[DrTodd13]

mike777, on Feb 8 2007, 08:46 PM, said:

A second counter arguement is that God called some of us to be saved, not all, at the dawn of time, he did not call me......why blame me?

That is a Calvinist viewpoint. Most protestant denominations are not Calvinist. I personally agree with you here. Under Calvinism, if you weren't called then you shouldn't be blamed. That is why I find Calvinism abhorent. Some would be damned to hell and there would be nothing they could do about it.

[Rain]

Whenever the topic of religion is brought up in a message board frequented by westerners, Christian-bashing (whether mild or severe) begins.

(Mod cap on:) I think the posts so far have not violated rules of posting. However I hardly need to remind all to write with more respect of such a sensitive topic.

And now, to answer the opening question:

I think of myself as a Christian.
I haven't been to Church in a year, mostly out of sheer laziness.
I think of God often, and talk to him often. When this happens, I mean, this personal relationship with god, this is what I would probably define christianity is about. (It comes with a lot of catches. Such as not wishing to hurt god by sinning)

There was a period when I was home when I'd perhaps fit into the more common view of what a christian is, or ought to do--my cell/church and I meet up to worship, discuss, just be there with each other almost daily. That was sweet. Although I don't do that now, I still think of myself as a Christian because although the people are gone, god's still there.

By the way, I believe the bible is true and factual. Faith is required, which is why this is a religion. It is difficult to justify and rationalise to non believers--I believe also (yeah I believe a lot) that human power isn't enough to do that. It takes god's power as well to convince and change, which is the power of prayers. So this means if I start praying for everyone here who doesn't believe, sincerely hoping with a true heart that you'd find God (or my god, if you will), you probably will. =D
However I don't think I'll be doing this anytime soon, sorry.

From earlier posts:

Quote

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ? 
That would put the actual percentage somewhere around 0%, wouldn't it?

I've met a few special people who embody what following christ is like, or should be like. Perhaps that's the true testament. There are people out there. I can introduce you a to couple of them in Singapore and Chicago.

[DrTodd13]

Gerben42, on Feb 9 2007, 03:51 AM, said:

Quote

people who don't "deserve" (whatever that means) to go to Heaven, I wouldn't have created in the first place.

This is a good point!

An omnipotent and benevolent God would make humanity in a way that we would all get along quite well, and there would be no crimes and no war. And we would be living in a world where weather phenomena would not suddenly wipe out your house and family.

So either our creator was really poor compared to other creators who could buy themselves the Ferrari of universes whereas we got stuck with Al Bundy's wreck, or there is no God-like creator.

At least this seems logical to me...

Classic problem of evil. This has been covered ad infinitum by many people. My answer is that the gift of free will and sentience is a greater good than all evil put together. You can't have free will without someone choosing evil.

[DrTodd13]

helene_t, on Feb 9 2007, 01:52 AM, said:

I certainly don't believe in the free will (although I admit it's a very practical concept in moral reasoning, which is probably one of the reasons why the illusion of the free will evolved). I'm less sure about sentience, which I consider a puzzling phenomena. Pinker's "How the mind works" disappointed me and Penrose's idea that sentience relies on an Einsteinian meta-quantum explanation for wave function collapses seems, although intriguing, not plausible and his argument suffers from lack of a foundation in modern biology.

However, I can say this much about sentience: "my" sentience is bound to my brain and will decay as my brain decays. I strongly believe that this should be obvious to everyone who has a basic knowledge of neuroscience and is able to put intuition aside for a moment and focus on what can objectively be said.

I like the hardware-software metafore for the brain-sentience system (although sentience is just one of many functions of the software the runs in our brains). Just like a running software session can be evacuated to another CPU before the original CPU wears out, it is theoretically possible to copy a human's sentience to another platform (whether made of silicon or neural tissue). Something akin of this has been demonstrated in epileptic patients who had their corpus callosum seized and subsequently develop dual sentience systems. Making a human's sentice immortal may one day be possible but I don't expect to live long enough to acquire that privilege. So I have to opt for Gerben's solution which is quite difficult with my limited gifts. I certainly won't be immortalized as a great bridge player.

