots of stories of heroic miracles in it - would you A. believe it because I said it really happened, or B. think I was a loon.

[Al_Fel]

How come the people that dont believe in Christ just respect what the people that do believe, believe?

I respect what all you non-Christians believe and think you have a lot of faith in thinking that you jsut die at the end of your life.

Why cant you just have respect back?

Instead of constantly picking away at the believers?

Why do you have such a hard time comprehending the faith and love that Christians have toward God and Jesus and The Holy Spirit?

Whats so hard about it?

Answer me this. If you have a wife who you love very much but she's a bad person and goes to hell but you are good and go to heaven. The surely your idea of heaven would be being with your wife forever in heaven. So that means you'd be in heaven with no wife and she'd be in hell and you'd know it. Explain that one.

Another problem I have is if you go around killing people at will and being a total b*****d as long as you ask for forgiveness you can still go to heaven. So all these people that you killed and went to heaven would have to spend forever with you.

There's also the old god told me to do it excuse. I don't understand why god who is all powerful would have to tell you to do something. Its like small children will get murdered or something and someone say something stupid like that kid could have grown up to be the next Hitler what a load of f**king shite.

There is a being that created everything and you are stood on it right now. A living organism is pretty much just a connection of processes working together. Weather this planet has a consciousness or not is a pretty big statement but I'm pretty sure stranger things have happened.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Al_Fel

[beigemaster]

Evolution?

Now, if you have read my previous posts you'll have seen that I'm personaly a sitting on the fence, agnostic, bordering on athiest. With a liking for Darwinism. But I'm open to ideas.

But the views on here posted by some regarding evolution, whilst valid in many ways, don't you realise, through your conviction in the big bang theory, planetary and resultant Human evolution, you have become more devout, opinionated and bigoted than any Christian's viewpoint on this TF topic yet?

That maybe, you are forming a belief system for yourselves, a 'religion', admittedly based on scientific fact, rather than Hope.

That is, by a long long way, the best/strongest point from this entire thread.

Once my exams are over, I will go through this whole thread and attempt to write something coherent based on a lot of the arguments that have been brought up.

All I will say for now is, the levels of absolute blind ignorance (on both sides) is actually making me angry. I study Philosophy and am also a Christian so consider myself a Christian philosopher, some people will see that as an oxymoron (I know Bertrand Russell would) but it means that in all things (including my faith) I want to put objectivity and truth as the be all and end all.

I will talk about this in more detail at a later date, but for anyone who thinks Science entails any kind of concrete proof you are very mistaken (so please stop saying "we have proofed evolution to be true). If you want to know why this is the case, read Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. In short, anything you believe from scientific understanding can NEVER be proven to be true. Furthermore, even if you try and say that some claims are more probable, even this is fails as you entail begging the question and circular reason. In short, you try and use an invalid form of argument to prove your invalid argument is more probable.

One thing I should say (before I get slated) 1) I do beleive in evolution based on the current evidence and hypothesis 2) I don't think it's prooven to be true.

For now, will people on both sides (although anti Christians more) try and be bit more open minded and less dogmatic with certain accusations without even giving any form of reason to back up your case.

Edited June 6, 2009 by beigemaster

[1a2bcio8]

beigemaster, a slightly late reply but one none the less:

My system of thought/experience is not pantheistic although this isn't an entirely distant aproximation. Rather than God being in all 'things', God is the perception/realisation of existence prior to things, revealing a fundamental nature. This nature shows dualism, thought of/experienced as a fundamental nature, to be a delusion. Although that's not to say that a dualistic perception doesn't carry with it some truth, only we typically allow it to engulf our perception, experiencing all in dualistic terms. Transcension of dualism means immortality because the life/death dichotomy is realised to be a false one. No 'thing' was ever born, so no 'thing' ever dies, rather existence of which the false things all are, just continues as a shifting process. Unfrotunately, and to take from Erich Fromm whom I was reading today, people have turned the realisation/perception of God into an idol, projecting the qualities that are applicable to themselves into other things such as "God" and "Heaven".

