-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
poikilotherm
New Member
Originally posted by Kachana:
Forgive me, but given your version of a religious argument proffered above, I humbly submit that its not surprising you don't find them convincing. Cartoons rarely are.
You really do like talking to yourself, don't you? Can you please point out somewhere (anywhere, ever) where I have said anything to the contrary? Perhaps you are confusing me with somebody else?
You think somehow an internet discussion board is for establishing empirical fact? Here I thought we were exchanging opinions. Silly me. I should have realised that we were listening to Kachana establish TRUTH by talking to (I guess) Kachana. I'll keep that in mind.
Ah, I see what you mean. One's culinary preferences are certainly representative of important moral issues. Good point.
Have fun with your future monologues! Next time I need you to establish the truth for me, instead of a mere opinion, I'll tune in.
pioikilotherm
[ April 06, 2002, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: poikilotherm ]
I agree that such a notion isn't grounds to believe in anything. Unfortunately, I have not advanced such a notion, or even a similar one. Do you enjoy talking to yourself?
Forgive me, but given your version of a religious argument proffered above, I humbly submit that its not surprising you don't find them convincing. Cartoons rarely are.
You really do like talking to yourself, don't you? Can you please point out somewhere (anywhere, ever) where I have said anything to the contrary? Perhaps you are confusing me with somebody else?
You think somehow an internet discussion board is for establishing empirical fact? Here I thought we were exchanging opinions. Silly me. I should have realised that we were listening to Kachana establish TRUTH by talking to (I guess) Kachana. I'll keep that in mind.
Ah, I see what you mean. One's culinary preferences are certainly representative of important moral issues. Good point.
Another good moral point. You have certainly convinced me!
Have fun with your future monologues! Next time I need you to establish the truth for me, instead of a mere opinion, I'll tune in.
pioikilotherm
[ April 06, 2002, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: poikilotherm ]
So the emotional stress of flying was created when man kept crashing those flying lizards millions of years ago? Our love of the water is there dispite millions of people drowning since the caveman days. Your argument is starting to lose ground here.
Let's examine it closer to see if we can do a process of elimination to arrive at a more probable cause.
Maybe God matched man to the correct fears and emotions he should have dispite what nature gave us. It is not natural to fear flying more than driving because flying is safer. Yet God programed us correctly dispite Logic or Nature. If you crash is a plane the odds of survival is almost nil, the car crash is the better risk. Nature did not do that. Man's logic can't do that.
Why do we fear flying more than a spider? Why do we fear dying in a car crash more than dying from drowning? Where do you feel safer, sitting in a car, or sitting in the waves at the beach? Where do you feel safer, walking along a busy highway, or walking into a cave with bats and spiders here and there? If nature "didit" we should be walking a highway with no fear of being hit by a passing car over the cave trek. Since God "didit", I'll risk the spiders over the cars any day.
[ April 07, 2002, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]
poikilotherm
New Member
Hmmm. I'm afraid I'm also one of those people who would rather let a large spider crawl across them than drive 1000 miles without a seat belt.
So far, on the basis of this limited sampling and test, we seem to be establishing that the theists here are more realistic than the atheists. Now isn't that interesting.
Its probably just a fluke of small sample sizes
[ April 07, 2002, 04:03 AM: Message edited by: poikilotherm ]
Some of the things my "imaginary friend" does for me.
1) He has protected me numerous times from danger and death, and healed me. (Prayer) Car accidents (on many occasions), from loaded guns pointed at me, from being so full of infection of 3 different organisms, the surgical team didn't know what to do, for one thing. (Prayer) Protected me from a gang of thugs who sought to do me harm late one night on the way home from work. My "imaginary friend" has also healed my dying child, prevented my mother from dying on the spot when her aorta ripped from top to bottom, healed the diseases of friends and other relatives. And so many unseen dangers I have faced during my life and probably never even known about. But He protected me and kept me from harm's way.
2) He has supplied my financial needs. There have been times when I have been so poor, so destitute, there was not even food on the table for my family. But somehow, some unexpected money arrived in the mail or someone brought food. Through the hard times, my "imaginary friend" brought us through by some means. I suppose some unbelieving soul would say it was coincidence or karma. I happen to know beyond a doubt, it was Jesus Who provided for my needs. All of my needs. He has provided abundantly and I am blessed by His hand.