As for whether Gandhi went to Hell or Heaven, I don't care. Sending him to Heaven could serve two purposes:
1) an altruistic concern for Gandhi's comfort-loving soul. But that applies to Hitler and Stalin as well, maybe even to GW. If there's a limited number of available bedrooms in Hotel Heaven, I would probably keep Hinduist and Bhudists out since they should be able to do OK in Hell by meditating.
2) to motivate others to follow Gandhi's example in order earn a Green Card to Heaven. But that won't work since we will have no way of knowing if he went to Heaven or not.

If I were God, I would send some prophets to tell the earthlings that they would be rewarded in Heaven if they followed the example of Ghandi. But in the end I would send everybody to Heaven. Then again, people who don't "deserve" (whatever that means) to go to Heaven, I wouldn't have created in the first place.

In Penrose's Shadows of the Mind, he shows that the human mind is capable of doing things that exceed that of a Turing machine. Therefore, the brain cannot be the equivalent of a very powerful classic computer. I'm sorry but I think that strong AI is pretty much demolished and that there is still some mystery about the brain and how it is capable of doing things that are not algorithmic. Neither determinism nor randomness allows the brain to do what it does but at the moment we don't know of a third option. If free will exists then it must be related to this third option. Penrose's original idea of isolated quantum superpositions among neurons in the brain had problems and he has since abandoned that idea. He now favors the idea that some form of quantum interaction is happening in the microtubules that extend out from neurons and touch microtubules from other neurons. It is an interesting idea especially when you hear that it has been shown that there are single-celled organisms that learn and have memory. How do you do that without a brain? It seems these organisms also have microtubules. People think the environment is too warm and wet for isolated quantum state but the debate is still out on this point. Some think it is possible and others not. Read the book if you already haven't...it is pretty interesting.

[DrTodd13]

hrothgar, on Feb 8 2007, 06:51 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 9 2007, 04:55 AM, said:

ghandi isn't condemned, if that's his fate, because of a failure to chant magic words... there are no magic words...

Lets be clear: When I am talking about "magic words" I'm referring to Todd's insistance that accepting Jesus as your personal saviour is an absolute necessity for salvation.

I don't find it logical that your god of "peace and love" so hung up on ceremony that he would condemn Ghandi for a failure to believe. Moreover, from my perspective, if your God does behave in such a manner, he's not worthy of my (or anyone's) worship.

All you have is a blind guess regarding which of 1001 different cults is right.
At the end of the day, what differentiates your choice of cults from Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, or what have you.

What differentiates Christianity? Because we have a leader who predicted his own death and claimed He would rise from the dead and He did it. I think we might want to listen to someone capable of doing that. Of course, you are going to reject the resurrection with a bunch of trite explanations that have long since been demolished but which you can place your faith in without feeling like you aren't irrational. You might want to read the following link about
Simon Greenleaf. There are numerous examples of people who set out to disprove the resurrection and when they look at the evidence end up believing in it. It is so easy to say "someone stole the body" and to ignore all the evidence saying this was impossible.

[akhare]

DrTodd13, on Feb 9 2007, 01:43 PM, said:

He now favors the idea that some form of quantum interaction is happening in the microtubules that extend out from neurons and touch microtubules from other neurons.  It is an interesting idea especially when you hear that it has been shown that there are single-celled organisms that learn and have memory.

"Shadows of the mind" is interesting reading, but I thought that his previous book (Emperor's New Mind) was much better and much more rooted in objectivity. He's a pretty persusive speaker too, but IMO the microtubule idea is conjecture at best.

Come to think of it, it might be time to expound my own theory that quantum interaction in the human heart gives rise to the "soul" (whatever that means)?

[Al_U_Card]

DrTodd13, on Feb 9 2007, 01:31 PM, said:

My answer is that the gift of free will and sentience is a greater good than all evil put together. You can't have free will without someone choosing evil.

