How Real Is Christianity?

Darkest Hour · 05-02-2009, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

So essentially what you're saying is that these are prime examples of weak humans:
Mahatma Ghandi
Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Mother Theresa

i guess so. Religion is pointless.

SATCHMO · 05-02-2009, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkest Hour

i guess so. Religion is pointless.

I will let your ignorance stand as a testament to itself.

mr dave · 05-02-2009, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SugarRush

What do mean by the unknown world? I am not exactly clear on what you mean by this. Please provide some examples of this.

what i mean by the unknown world is exactly that. the 'known' world has expanded significantly through scientific growth, but generally speaking most of that growth has been in the very recent past. just because i recognize a spiritual aspect to my self doesn't mean i'll deny the accomplishments of science. the electron was not the best example but it was the simplest one i could think of at the moment.

it seems very limiting to me to only believe in what can be scientifically defined. it's a focus on the past, the only things that are 'real' are those that can be proven by our own means. are the individual human beings really the top of the pile of life? or are we simply components of the actual human being. does a cell truly understand the function of the organ?

basically if science explains everything we 'know' then i turn to spirituality to explain everything that remains 'unknown' to science. i'll keep turning to science and math to explain what has already happened, at the same time i'll continue turning to my spiritual side to explain what could occur, all the while i'll just be dealing with today for the brief moment it really is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkest Hour

religion is for the weak. The chances are god is not real, get over it. Christians try to hard to prove god exists and they have no proof whatsoever. I don't even care what the bible says, and science doesn't answer the supernatural or the unknown world, so i just say i don't know.

so if you don't actually know (anything) what provides you with the perspective to declare religion being only for the weak? seems to me you need a much stronger sense of self to be able to maintain an unpopular belief in the face of adversity and derision than it does to just deny your thoughts to fit in.

lucifer_sam · 05-02-2009, 07:23 PM

i think it takes a strong commitment and equally strong personality to adhere to any religious beliefs. it's easy to claim apathy and admonish religion; it takes a mature person to acknowledge that their convictions are clear and that they understand what that means for their own lives.

personally i find inconsistencies in monotheistic religion and modern scientific explanation. and there is nothing inherently 'wrong' about believing in either -- it's a personal decision and should remain such. what irks me is when people apply gross generalizations (and misunderstandings) to describe religious people when they haven't given a thought to their own convictions.

cardboard adolescent · 05-02-2009, 07:31 PM

take for instance the fact that we don't actually know what space, time, matter or energy ARE. we know how the formulas that describe them will hold up in certain contexts, but when removed from that context they contradict each other and give us different 'understandings' of the thing they're dealing with. there's a hope that eventually science will resolve its internal contradictions, but that's really all that keeps it going. it can never tell us what is, only what appears.

lucifer_sam · 05-02-2009, 07:39 PM

that's the chief goal of modern physics. to figure out how they're all connected. we can keep discovering 'phenomena' for ages but without a proper understanding of what propels the universe (in the sense of its perpetual existence) we'll always be in the dark. it was Einstein's greatest failure and certainly one which will take much dumber men a helluva lot longer to solve.

mr dave · 05-02-2009, 07:40 PM

yes! exactly! to the two of you

Guybrush · 05-03-2009, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

shouldn't the answer to 'everything' take a lot longer to discover than the discovery of a basic building block of our atomic structure? and how long did it take us to just get to that point?

I wouldn't say that science has to dismiss religion. There's plenty of religious scientists out there. The reason it's dismissed at the moment is because so far, there's no way of testing God scientifically. However, if there is a God, then it's science's job to prove that.

I don't believe in God because I don't think the universe requires one. It's like my example here :

Quote:

Originally Posted by toretorden

I think I sometimes tend to apply occam's razor to a lot of what I believe in. What explanation requires the least assumptions? For example, a door suddenly closed in the dark and spooky house. What's the simplest explanation, that it got closed by the wind (assumes that the wind can get in and is capable of closing open doors) or that it was closed by a ghost (assumes there's an existence after death and that we're still able to manipulate doors from this existence) .. ?

I know from experience that wind can get into houses and close doors - it's a simpler explanation, so that's the one I'm going for.

Believing there's no God is pretty straightforward. It assumes that the universe could get by without one and from my limited life-experience here on earth, that seems to fit quite well. Believing there is a god only starts with the assumption that there's some kind of being or conscience which has amazing power and is possibly designing our universe etc etc and trickles down into all sorts of other assumptions like about who we are and where we come from .. It's a much more advanced explanation because then you have to accept science (unless you're a tit) and religion and I've never had a religious experience or upbringing to relate it with.