3) My "imaginary friend" Jesus has comforted my heart in times of great sorrow. He has given me a Peace during those times that cannot be contrived from the inner being or from outward circumstances.
4) My "imaginary friend" has been with me through wonderful and happy times, too. And I KNOW He is alive and has given me joy that cannot be measured.
5) My "imaginary friend" has directed my paths in major decisions in my life. It was not always this way. When I was young, I thought I knew best what decisions to make. But as I have
grown older, I've found it is always better for me to ask for my "imaginary friend's" guidance on all things, from the small to the large. He says if I trust in Him with all my heart, He will direct my paths. And He does. Whether it is a major decision like buying a new car or house, or a small thing like what to say to a friend with a problem. I can't imagine life without Jesus.
6) My "imaginary friend" has given me hope. For here and now and for beyond the grave. I can't imagine how an athiest goes through life without an "imaginary friend" Jesus. How does an atheist cope with things like sickness, sorrow, death of a child, a broken marriage, a father dying, or all the cares, sorrows, and unjustices mankind faces without prayer? Without God's providence and care? I can't understand this. Who does an atheist lean on? I am in need of Love, Power, Provision, Strength, Hope, Blessings, Healing, Forgiveness--things greater than I can muster up from within myself or greater than can be acquired from an outside source. I am needy and Jesus supplies those needs.
7) I have plenty of real-life friends. I feel blessed to have so many friends. The kind of friends who are always there when you really need someone, who are never to busy, (even though we all lead very active, busy, responsible lives). But the common denominator we have of our strong and true friendship is Jesus Christ. We are of varied denominations and have various theologies and are at different stages in our levels of faith, and are even different ages and generations and races and backgrounds. But our common denominator is our "imaginary friend" Jesus Christ and what He has done for us, Redeeming us, Providing for Us, Fellowshipping with us, Caring for us. And even though some of us have suffered and finally died, we know we shall see each other again one day on the other side of this life. Because our "imaginary friend" told us so. The last day of 2001, we buried my best friend of 30 years. The cancer came on suddenly and within three months, she was gone. I miss her. But the last time I saw her, we hugged and prayed together and cried...but we knew we would meet again one day. Jesus was waiting for her, as He is waiting for me when it is my time to leave here. She has already gotten her hug from Him. I must wait.
My point is....He is NOT an imaginary friend. Jesus is the best Friend a Person can ever know. He is on-call for me 24-hours a day. He never gives me a busy signal, or puts me on hold to listen to Musak; He never cuts me off with a dial tone, and I don't have to use repeat dialing. All He wants me to do is Love Him and Trust Him. That's all He asks. I wish you could know Him, too. It is a relationship--far sweeter than any relationship you can ever know on this earth. Jesus loves me and He loves you, too.
<<<How are you certain who/what is responsible for your success? >>>
Because I know Him. Because I've seen Prayer Change Things and Witnessed the Miraculous Power of God many, many times. Because I have seen lives transformed by faith in Jesus Christ.
Because I know Him. Because I've seen Prayer Change Things and Witnessed the Miraculous Power of God many, many times. Because I have seen lives transformed by faith in Jesus Christ.
<<<Have you ever seen prayer *not* change things? I know a hospice nurse who attests to the ineffectiveness of prayer.>>>
<<<What if you were immersed instead in a completely different time/place/culture? I doubt you would be saying you have "seen lives transformed by faith in Jesus Christ". >>>
I can only speak from my personal experience and the experiences of the many people I know who can and do attest to the Power of Prayer and that God can and does change and transform lives through faith in Jesus Christ. And yes, sometimes things may change on their own. But I also know that many times the only reason something "changes" is because of a direct answer to prayer, no other reason. And God always answers the prayers of His children. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes wait awhile. But He always hears and always answers. Ultimately, it is as Jesus taught, for the Father's Will to be done.
Another time, place, and culture? There are many people all over the world who have been immersed in other times, places, and cultures, but when they heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they accepted the free Gift of Salvation and became Christians--the Universality of being "born" into God's family through faith in the Sacrificial Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, spans all times since then, through all places, and all cultures, even today.