So you differentiate between good and evil? Truth and lies too, I suppose? And let's not forget beauty and ugliness. The corollary is, there ain't no free will.

[Al_U_Card]

DrTodd13, on Feb 9 2007, 01:58 PM, said:

There are numerous examples of people who set out to disprove the resurrection and when they look at the evidence end up believing in it. It is so easy to say "someone stole the body" and to ignore all the evidence saying this was impossible.

Personally, I like the version where he spent 30 yrs in Egypt as an Essene and then 30 years (after the crucifixion) in Persia/Afghanistan....or what that his twin brother???

[Al_U_Card]

When you can't whip'em. ...whip'em into a frenzy, I always say

[EricK]

BebopKid, on Feb 8 2007, 09:57 PM, said:

EricK, on Feb 8 2007, 04:40 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Feb 8 2007, 08:21 PM, said:

Isn't a "Christian" someone who follows the teachings of Christ?

That would put the actual percentage somewhere around 0%, wouldn't it?

Amen. No person, other than Christ, has ever or can ever succeed in being Holy.

One can strive, though.

That's not really what I meant.

Consider the Acol system. Probably something like 50-80% of club players in the UK claim that they play Acol. But in reality what they attempt to play is not really much like the original Acol system as outlined by Marx, Simon etc. The vast majority of them fall short of perfectly playing the systems they are trying to play, but it is not that lack of perfection which makes them not be Acolites - it is that the systems they are trying to play are Acol in name only.

It is a similar situation with Christianity. None of the Christian denominations have teachings which coincide with the teachings of Christ. The whole thing has been distorted and corrupted through the ages. The fact that people fall short of their religious ideals is not the real reason they fail at being Christians - the reason is that their ideals are not the same as Christ's i.e. their religion is Christianity in name only.

[the saint]

Rain, on Feb 9 2007, 06:31 PM, said:

Whenever the topic of religion is brought up in a message board frequented by westerners, Christian-bashing (whether mild or severe) begins.

I'm happy to bash any religion. I don't discriminate.

I simply stand by the viewpoint that if you believe something, then you need proof. This may sound soulless, but Faith to me is a dangerous abhorrent concept. It is the believe in something despite the lack of evidence or even in spite of the evidence against it.

If I said I could fly by flapping my arms. You would think I was stupid and want proof. Likewise with all the religions that believe in some higher powers or beings - there is no proof.

All of the bizarre things that people do in the name of Religion are being done to show their faith. I just want some rationality in the world. Not only that, but if one actually bothers to read the Bible, the Koran or any of these so called 'Holy Books', you will actually find a great deal of backward, nonsensical and downright disgusting behaviour in the name of 'God' or whoever. Anyone in one of these religions who doesn't believe all of their holy book is a hypocrite. Either you take it all or take none of it - you can't just pick and choose as it suits. Anyone who believes it all and follows every word, will have a completely warped sense of morality and knowledge derived straight from 1500-2000 years ago that bears no relevance whatsoever to the modern world. Religions are easy way outs for people who can not or will not think for themselves - simple pre-packaged soundbites to answer difficult questions with the universal cop-out answer - becasue God says so, or God did it.

If everyone thought like that, we would have had no scientific or technological progress because no-one would have dared to think and find out the truth. The premises upon which the origins of these religions are based have been disproven - so why do people still bury their heads in the sand?

Some people don't like the concept that we aren't special, that we are just some insignificant species that happened to evolve after 5 billion years on a tiny rock out in the middle of approximately nowhere, that we have no special destiny. We simply get born, live a few years, maybe spawn some more and then die before rotting away into nothing. Given how privileged you are to exist, doesn't it make you want to savour life even more, and find out even more, and try to understand even more knowing full well that this is all you have? Surely this makes you value life even more knowing that there is nothing to come?

This is not a personal attack on anyone person or religion. It is just some of my immense frustration with the mental laziness of religion and my exasperation with the sheer number of people who continue to pander to it. It must be challenged everywhere and continually questioned and shown up for the unsound, morally bankrupt, idiotic concept it really is.

