I don't reject god. I reject HUMANS telling me about it.

Originally posted by googlefudge

[there is no such thing as 'new atheism' except in the minds of upset theists who don't like that people are starting to actually pay attention to the fact that there are atheists and that they have a voice and shouldn't be discriminated against.

I disagree that there is no "new atheist" kind of movement. The event of Sept. 9, 2009 was a watershed moment. There have always been atheists. But a real augmentation of militancy occurred when 9/11 happened. And new atheists decided that this was the right time to make a thrusts against all religions, all theism.

And I don't regurgitate other peoples 'propaganda'. These are my words and my thoughts. I don't claim to be the first to think much of/or any of this. But these are my thoughts and no-one else's.]

You miss-understand me.

Really ? You know you can be so sensitive about being misunderstood. But do you understand many Christians ? Maybe in the course of this little exchange I can demonstrate where you misunderstand me.

Looking at faith based belief vs scientific rationality as opposing modes of thought.

Here's the possible first misunderstanding. Faith based belief verses "rationality."

So absolutely no "rationale" thought was exercised by men in hearing the teaching of Jesus Christ, considering His life, His love, His death for us (as He at least believed) and the offer to be my Lord and Savior ? No "rationale" thought considered in my decision to receive Jesus as my Lord?

There is your first big misunderstanding. God says to come and reason together with Him concerning the problem of my sins.

"Come now and let us reason together, Says Jehovah. Though your sins are like scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are as red as crimson, they will be like wool." (Isaiah 1:18)

I had rationale about my real sins which resulted in real pain on others and incurred real guilt before God and real discomfort in my own conscience.

You assume no rationale consideration was had in contemplating Christ's offer to me to save me from this dark pit of the soul ? You misunderstand.

Faith based belief comes easier and more naturally than rational skeptical thinking.

Again you misunderstand. You think the matter of God is only there to explain phenomenon in nature. That is just stupid.

Do you think God has no other purpose to me but as an explanation of thunder, and lightening, and earthquakes ? You think that is all theism is useful for ? That's the propoganda you have been inundated with. And that is why you have such a "oh so superior" attitude that you have the scientific high ground over all theism.

The night I turned my heart over to the Son of God I was not considering the best science explanation of this or that phenomenon in nature. I was concerned with the phenomenon of how my sins were rotting away my young life making my conscience ill with regret. All the so called "freedom" and what it had led to.

It is stupid to think that God is only relevant to explanations of natural phenomenon. I hear people talking about "God of the gaps." I was more concerned with the gap of emptiness from not knowing who I was and why I found myself sinking deeper and deeper into alienation and self destruction.

As for what is easy or what is not easy ? If you're stuck in quicksand and drowning and someone throws you a rope to save your life, you take it. That is if struggling has only resulted in you sinking deeper.

So I was suppose to say "No thanks. That would be the easy way out, to be saved by someone. Give me one more day. Just give me one more day. Tomorrow I'll do better. "

Some kind of machismo egotism is going on in the person who thinks going it without God is the more manly thing to do. While you're enjoying your taking the more "difficult" road you're also stepping on a lot of people with your sinning.

I rather take the challenge of picking up my cross and following Jesus. I like "power steering" in my automobile and in my human life as well.

This doesn't mean that faith based believers lives are necessarily easier.

It doesn't matter how it appears. What matters to me is that "I can do all things through Christ that strengthens me."

In fact thinking and acting rationally and taking advantage of and understanding science and secular morality can make lives easier and safer and more fulfilling.

I thought rationally and acted so when I entrusted my life to the Son of God. I just include God in my reasoning process.

Perhaps for you thinking rationally means excluding God from your reasoning process. For me in the big questions of life including the possibility, Person, and power of God as a factor in my rational consideration is being more human.

There is a spiritual dimension to the whole human life. And for someone to suggest that I deny that is to ask me to have contempt for a part of my total humanity.

But in terms of modes of thought, faith based belief is easier than rationality.

Well, the most powerful personality that has ever walked the planet, I think, is Jesus of Nazareth. No, I don't think it was Einstien or Hawking or Carl Sagan. They are great minds which I learn from and respect. But I am more impressed with Jesus Christ.

And Jesus Christ talked quite a bit about faith. If it was good enough for Jesus Christ it must be good enough for me. I want to be a real man also.

No disrespect towards Edwin Hubble or Stephen Hawking. But I think normal manhood is more powerfully expressed in Jesus of Nazareth. That is concerning the real central questions of human life.

That is my rational choice. Easy or hard to your opinion, that's my rational choice. In the big questions of why I am here, Carl Sagan and his comets are cool, but Jesus Christ has the greater overview of the universe and human life.

I like science just as much as the next guy. What about Why? and truth . Jesus has His hands on too much truth.