<<<What if you were immersed instead in a completely different time/place/culture? I doubt you would be saying you have "seen lives transformed by faith in Jesus Christ". >>>
I can only speak from my personal experience and the experiences of the many people I know who can and do attest to the Power of Prayer and that God can and does change and transform lives through faith in Jesus Christ. And yes, sometimes things may change on their own. But I also know that many times the only reason something "changes" is because of a direct answer to prayer, no other reason. And God always answers the prayers of His children. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes wait awhile. But He always hears and always answers. Ultimately, it is as Jesus taught, for the Father's Will to be done.
Another time, place, and culture? There are many people all over the world who have been immersed in other times, places, and cultures, but when they heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they accepted the free Gift of Salvation and became Christians--the Universality of being "born" into God's family through faith in the Sacrificial Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, spans all times since then, through all places, and all cultures, even today.
<<THESE are the things that influence what a person's religion is likely to be -- their surroundings and cultural influences.>>
Cricket, you are talking about a religion. I am talking about a relationship. There is a difference.
I am not going to belabor the point with you or argue with you regarding God answering prayer. You choose not to believe in God or Jesus Christ or believe God answers prayer, that is your choice. All I can do is present to you the evidence from my personal experience and the experiences of many people I know who testify without any doubt whatsoever that God does indeed answer prayer and that Salvation through Jesus Christ does change lives. I can't even list all the answers to prayer I've had in my life!
If I have interpreted what your position is correctly, it seems your premise is that the main reason people are Christians is because they are raised that way. But that is an incorrect premise as I have already pointed out to you-- people from every nation, culture, time period since the Cross have become followers of Jesus christ and continue to do so today.
Do really think the only reason I am a Christian is because I was raised that way? Isn't there a time period in most people's lives, somewhere in their 20s, when each person searches for the answers to life and tests whether or not how they were raised is the truth? Isn't that just human nature to find out for one's self?
Do you really think born-again Christians have never wrestled with the deeper issues/questions of life and are just blindly following Christ?
But let me turn this around for a moment...are Atheists really atheists or are they just angry at God for some reason? Perhaps because a prayer wasn't answered the way they wanted it to be? Or perhaps a "former" Christian who did everything right and still had their world come crashing down? And so the attitude is, "Okay, God, I played by Your Rules and this is what I got, this is the thanks I get....so I just won't believe You exist anymore and I will ignore You and leave You out of my life...so there!" Just wondering....
Cricket, you are talking about a religion. I am talking about a relationship. There is a difference.
I am not going to belabor the point with you or argue with you regarding God answering prayer. You choose not to believe in God or Jesus Christ or believe God answers prayer, that is your choice. All I can do is present to you the evidence from my personal experience and the experiences of many people I know who testify without any doubt whatsoever that God does indeed answer prayer and that Salvation through Jesus Christ does change lives. I can't even list all the answers to prayer I've had in my life!
If I have interpreted what your position is correctly, it seems your premise is that the main reason people are Christians is because they are raised that way. But that is an incorrect premise as I have already pointed out to you-- people from every nation, culture, time period since the Cross have become followers of Jesus christ and continue to do so today.
Do really think the only reason I am a Christian is because I was raised that way? Isn't there a time period in most people's lives, somewhere in their 20s, when each person searches for the answers to life and tests whether or not how they were raised is the truth? Isn't that just human nature to find out for one's self?
Do you really think born-again Christians have never wrestled with the deeper issues/questions of life and are just blindly following Christ?
But let me turn this around for a moment...are Atheists really atheists or are they just angry at God for some reason? Perhaps because a prayer wasn't answered the way they wanted it to be? Or perhaps a "former" Christian who did everything right and still had their world come crashing down? And so the attitude is, "Okay, God, I played by Your Rules and this is what I got, this is the thanks I get....so I just won't believe You exist anymore and I will ignore You and leave You out of my life...so there!" Just wondering....