I would say with science, that despite it posessing many factors which deam it uncertain (induction only goes so far and models can only generalise - "universe non-simulataneously aprehended" to quote Bucky Fuller) there is a more important point to raise. This is that the two systems (religion and science) actually exist in different realms; each can only properly say so much about our situation. When religion becomes cosmological (not that it actually needs to) it is talking about things which are open to scientific enquiry and as a (I think) sounder method to this kind of knowledge, should listen to science. When somebody talks of a religious experience of some sort, science should probably stay quiet because its tools and methods are not applicable to such statements or experiences (at least not presently). Ironically (and already mentioned above), scientists often end up unconsciously adopting religious traits when often, but not always, in opposition to religion. They trash the attitudes of religious people whilst being the same with their system. Dogmatism, blind faith, idolatry, even supersitition all arise in science or with the practitioners of. At that point science becomes less like science, moving into an arena it probably shouldn't do; in terms of its actual worth to the human condition. I would refer people to the philosopher, Mary Midgley regarding this topic, if interested.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[Revolver]

In for second copy.

[F-Stop Junkie]

Youtube Video -> Original Video

[1a2bcio8]

Youtube Video -> Original Video

Hmmm, I agree that those three religions allow for certain 'subscribers' to act out in undesirable ways 'under' the names of those religions but surmizing the religions as through and through, this or that on the basis of what's probably a minority seems to me a bit unfair. Similar in the way that if I have several negative experiences with black people, it's unfair to talk of all black people completely on the basis of those few experiences. Also, to blame those religions for the world's ills is definitely unfair. No doubt they play a role but the rest of us, with our selfish philosophies that ignore the plights of others (and, ironically, in a sense ourselves) and the rest of nature are equally as bad in similar or other respects. Atheists and Agnostics need to take a long hard look at themselves and their contributions to the current problems we face.

That doesn't stop it being funny in places. I recognise that chap's voice from Radio 4 right Chris?

Edited June 6, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[F-Stop Junkie]

Yep, Marcus Bridgstocke, one of the stars of Radio 4's The Now Show, but has a brilliant DVD out called Planet Corduroy.

[Tomm]

stars of Radio 4's The Now Show

I hate the now show with a passion. Not just because it's usually very unfunny and way too try-hard, but because it displaces the best thing on radio 4 (The NewsQuiz) from the schedule.

Although I am enjoying the concept of discussing radio 4 shows on TF

[Haz]

Just a Minute > *.radio4

[F-Stop Junkie]

I hate the now show with a passion. Not just because it's usually very unfunny and way too try-hard, but because it displaces the best thing on radio 4 (The NewsQuiz) from the schedule.

Although I am enjoying the concept of discussing radio 4 shows on TF

~sharpens ban-hammer~

The best thing on Radio 4 is I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue (RIP Humph) though The News Quiz is great. I love The Now Show too though, and it's nice to alternate between the two. I went to see Just a Minute being recorded in Loughborough many years ago, and it's a great night out. The sheer enthusiasm of the crowd is great, and I was rolling with laughter.

Anyway, isn't the shipping forecast the best thing? I'm fairly sure it's made up like Mornington Crescent as a joke by the fishing community on the rest of us...

[Tomm]

Uh, no, the shipping forecast is definitely real. My Dad actually listens intently and gets angry if anyone interrupts him

[1a2bcio8]

Uh, no, the shipping forecast is definitely real. My Dad actually listens intently and gets angry if anyone interrupts him

Maybe he's in on the joke.

[beigemaster]

Also, to blame those religions for the world's ills is definitely unfair. No doubt they play a role but the rest of us, with our selfish philosophies that ignore the plights of others (and, ironically, in a sense ourselves) and the rest of nature are equally as bad in similar or other respects. Atheists and Agnostics need to take a long hard look at themselves and their contributions to the current problems we face.