Originally posted by sonship

[there is no such thing as 'new atheism' except in the minds of upset theists who don't like that people are starting to actually pay attention to the fact that there are atheists and that they have a voice and shouldn't be discriminated against.

I disagree that there is no "new atheist" kind of movement. The event of Sept. 9, 2009 was a ...[text shortened]... the next guy. What about [b]Why? and truth . Jesus has His hands on too much truth.[/b]

Come back to me when you want to discuss the arguments I actually make and
not the straw man flights of fancy that exist only in your head.


And no. There is no such thing as a rational faith based position.

You may have thought about your beliefs, and done so long and hard.

You did not do so rationally.

Rationality precludes faith based belief of any kind pretty much by definition.



All your post has done is demonstrate you have no clue what I am talking about.
I am not talking about understanding me as a person or my position, simply that
you are not understanding the collective meaning of the words I am saying.

Try reading what's actually there and not adding in a whole load of junk that
I never said.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I don't think it was Mormons who ravaged South America in the 1500's. They decimated an entire civilization because they arrogantly thought themselves infinitely superior to ANY other society on Earth. You don't obtain a 'get out of jail free' card for missionary work.

That does not sound like Christians to me.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
That does not sound like Christians to me.

The Instructor

So there are not many christians in the world it seems. You being one of course but you already said you would fund missionary work and would put people in jail for various religious crimes so I guess you aren't a christian either.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So there are not many christians in the world it seems. You being one of course but you already said you would fund missionary work and would put people in jail for various religious crimes so I guess you aren't a christian either.

What's wrong with that?

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
Humans telling me about god, what a joke.

Not really... it's just a joke because there are so many demi-gods, who in my book find some sort of intellectual way to be better than SOME others with their insights or whatever.

So most of the people that try to tell you about 'god' have just had a glimpse into 'something different' . The demi-gods will love their power plays, but in truth they are weak.
As one gets deeper into their own dharmas, they tend to acquire some wisdom and self-control mixed with a lot of reality checks and generally being quiet about 'god' a subject that few humans have any really meaningful words about.

So I wish we could get just 1% of spiritual/religious banter that is on the money, but one in ten thousand is prolly closer to the truth.

The extremely well cultured religious / spiritual adepts wont have any banter. You will have to ask them a question if you wish to get answers/wisdom,etc. Sometimes the questionee had to wait for three or so days outside the monastry gates before they were permitted entry and allowed to ask their questions.

Originally posted by googlefudge
God

Except most people dont have the MEANS (of perception) to understand.

This all starts with a misconception about god. The truth is there is no one god who makes all the decisions and has the power to send you to hell or whatever. God is just the living force of animation, which is extremely intelligent and needs no physical systems to contain this information. God is light. God is everything we see. God is so many things to so many people, at times even taking on the guise of a biblical looking apparition of god to satisfy the adepts idea of what god is.
But there is no separate being -[separate from all creation-including the 'devil']- that is called "God" .
There is no Abrahamic version of God, and because people hold on to their own conception of what 'God' is , their affirmation meditations will remain a hit and miss affair.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Except most people dont have the MEANS (of perception) to understand.

This all starts with a misconception about god. The truth is there is no one god who makes all the decisions and has the power to send you to hell or whatever. God is just the living force of animation, which is extremely intelligent and needs no physical systems to contain this in ...[text shortened]... n conception of what 'God' is , their affirmation meditations will remain a hit and miss affair.

Holy Karoly.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
This is where many "christains" and i part company. The many i speak of believe you must know Jesus as Lord and Savior. They quote that phrase but don't understand it. If a person only knows Jesus as Lord and Savior in their heads, it is nothing more than the physical circumsizion (i know i spelled that wrong).

I don't care if a person is an atheist. Wh ...[text shortened]... by the law, and those who do not know the law will be judged by the law written in their hearts.

This is where many "christains" and i part company. The many i speak of believe you must know Jesus as Lord and Savior.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, is it that you think Jesus is just a
notion or feeling not a specific person that we need to go to?
Kelly

Come back to me when you want to discuss the arguments I actually make and not the straw man flights of fancy that exist only in your head.

Regardless how you strut around boasting that only scientists think rationally you cannot erase the history. Many scientists with great contributions were theists.

The started with the assumption that God was a God of law and order and that this order could be deduced from examining HOW the universe works.

And no. There is no such thing as a rational faith based position.

Science is based on beliefs that themselves cannot be proved by the scientific method. You have to start with some things that you simply trust are true, in order to DO science.

Those underlying philosophical matters which the scientists trusts are true cannot themselves be solved by any scientific method.

There is a philosophy OF science.

You may have thought about your beliefs, and done so long and hard.

You did not do so rationally.

How do you know ?

Rationality precludes faith based belief of any kind pretty much by definition.

Do you think that by reasoning you can arrive at a realization of what is real ? IF you do then you have faith based a prior trust in your reasoning.