J
judy m villeneuve
Guest
I think this may be a very common misconception about atheists - that something bad happened in our lives and we got "mad" at God. I think you'll find that this is not true in most cases. I think what mostly happens is we stop living by the Biblical admonition that tells us not to trust our minds and ourselves, but that we should trust the word of God. We start believing what our senses tell us, which is, the likelihood that the supernatural is active in our lives is very small.Originally posted by EagleLives911:
[QBBut let me turn this around for a moment...are Atheists really atheists or are they just angry at God for some reason? Perhaps because a prayer wasn't answered the way they wanted it to be? Or perhaps a "former" Christian who did everything right and still had their world come crashing down? And so the attitude is, "Okay, God, I played by Your Rules and this is what I got, this is the thanks I get....so I just won't believe You exist anymore and I will ignore You and leave You out of my life...so there!" Just wondering....
C
chekmate
Guest
If that's the case, why wouldn't it be just as easy to live by the multitudes of "Biblical admonitions" that encourage us to think and reason and use our intellect in our relationship with God?Originally posted by lyra:
I think what mostly happens is we stop living by the Biblical admonition that tells us not to trust our minds and ourselves, but that we should trust the word of God.
I can't think of any Bible verses or passages that tell us to check our brains at the door, when taken in context, but there are many that encourage education, reason, debate, and having a reason for your faith.
Mike
poikilotherm
New Member
(snip complaints)
I'll just concentrate on one point which I see as substantive, the rest seems to rest on talking at cross purposes, which is how we started off when you told me my post missed the point entirely.
Look, you seemed to be responding to me, and I responded (as you will note if you read the thread) to you and lyra, and you responded to that response with a sterling non-response. I will note that you pointed out that religion could well be an evolved trait, a point which
a) does not address its function in the people who practice it (the original subject)
b)prompted a response by lyra that somehow the supernatural explanations are in unqualified contradistrinction to natural explanations.
Who established the point that I supposedly missed and what it was I'm not sure, as my post was on a different topic.
As I read the thread, chekmate was addressing the explanatory/psychological role of religion, and you said that religion might be part of an evolved behavioral propensity (more or less, and correct me if I am mistaken). Its a nice observation, but has nothing to do with
a) the role of religion or
b) the motivations for religious behavior (both of which were brought up by chekmate), nor
c) whether or not you should believe the doctrine of reincarnation because you fear being turned into a worm (something you threw in for reasons which are entirely obscure to me, and which shall likely remain so, even if you try to explain them).
Anyway!
Indeed.
(snip)
The point was that I like ice cream because it has properties that would have hepled me survive and reproduce better in the past (high sugar content), thus the taste is nice. I also find varous actions subjectively pleasing and displeasing, for instance, I find the thought of sleeping with my sister nasty because in the past it would not have helped me to pass on my genetic material due to the genetic probelems that arise when recombination occurs with a close family member. Therefore I feel constrained by my evolutionary heritage in taste and moral issues as I am 'programmed' by natural selection to respond positively or negatively to these things due to adaptive probelms in the Pleistocene era. This explains why I should feel constrained by my evolutionary heritage, because past adaptive problems are solved by producing in me various emotions toward different things that ipso facto make me feel constrained.
Actually, all of that you just posted (putting aside (many) objections to the actual myths you constructed, and the biological determinism implied) only addresses why you might have behavioral/psychological mechanisms that inhibit you from doing what you might otherwise do. what none of that does is explain why you
a)ought to behave in any particular way, nor
b)what you should feel about any particular situation.
Its an objective stance that fails to take into account the fact that religion addresses personal subjective experience, and personal accountability: YOU as an individual have an experience which is not measurable as an experience (ie it is in its most important aspect a subjective experiance, yet can only be measured in its biological epiphenomena). All the biology can measure is the probability of this or that outcome, not that your revulsion at a particular act is experienced as revulsion.
Perhaps I have misread your point here? It's entirely possible. Sorry if I managed to offend you with my earlier post, but I guess the damage is done eh?
That's up to you. Keep going on about it and you will virtually guarantee it.
So feel free to respond how you feel fit, although I would find it sad if I was unable to converse with a respectable level of decorum with a poster I have, from my limited experience, found to be intelligent and interesting.
Like I say, you have some choice in the matter, Nu?