Ah yes but it's SO much easier to blame it all on religion and to live in the ignorance that a completely secular society would be 100% free from any from of evil and intolerance.

Edited June 6, 2009 by beigemaster

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Ah yes but it's SO much easier to blame it all on religion and to live in the ignorance that a completely secular society would be 100% free from any from of evil and intolerance.

Who said that was the assumption? Humans will always find a reason to fight each other for one reason or another, however religion together with it's ethnic cleansing policies of old and aggressive conversion policy of days gone by has a lot to answer for. Religion is used as an excuse for violence and war in so many circumstances, if only 1% of those were removed by removing the religion excuse, surely that would be a good thing?

Why do you have such a hard time comprehending the faith and love that Christians have toward God and Jesus and The Holy Spirit?

Whats so hard about it?

I'm with Rowan- it's not that you believe I have a problem with, it's the total ignorance and blind stupidity faith which you show that just frustrates me.

The difficulty comes in that you have a love towards an imaginary make believe being. It's kind of like having an imaginary friend when you're young, but a whole lot more worrying because, in theory at least, you are an intelligent decision making person who maybe should've grown out of such things.

Going back to the Santa analogy, if you were 21 and still 100% believed in the existence of him and were quite open to discuss your beliefs with everyone, you'd get some funny looks for one but also possibly get carted off to a secure psychiatric unit for tests on your sanity. What's different with your blindly believing unquestioningly some just as unbelievable and unlikely story written in the bible?

[1a2bcio8]

Who said that was the assumption? Humans will always find a reason to fight each other for one reason or another, however religion together with it's ethnic cleansing policies of old and aggressive conversion policy of days gone by has a lot to answer for. Religion is used as an excuse for violence and war in so many circumstances, if only 1% of those were removed by removing the religion excuse, surely that would be a good thing?

I'm with Rowan- it's not that you believe I have a problem with, it's the total ignorance and blind stupidity faith which you show that just frustrates me.

The difficulty comes in that you have a love towards an imaginary make believe being. It's kind of like having an imaginary friend when you're young, but a whole lot more worrying because, in theory at least, you are an intelligent decision making person who maybe should've grown out of such things.

Going back to the Santa analogy, if you were 21 and still 100% believed in the existence of him and were quite open to discuss your beliefs with everyone, you'd get some funny looks for one but also possibly get carted off to a secure psychiatric unit for tests on your sanity. What's different with your blindly believing unquestioningly some just as unbelievable and unlikely story written in the bible?

The assumption was in reference to the comedy piece that Chris posted up. It said that religion should give the rest of us our world back because religion was ruining it.

I think you should you consider the approach you have with your own stance. I would say there is definitely a type of blind faith that you display regarding this conception of God being wrong. Although experience and reason for me dictates the unlikelihood of God meaning a bearded chap, I try to recognise how limited I am, in the sense of reason and experience, and that despite how convincing or unconvincing something is to me that doesn't mean I can't get it completely wrong. You seem fairly certain that there is no God. You can't prove this though and so your statements ultimately rest on a 'similar' faith to the individual who is certain of his existence. Atheism in its certainty = just another faith (of this ilk).

Edited June 6, 2009 by Ben Rowlands

[middleageman]

I've been pondering evolutionary theories and can except geological discoveries form a timeline of physical evidence, through skeletal structure and such. But then I started wondering

about the point where Life on Earth began. I found this interesting;

The basic timeline is a 4.5 billion year old Earth, with (very approximate) dates:

3.8 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),

3 billion years of photosynthesis,

2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),

1 billion years of multicellular life,

600 million years of simple animals,

570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),

550 million years of complex animals,

500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,

475 million years of land plants,

400 million years of insects and seeds,

360 million years of amphibians,

300 million years of reptiles,

200 million years of mammals,

150 million years of birds,

130 million years of flowers,

65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,

2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,

200,000 years since humans started looking like they do today,

25,000 years since Neanderthals died out.