[jtfanclub]

the saint, on Feb 9 2007, 03:23 PM, said:

I simply stand by the viewpoint that if you believe something, then you need proof.

You must be a rotten bridge player then. When your partner transfers you into hearts, do you take that your partner does what he's doing on faith, or do you 'demand proof' before you accept the transfer?

You can't survive in the modern world without faith. If you were sitting down and claimed that you could walk, I wouldn't demand proof. What would be the point?

The real danger in faith is when you let an outside source tell you what is right or wrong, without checking your conscience. Doesn't matter if the outside source is the Bible, a person, the law, or something else. That's why people with absolute faith are so very dangerous, and make great martyrs.

[pclayton]

I really don't think anyone has any right to judge anyone on what or what they don't believe. The atheists in this discussion seem to feel they have carte blanche to slam people that believe in God. The fundamentalists, while judging people is usually part of the menu, have really just been defending themselves.

Say what you will, but its really taking a stance to say religion; organized or not, is a bad thing for society. The concept of religion was started long before Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha. Why do you suppose that is? Is it possible people have an innate need to reach into the ethereal for something else? Religion, like government I suppose, takes on a life of its own and the organization tends to transcend its original purpose.

When my mother-in-law died of heart failure in '00, it really helped to have a "base". I believe prayer helped our family cope when she was being operated on. My kids really looked at me for answers. The concept that they will be meet again in some form or another, I think, also helps with the healing process. When they are older, they will decide for themselves if what I was saying was baloney, or whether or not there was some truth to it.

I wonder, what does an atheist say to his family when a loved one passes? Oh, they had a wonderful life and its time to say goodbye? Is it really that much of a lie to say that you believe in an afterlife?

I really get tired when people try to use religion as a lithmus test for intelligence. I believe that there is something after all of this. Frankly, I think you are narrow-minded if you don't contemplate whats beyond all of this. This is why I rank atheists ahead of agnostics, because at least they've considered the question.

I also think many atheists (Gerben excepted ) have a real deep-seeded hatred of religious people. Yes, now I'M being judgmental, but, I think it frequently dominates cocktail party discussions of like minded atheists, and I have no idea why atheists constantly feel the need to bring it up. I guarantee you that christians like Todd don't chat with other christians about atheists, and why they don't believe.

Maybe I should start a thread about atheism. I would ask things like, did Jesus really exist, or is the bible a complete hoax and fairy tale? Is there any type of afterlife? is there a superbeing that created life? I would also make an assertion, that if you thought a, or c, or g, that you really aren't an atheist at all, but just like to consider yourself an antheist, because, heaven knows, religious people are mindless sheep that are bludgeoned into submission to believe.

I had a late grandfather from Virginia that was an anti-semite. He would always find reasons to talk about it with people like me and my dad who weren't jewish, but didn't have any reason to hate jews. He would bring up topics like, "Are jews a race, or just a part of a religion". While his entre would seem non-confrontational, it inevitably escalated into a heated discussion that so he could rant.

I think this thread was brought up for the same reason. Frankly, I don't think Peter cares at all about the number of Christians out there; I think it was brought up because he likes to vent about how much he hates christianity, and there's nothing I've read from him, or Richard that leads me to believe otherwise.

[Gerben42]

I'm not sure Phil but I think there is a big difference between USA and Europe in this respect.


BTW I'd be happy to provide you with "my answers".

1. Did Jesus really exist?

I would assume so. And he must have been a real charismatic person, just like Mohammed and Buddha.

2. Is the bible a complete hoax and fairy tale?

I think it is like many other ancient texts: A mixture of truth and myth. Many events in the Bible (both Old and New Testament) are based on real events.
Other examples in this category would be the Iliad and Odyssey. I have read parts of all three and know the main story or stories. Cannot say the same about the Koran (yet), though.

3. Is there a superbeing that created life?

No, the creation of life must have been a random process. Now of course the chance of a sudden existence of a self-replicating molecule would be astronomical, but life started approximately a billion years after the formation of the Earth. That's about 30,000,000,000,000,000 seconds. Even a small % of that is enough to have some very unlikely things happening.