At any rate, the threat to religion from "naturalism" is (on a phliosophical level) the notion that human existance is a thing and not a subjective experiance. Naturalism can only measure things, and meaningfully explain things, but our existance as humans is fundamentally subjective. The former can inform us of the latter, but subjective structures (religion) are valid and important sources of information on subjective experiance. The danger is when people think that psychology or biology subsume subjective experiance, and subsume the constructions that explain subjective experiance in subjective terms.
Its roughly equivalent to the error of saying that geology is a rock.
I'll just concentrate on one point which I see as substantive, the rest seems to rest on talking at cross purposes, which is how we started off when you told me my post missed the point entirely.
Look, you seemed to be responding to me, and I responded (as you will note if you read the thread) to you and lyra, and you responded to that response with a sterling non-response. I will note that you pointed out that religion could well be an evolved trait, a point which
a) does not address its function in the people who practice it (the original subject)
b)prompted a response by lyra that somehow the supernatural explanations are in unqualified contradistrinction to natural explanations.
Who established the point that I supposedly missed and what it was I'm not sure, as my post was on a different topic.
As I read the thread, chekmate was addressing the explanatory/psychological role of religion, and you said that religion might be part of an evolved behavioral propensity (more or less, and correct me if I am mistaken). Its a nice observation, but has nothing to do with
a) the role of religion or
b) the motivations for religious behavior (both of which were brought up by chekmate), nor
c) whether or not you should believe the doctrine of reincarnation because you fear being turned into a worm (something you threw in for reasons which are entirely obscure to me, and which shall likely remain so, even if you try to explain them).
Anyway!
Indeed.
(snip)
The point was that I like ice cream because it has properties that would have hepled me survive and reproduce better in the past (high sugar content), thus the taste is nice. I also find varous actions subjectively pleasing and displeasing, for instance, I find the thought of sleeping with my sister nasty because in the past it would not have helped me to pass on my genetic material due to the genetic probelems that arise when recombination occurs with a close family member. Therefore I feel constrained by my evolutionary heritage in taste and moral issues as I am 'programmed' by natural selection to respond positively or negatively to these things due to adaptive probelms in the Pleistocene era. This explains why I should feel constrained by my evolutionary heritage, because past adaptive problems are solved by producing in me various emotions toward different things that ipso facto make me feel constrained.
Actually, all of that you just posted (putting aside (many) objections to the actual myths you constructed, and the biological determinism implied) only addresses why you might have behavioral/psychological mechanisms that inhibit you from doing what you might otherwise do. what none of that does is explain why you
a)ought to behave in any particular way, nor
b)what you should feel about any particular situation.
Its an objective stance that fails to take into account the fact that religion addresses personal subjective experience, and personal accountability: YOU as an individual have an experience which is not measurable as an experience (ie it is in its most important aspect a subjective experiance, yet can only be measured in its biological epiphenomena). All the biology can measure is the probability of this or that outcome, not that your revulsion at a particular act is experienced as revulsion.
Perhaps I have misread your point here? It's entirely possible. Sorry if I managed to offend you with my earlier post, but I guess the damage is done eh?
That's up to you. Keep going on about it and you will virtually guarantee it.
So feel free to respond how you feel fit, although I would find it sad if I was unable to converse with a respectable level of decorum with a poster I have, from my limited experience, found to be intelligent and interesting.
Like I say, you have some choice in the matter, Nu?
At any rate, the threat to religion from "naturalism" is (on a phliosophical level) the notion that human existance is a thing and not a subjective experiance. Naturalism can only measure things, and meaningfully explain things, but our existance as humans is fundamentally subjective. The former can inform us of the latter, but subjective structures (religion) are valid and important sources of information on subjective experiance. The danger is when people think that psychology or biology subsume subjective experiance, and subsume the constructions that explain subjective experiance in subjective terms.
Its roughly equivalent to the error of saying that geology is a rock.
poikilotherm
New Member
Not quite. Obviously I can only say G-d is a "made up" figure if I assume he does not exist. But I can assert that he is a "father figure" without basing that on an assumption as to whether he exists or not.
So - if atheists are accused of "rebelling against authority" the defence is that they are not, because they do not have an authority figure against which to rebel.