Of course, some of this is scientific fact and most is simply conjecture. I really don't understand how people on here can stamp their feet, dig their heels in and claim that evolution has been proven. Science is constantly being disproved by itself. Surely then, scientific 'fact', doesn't and will not ever exist, because it will always be bound by our present knowledge, understanding and the limitations of our intelligence?

To futher back my viewpoint, you may find this interesting;

"A new and controversial theory on the origin of life on Earth is causing a stir among scientists.

And one of the implications is that life could be more likely on planets where it was previously thought unlikely to flourish.

The theory claims that living systems originated in so-called "inorganic incubators" - small compartments in iron sulphide rocks.

Proposed by Professor William Martin, of Düsseldorf University, and Professor Michael Russell, of the Scottish Environmental Research Centre in Glasgow, it stands conventional ideas on their head.

Instead of the building blocks of life forming first, and then forming a cell-like structure, the researchers say the cell came first and was later filled with living molecules.

In total darkness

Since the 1930s, the most accepted theory for the origins of cells and therefore of life, claims that chemical reactions in the Earth's most ancient atmosphere produced the building blocks of life which led to the first cells.

In explaining their new theory Professors Martin and Michael Russell outline their problems with the existing hypotheses of cell evolution.

Rather than the building blocks of life originating first and then forming themselves into cells they believe that cells came first.

They say that the first cells were not living cells but inorganic ones made of iron sulphide and were formed not at the Earth's surface but in total darkness at the bottom of the oceans.

Life, they add, is a chemical consequence of convection currents through the Earth's crust and, in principle, this could happen on any wet, rocky planet.

Solar system

Dr Russell says: "As hydrothermal fluid - rich in compounds such as hydrogen, cyanide, sulphides and carbon monoxide - emerged from the Earth's crust at the ocean floor, it reacted inside the tiny metal sulphide cavities.

"They provided the right microenvironment for chemical reactions to take place. That kept the building blocks of life concentrated at the site where they were formed rather than diffusing away into the ocean. The iron sulphide cells, we argue, is where life began."

One of the implications of this idea is that life on other planets or some large moons in our own solar system, like ice-crusted Europa - a moon of Jupiter - might be much more likely than previously assumed."

Maybe, until we can actually create Life from 'nothing', then surely all bets are still on?

MAM.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

You seem fairly certain that there is no God. You can't prove this though and so your statements rest on a similar faith to the individual who is certain of his existence. Atheism in its certainty = just another faith (of this ilk).

I understand where you're coming from and I apologise for not being nearly as good as you at expressing myself, Ben- you're the master! However, let me just say that I cannot say if there is or is not a god; the 'first cause' or whatever you want to call it. There really is no way of knowing (at the moment at least) just what caused the Big Bang and there will always be unanswered questions. However what I do know, in effectively certain terms in my own mind, is that the Christian beliefs in God, Jesus and the bible are a human created attempt at answering some of the questions which were unanswered at the time. To actually believe what is said in the book today is unbearable to me- they do not consider the existence of god as the 'first cause' but that he made the earth (in 6 days or so), made man, threw in a talking snake, we all sinned, he murdered the world (at least once), murdered children, men and women, sent his son to earth, had him killed (for our sins no less) aaaanddd... hasn't been heard of since. Those are the main points from what I've gathered but even that's enough for me to realise that Christianity, in the form of the bible, is nothing but a 1500 year old kids story to scare them into behaving themselves lest they feel the wrath of god.

The iron sulphide cells, we argue, is where life began.

Soooo, God is an iron sulphide cell? All hail the lord, and he shall henceforth be known as the almighty FeS.

[Hannah Shucksmith]

I told you today, Mr. Marshall, JESUS WAS REAL.