For many, I guess it's the exact opposite - science carries difficult assumptions with it .. So I guess that's an important part of why people find it hard to cross from one into the other.

~~coryallen2~~ · 05-03-2009, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pahuuuta

Well, im probably going to guess most people on here are christians, and sorry to say that i'm not and the bible just doesnt give me enough faith to believe in god, im the kind of person that has to see it to believe it, whether or not that is a good or bad thing. anyway i was reading bits and pieces of the bible and it just has some flaws in it, lets list some shall we?

firstly, the snake taunted adam and eve with a apple from the tree in the garden of eden, correct? the garden of eden "was" located in israel, which is near the mediterranean. . . . .apples DO NOT grow in the mediterranean....

secondly, at one point there was only cain, able and adam and eve, so think about this, where did cain's wife come from?

i will become a christian right now if someone answers that question for me, to this day no one can answer it, it was used in the Scopes Trial (1925). NO ONE CAN ANSWER IT, where did she come from.

So seeing as how not even the biggest christian can answer this questions, i will have to say there is no way to defend the biblical record. . . .

discuss.

You dont have to be a christian to answer those question, all you have to do is actually read the bible.

1st, there is not one instance in the book of genesis that claims an "apple" fell from any tree. It merely said "fruit". Matter of fact, the word "apple" isnt even in the book of genesis ever.

2nd, the whole creation even is split in two. there are two events described with two different sets of details. All the races did not come from Adam and Eve, despite popular Christian belief. All the primary races were created in the first chapter. Emphasis was put on the Adamite bloodline because that was bloodline that would ultimately remain pure all the way from Adam to Abraham to David to Jesus Christ.

Terrible Lizard · 05-03-2009, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

So essentially what you're saying is that these are prime examples of weak humans:
Mahatma Ghandi
Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Mother Theresa

How many times did Ghandi beat his wifey?

Quote:

Originally Posted by toretorden

I wouldn't say that science has to dismiss religion. There's plenty of religious scientists out there. The reason it's dismissed at the moment is because so far, there's no way of testing God scientifically. However, if there is a God, then it's science's job to prove that.

I don't believe in God because I don't think the universe requires one. It's like my example here :

Believing there's no God is pretty straightforward. It assumes that the universe could get by without one and from my limited life-experience here on earth, that seems to fit quite well. Believing there is a god only starts with the assumption that there's some kind of being or conscience which has amazing power and is possibly designing our universe etc etc and trickles down into all sorts of other assumptions like about who we are and where we come from .. It's a much more advanced explanation because then you have to accept science (unless you're a tit) and religion and I've never had a religious experience or upbringing to relate it with.

For many, I guess it's the exact opposite - science carries difficult assumptions with it .. So I guess that's an important part of why people find it hard to cross from one into the other.

Does a painting need an artist? No, because a completed work speaks for itself, it needs no more interference. But that doesn't erase the fact that at some point and artist thought out and painted the work upon a canvas, little by little.

05-02-2009, 07:23 PM	#404 (permalink)
lucifer_sam Unrepentant Ass-Mod Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3,921	i think it takes a strong commitment and equally strong personality to adhere to any religious beliefs. it's easy to claim apathy and admonish religion; it takes a mature person to acknowledge that their convictions are clear and that they understand what that means for their own lives. personally i find inconsistencies in monotheistic religion and modern scientific explanation. and there is nothing inherently 'wrong' about believing in either -- it's a personal decision and should remain such. what irks me is when people apply gross generalizations (and misunderstandings) to describe religious people when they haven't given a thought to their own convictions. __________________ first.am

05-02-2009, 07:39 PM	#406 (permalink)
lucifer_sam Unrepentant Ass-Mod Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3,921	that's the chief goal of modern physics. to figure out how they're all connected. we can keep discovering 'phenomena' for ages but without a proper understanding of what propels the universe (in the sense of its perpetual existence) we'll always be in the dark. it was Einstein's greatest failure and certainly one which will take much dumber men a helluva lot longer to solve. __________________ first.am

05-02-2009, 07:31 PM	#405 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	take for instance the fact that we don't actually know what space, time, matter or energy ARE. we know how the formulas that describe them will hold up in certain contexts, but when removed from that context they contradict each other and give us different 'understandings' of the thing they're dealing with. there's a hope that eventually science will resolve its internal contradictions, but that's really all that keeps it going. it can never tell us what is, only what appears.