Quote

that if you thought a, or c, or g

and t of course.

BTW I looked at the Simon Greenleaf link. I find it interesting how he suggests that because almost all humans are religious, there must be a higher power. To me it seems that natural selection has favoured religious people since they have more children than non-religious people, and have their children earlier.

[akhare]

Gerben42, on Feb 9 2007, 05:06 PM, said:

To me it seems that natural selection has favoured religious people since they have more children than non-religious people, and have their children earlier.

You do raise an interesting point -- is it possible that there's something in our brain chemistry that pre-disposes us to belief in the supernatural? It has to be said that the religion "meme" has had phenomenal success in our species...

[the saint]

jtfanclub, on Feb 9 2007, 09:06 PM, said:

the saint, on Feb 9 2007, 03:23 PM, said:

I simply stand by the viewpoint that if you believe something, then you need proof.

You must be a rotten bridge player then. When your partner transfers you into hearts, do you take that your partner does what he's doing on faith, or do you 'demand proof' before you accept the transfer?

You can't survive in the modern world without faith. If you were sitting down and claimed that you could walk, I wouldn't demand proof. What would be the point?

The real danger in faith is when you let an outside source tell you what is right or wrong, without checking your conscience. Doesn't matter if the outside source is the Bible, a person, the law, or something else. That's why people with absolute faith are so very dangerous, and make great martyrs.

You already have the proof of people being able to walk. You have already seen the evidence. That is within the realm of your knowledge. It is the proof of more esoteric concepts that demands the evidence.

When my partner transfers to hearts, I accept the transfer because I have evidence that historically my partner has 5+ hearts when he does this, as we have discussed. I may be a rotten bridge player, but it won't be because I don't complete transfers.

I think a lot of my frustration with religion is due to the fact that it is given so much credence and influence when there is no logical reason to do so. Even here in good old ambivalent Europe. Religious leaders always seem to be cast as the sole purveyors of morality when critical analysis of the scriptures they follow show precisely the opposite. That is even before we get on to the problems of defining your life in terms of something for which there is no firm reason to believe actually exists. Can I take the judgement of anyone like that even remotely seriously? Yet time and again they are wheeled out to cast out their intonations on everything.

[the saint]

akhare, on Feb 9 2007, 10:48 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Feb 9 2007, 05:06 PM, said:

To me it seems that natural selection has favoured religious people since they have more children than non-religious people, and have their children earlier.

You do raise an interesting point -- is it possible that there's something in our brain chemistry that pre-disposes us to belief in the supernatural? It has to be said that the religion "meme" has had phenomenal success in our species...

No, its because they have been told that using condoms is a sin.

[gwnn]

Gerben42, on Feb 10 2007, 12:06 AM, said:

To me it seems that natural selection has favoured religious people since they have more children than non-religious people, and have their children earlier.

I don't really agree with that....

IF this kind of spiritual evolution has happened, it must have happened very long ago. ie at least 5k years earlier - it seems from archaelogy that "religious civilisation" is just as old as "civilisation". They don't have such a timeline like "x BC=first talking man. x-1000 BC=first religion(whatever that means)". So, because we can't really know anything of those "first religions", it would be kind of blunt to just assume every early religious group's members tended to have more children and earlier than every early non-religious group's. To me it seems that this is just an easy way to dismiss his argument.

[mike777]

Well Europe is operating at less than death replacement levels in almost every country Maybe just trying to stop climate warming

[gwnn]

the saint, on Feb 10 2007, 12:52 AM, said:

I think a lot of my frustration with religion is due to the fact that it is given so much credence and influence when there is no logical reason to do so.

Maybe there are some people who are Christians not only "because xy told me z", but they actually have seen and felt God? Yes, you can say they're all deluded, it's your right to assess anyone's mental abilities and feelings. But please don't assume each and every Christian believes in God and Jesus' sacrifice on the cross only because the pastors told them so. Because it's simply not so.