The fact that the "accuser" (the Christian/theist) believes in the "authority figure" is irrelevant to the attitude of the atheist - and "rebelling against authority" is an assertion about the atheist's attitude.
All you are doing is picking which premise to dismiss. An atheist dismisses
i)the existance of the "Father Figure", as well as
ii)the premise of "rebellion"
while a theist dismisses (at least I do) both the premise of
a) G-d as a Freudian father-figure, and
b) The desire to remain juvenile
(This is one of the common theist fallacies about atheists - that they (atheists) are in some way "rejecting" or "rebelling against" G-d; an entity in which they do not believe.)
Hey, don't get me wrong. I was not seriously advocating the old "rebellion" argument as a general explanation, though I think it occasionally true. I think I could even pick out one or two examples of it from some mutual acquaintances
Similarly for the juvenility argument.
On the other hand, if a Christian is accused of being "juvenile" and relying on G-d (an accusation I do not strongly make or in all cases, btw) this is legitimate because the Christian does believe in a G-d figure - whether ot not the figure exists, is irrelevant to the attitude of the Christian.
See above. Calling G-d a Freudian father figure is kinda like calling him a fish-G-d.
Its true that the terminology of the Bible is saturated with father imagery, but fathers don't create universes, and are not the source of constant life (both rather fundamental aspects of G-d): that's maternal imagery. A reasonable conception of G-d, that actually follows the nature of G-d as given by his actions in the Bible is quite outside gender roles, and has been recognised as such for several thousand years.
So - if atheists are accused of "rebelling against authority" the defence is that they are not, because they do not have an authority figure against which to rebel.
The fact that the "accuser" (the Christian/theist) believes in the "authority figure" is irrelevant to the attitude of the atheist - and "rebelling against authority" is an assertion about the atheist's attitude.
All you are doing is picking which premise to dismiss. An atheist dismisses
i)the existance of the "Father Figure", as well as
ii)the premise of "rebellion"
while a theist dismisses (at least I do) both the premise of
a) G-d as a Freudian father-figure, and
b) The desire to remain juvenile
(This is one of the common theist fallacies about atheists - that they (atheists) are in some way "rejecting" or "rebelling against" G-d; an entity in which they do not believe.)
Hey, don't get me wrong. I was not seriously advocating the old "rebellion" argument as a general explanation, though I think it occasionally true. I think I could even pick out one or two examples of it from some mutual acquaintances
On the other hand, if a Christian is accused of being "juvenile" and relying on G-d (an accusation I do not strongly make or in all cases, btw) this is legitimate because the Christian does believe in a G-d figure - whether ot not the figure exists, is irrelevant to the attitude of the Christian.
See above. Calling G-d a Freudian father figure is kinda like calling him a fish-G-d.
Its true that the terminology of the Bible is saturated with father imagery, but fathers don't create universes, and are not the source of constant life (both rather fundamental aspects of G-d): that's maternal imagery. A reasonable conception of G-d, that actually follows the nature of G-d as given by his actions in the Bible is quite outside gender roles, and has been recognised as such for several thousand years.
chekmate: I feel your pain!
The little guy/brick wall is really cute.
I guess a poor analogy (but the only one I can think of right now) is John Glenn going into outer space. I have no PROOF that he actually went there. News sources say he did, but I didn't actually see him go up there for myself and I wasn't in outer space to personally witness if it is true. Any video tapes or recordings of the event could be fakes. He can explain what it was like, weightlessness, the view of earth, the view of outer space, scientific data, his feelings, emotions, what he thought about the experience, or whatever, but I really can't connect to what he says, because I haven't experienced it for myself. I just have to accept on faith that he actually went to outer space and what his experience was. Or I can choose to believe it really didn't happen, that he really wasn't there and that outer space doesn't exist because I have never been there. Or, how do we know the moon landing and placing of the American flag was an actual event? The above skepticism could apply there, as well. That's a poor example, I know...but the closest analogy I can think of right now.
The little guy/brick wall is really cute.