If you try to USE reason to PROVE that reason will lead you to a realization of reality, then you are in a circular dilemma. You are then assuming the truth of the tool you're using to prove the truth.

How do you know I used no rationality in my coming forward to experience God ? I am really curious and ask. How do you know that ?

I am trying to understand your thinking here.

All your post has done is demonstrate you have no clue what I am talking about.

I have a similar feeling about all of your posts too.

If I walk along the sand and see the words "John Loves Mary" written in the sand, is it rational to believe that an intelligent mind wrote that message? Or is it more rational to assume that crabs did it or the wind did it?

Why is it not rational to suspect intelligence is involved in the structure of a DNA molecule ?

I didn't NAME and particular diety. I asked only about the perception that intelligence was involved in the structure of a DNA molecule.

Why is it more rational to believe that the DNA molecule resulted from lucky accidents ?

I am not talking about understanding me as a person or my position, simply that you are not understanding the collective meaning of the words I am saying.

I am probably not understanding all of your thoughts. And you are misunderstanding quite a lot also. But you are not similarly sensitive about that.

Try reading what's actually there and not adding in a whole load of junk that I never said.

Doing science is based upon something like "faith" for lack of a better word. Face it. There is a philosophy of science - an assumption about a method which cannot, by the same method, be proved.

Don't look now but you have a whole lot of "faith" or "belief" in your scientific method.

Originally posted by sonship

Come back to me when you want to discuss the arguments I actually make and not the straw man flights of fancy that exist only in your head.

Regardless how you strut around boasting that only scientists think rationally you cannot erase the history. Many scientists with great contributions were theists.

The started with the assumpti ...[text shortened]...

Don't look now but you have a whole lot of "faith" or "belief" in your scientific method.

I will do a longer response later, dealing with your individual 'points'.

But no. There is no faith in science period.

I didn't claim that all scientists were [always] rational either.

Scientific reason is rational, its practitioners however are not always rational.
The scientific method takes that into account.



The problem you have is that you miss out the vital and crucial element of science.

Observation.

All ideas in science are tested against reality to see if they work.


The ONLY assumption in science is that there is a universe that runs on rules...

And we can test that.

Science works because we live in a universe that runs on rules.

If the universe didn't run on rules then science would work.



We have at this point conducted countless trillions of experiments (and no that's
not an exaggeration or a typo) that confirm that the universe runs on rules.


And that is the ONE single thing science assumes, and we've tested it past all possible
doubt. We have evidence that it's true.



And that is why there is absolutely no faith in science what so ever.

Originally posted by googlefudge


Science works because we live in a universe that runs on rules.

If the universe didn't run on rules then science would work.

Thank you for your carefully spaced reply.
I'll think about it.

One question while I think on it. You say that if the universe did not run on rules science would still work.

How would science be able to make predictions if that were the case ?

Originally posted by sonship
One question while I think on it. You say that if the universe did not run on rules science would still work.

I am guessing that was a typo. However, I think it is an unavoidable fact that it does. Without rules there would be no atoms, no physical objects and no life. Existence itself is a manifestation of rules. I think rules are as fundamental as existence:
"I think therefore I am"
I am therefore 'rules'.

I must note that there are areas in science where some things appear to be random. In those cases, the best science can ever do is say 'there doesn't appear to be a rule'. It can never rule out the existence of a rule.

But once rules exist, then it is within the domain of science. People often claim that the supernatural is some sort of violation of the rules and thus not subject to scientific scrutiny, and they then go on to then pronounce the rules by which the supernatural operates whilst still trying to hold off science. They are wrong. Science can be used whenever rules exist. It may be inconclusive for phenomena where the data is poor, but it is nevertheless still the best and most reliable method for studying any phenomena whatsoever.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I will do a longer response later, dealing with your individual 'points'.

But no. There is no faith in science period.

I didn't claim that all scientists were [always] rational either.

Scientific reason is rational, its practitioners however are not always rational.
The scientific method takes that into account.



The problem you have is t ...[text shortened]... nce that it's true.



And that is why there is absolutely no faith in science what so ever.

We Christains have been told that the rules have been put in place by God. So our belief and faith assumes that God is the true cause of these rules. You atheists seem to believe that the rules happened by accident for you give no cause for the rules because you don't know. You are making another assumption that there is no intelligent maker for these rules.

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonship
I disagree that there is no "new atheist" kind of movement. The event of Sept. 9, 2009 was a watershed moment. There have always been atheists. But a real augmentation of militancy occurred when 9/11 happened. And new atheists decided that this was the right time to make a thrusts against all religions, all theism.

new atheists decided that this was the right time to make a thrusts against all religions
So are you saying the "new atheists" existed before 9/11 and then only after that did they act?
or
9/11 created "new atheists"

Not sure what you mean and both seem absurd.