I guess a poor analogy (but the only one I can think of right now) is John Glenn going into outer space. I have no PROOF that he actually went there. News sources say he did, but I didn't actually see him go up there for myself and I wasn't in outer space to personally witness if it is true. Any video tapes or recordings of the event could be fakes. He can explain what it was like, weightlessness, the view of earth, the view of outer space, scientific data, his feelings, emotions, what he thought about the experience, or whatever, but I really can't connect to what he says, because I haven't experienced it for myself. I just have to accept on faith that he actually went to outer space and what his experience was. Or I can choose to believe it really didn't happen, that he really wasn't there and that outer space doesn't exist because I have never been there. Or, how do we know the moon landing and placing of the American flag was an actual event? The above skepticism could apply there, as well. That's a poor example, I know...but the closest analogy I can think of right now.
Why would I deny that when I have stated that most of my friends and I have the
This is by choice.
I guess I don't understand your point.
(sigh) I really don't understand what you are getting at here.
I have tried to explain to you the best way I know how what is in my heart and how I know Jesus Christ is real and not imaginary. I really can't think of anything else to say. Either your heart is open to the possibility that Jesus Christ is real, or your mind is made up that He is not, no matter what. For me, the Bible is enough proof. But I also have experience and a walk with Him, a living relationship. And others do, too. So, switching this discussion around to what criteria I use on whether or not I believe John Glenn went into space and man landed on the moon serves no useful purpose and seems like a grasp at straws--and doesn't even make sense to me, either. It was only given as an analogy.
It doesn't seem to me like there would be any further point in discussion on this topic. I can share with you. That is all I can do. I can only plant seeds. Whether they take root and grow is not up to me.
poikilotherm
New Member
Kachana:
Feel better now? You noticethat spate of questions you were asking, 'cause you didn't understand what I was saying?
Here's a hint: if you want questions answered, ask them before you dismiss things that you are clueless about. I have nothing to prove to you. I'm reasonably well versed in evolutionary theory, though its not my specialty. I do have to say that you seem poorly versed in cultural anthropolgy (Hint: look up the mating practices of the Mayan royal families, for instance, and get back to us all about "hard wiring"). Your discourse was charming, as usual.
Now you can have the last word.
Toodle-oo.
poikilotherm
Feel better now? You noticethat spate of questions you were asking, 'cause you didn't understand what I was saying?
Here's a hint: if you want questions answered, ask them before you dismiss things that you are clueless about. I have nothing to prove to you. I'm reasonably well versed in evolutionary theory, though its not my specialty. I do have to say that you seem poorly versed in cultural anthropolgy (Hint: look up the mating practices of the Mayan royal families, for instance, and get back to us all about "hard wiring"). Your discourse was charming, as usual.
Now you can have the last word.
Toodle-oo.
poikilotherm
poikilotherm
New Member
<sigh> Look up 'The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture' (Barkow, Cosmides & Tooby. 1995) and get back to us all about the mating practices of the Mayan royal families.
In other words, if you want to bring up a point yourself feel free and I will gladly look into it. If you want to send me on a cryptic hypothesis guessing wild goose chase around the social-sciences literature, only to be told that I 'completely missed your point' when I get back to you due to your failure to first explicate your position (as is the norm in any respectable level of academic discourse), feel free, but don't expect any results.</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, I can't resist, but you think you post academic discourse?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
No, I don't expect results.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Thanks for the laugh. I mean that sincerely.
poikilotherm
I don't know, I've been to the infidels page and you folks seem pretty angry to me.
There seems to be an awful lot of anger and bitterness there at both God and his followers.
I don't think it's rational to be so angry at Someone you don't even believe exists but then, the Bible says that it's the fool who says in his heart "there is no God" so I guess reason doesn't necessarily come into play.
I think you nailed it, Mike.
My first question is:
Are you a believer??? Please answer truthfully.
My second comment goes something like this:all things are acceptable but not all things are profitable and this discussion strikes me as "unprofitable"
However, if you truly subscribe to your hypothesis, then why bother to start the arguement you obviously intended would ensue?
What you intended was clear when you said "let the flames begin."
And in response to the quote I posted above, yes you can pick on any group you "darn" well please, but any group you "darn" well please can also choose not to respond leaving you somewhat deflated. I just wish that would have been what happened here.