Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

A Christian Framework


Wololo

Recommended Posts

Scientist believe there are

no other ways of acquiring knowledge than from the perspective of an empiricist. This essentially means that anyone claiming to understand a reality that transcends what can be experienced with the senses and be verified empirically has been making up nonsense. Therefore, there is no such thing as morality.

 

This essentially means that scientists claim that anyone claiming to understand a reality that transcends what can be experienced with the senses and be verified empirically has been making up nonsense.

Good post, Bill. I agree that Wololo's #261 deserves considered responses.

 

One thing I think is tricky is how to construe "nonsense/nonsensical." As I understand it, old-style logical positivism a la A.J. Ayer maintained that for an utterance to be a meaningful statement, it has to express a proposition with a verifiable truth value. Verification is done by appeal to sensory data or conclusions based on them. So these theorists held that certain utterances that most people think are meaningful statements are not so when the utterance doesn't express an empirically verifiable proposition.

 

By this reasoning, "Killing is wrong" is not a meaningful statement because it does not convey an empirically verifiable proposition.

 

It does not follow for the logical positivist, however, that the utterance, "Killing is wrong," is just blather. They may analyze it as a disguised command, for example, i.e. "Don't kill," and not as a statement. A proposition has to be true or false, but there are other utterances, like commands or recommendations, that are not assertive statements. Or the logical positivist may analyze it as a disguised statement about attitudes for which there is evidence, as though it amounts to "we all hate killing." so it's not accurate, as far as I understand, to think that logical positivists thought that beyond the truths of science, "anything goes."  Their movement is pretty much passe, though.

 [/color]

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, thanks Ravenstar. I'll continue for a few more minutes, then I'm going to bed and will pick up tomorrow.

 

3. Whatever some scientists may have said about the ability of only science to come to valid conclusions about nature, the universe or anything else, the fact of the matter is that science's purpose is to discover what we can about the world and the universe in which we live, to the exclusion of philosophy, metaphysics, religion, magic, miracles, witches or howling at the moon. It's purpose was to find out what we can discover about by the use of our sense and our senses, to the exclusion of mere speculation or even smart people's opinions. The question is always, what can mankind discover by observation, thinking, hypotheses, testing (experiments) and theories obtained from the testing. You know, like the theory of gravity.)

 

It was never to search for a god or a holy spirit, or an unholy spirit. If the theories it reached caused people to infer things about  the supernatural, they were and are welcome to do so. And those inferences could be drawn by scientists, themselves. But god would become involved only indirectly and parenthetically. And Philosophy was one of the things sciences was leaving behind. I don't mean excluding it from consideration by everyone. But it was not to be a part of the scientific method.

 

 Is science imperfect? Of course! Who in hell has ever contended it was not? Science is an ongoing process that never stops, unless fanatics gain control of the world and outlaw it. The process will continually correct and attempt to correct its earlier mistakes. No final conclusions are ever made. All scientific laws are subject to change and to even be abandoned if appropriate. And that is one of its major strengths, not its weakness, as some apologists pretend. THAT'S A MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION. 

 

The fact that science is not perfect because it is a human pursuit does not mean that it is as imperfect as religion, philosophy, or

 other human pursuits. One of the main purposes of science is to catch its own mistakes, unlike religion which tries to move heaven and earth to prevent the discovery of any of its numerous mistakes, which attempt fails miserably.

 

It's bedtime now and I'm going to go to bed. One thought before I do so: You are involved in abstract thinking in presenting your ideas. Without using the scientific method, abstract thinking can get one lost in the ionosphere, so to speak. Unless you find a way to keep your feet solidly on the ground, it can play tricks on you. See you tomorrow.  bill
 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did he shake the dust off his sandals and leave?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wololo: I certainly don't pretend to be an expert on Philosophy. I have read some philosophy and taken a college level course in it. But that is merely scratching the surface, I'm sure. What I do know has been interesting learning. And some of it may be true. But it is by nature speculative. It is the abstract creation of one's brain. It is not proof of anything unless it has been tested properly. But it can't really be tested. To infer proof of  god from any philosophy is illogical from the start. To infer such a conclusion (i.e., god) from philosophical speculations is not truly an inference. Inferences are drawn from experiences and observations, not from mere opinion without proof. Indeed, once one makes an inference from a conclusion of your philosophy you have by definition weakened your position, not strengthened  it. It is similar to a principle in the law of evidence which provides that one cannot present any evidence in court if it is an inference from an inference. Why? Because the 1st inference flows from facts; the second is not based on facts but merely another inference. The 2nd inference is weakened so much that it will not even be considered by a court. The same principle applies to an opinion based upon an opinion. It has no foundation. 

 

Not only that, but you are trying to confirm that Jesus Christ, the son of god, who also was god,  was raised from the dead and you think you can establish that from your philosophy? A snake talked to Eve, the first woman, and philosophy can prove that? Adam and Eve sinned (whatever that means) and therefore their progeny is contaminated by Adam's sin and are condemned to hell?

 

Or are you trying to say that Xtinity is consistent with your philosophy? So what? It's inconsistent with mine. Who's right?

You may be able to draw inferences from the bible and call that your philosophy, but you sure as hell cannot infer the bible god from philosophy. That's because the bible sets forth "fact", from which, if they are assumed to be true, you can draw inferences and a philosophy. But you would in the beginning have a huge problem of deciding which of the inconsistent facts laid out in the bible are true. 

 

Your inference upon inference approach to Xtianity is even less believable than the bible fundamentalists. I didn't think that was possible.   bill

 

Okay. I'm going to start a new approach here, so I'd like you all to evaluate something carefully...

 

 

Wololo (I read your post but deleted it from the quote for the sake of bandwidth/readability), I don't have a problem with any of this.  I haven't read any scientists who are claiming that science provides 100% certainty about the nature of reality.  It seems they are perfectly comfortable with the idea that science is limited to observations of the natural world, whereas more ultimate-yet-intangible questions are relegated to philosophy or theology.  If not, I'd have to question their credibility as scientists.  The degree of certainty we have about the universe, to me, is like an exponential curve, continually approaching some axis of 100% certainty but never quite reaching it.  We are more certain about evolution or the Big Bang than we've ever been, but there is still the possibility of new information that would change that.  I'm perfectly ok with our incomplete understanding of the universe and where it all came from, or the origin of life / consciousness .. it is a fascinating puzzle that we may one day solve.  Not some philosophical delimna that requires us to delegate a supernatural explanation for it.

 

Have you read Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan?  it is an incredible presentation of the power and scope of the scientific methods, as well as an honest examination of its susceptibility to bias and corruption.  So even if the methodology is solid, its application is often a double edged sword.  In the same century we eliminated polio, we also invented gas chambers, hydrogen bombs and uzis.

 

I've also heard Sam Harris mention in lectures that if we work under the assumption that human beings should strive to promote the general welfare and alleviate suffering for as many sentient beings as possible, we can use science as a tool for informing our ethics and morality.   In other words, the information obtained via the scientific method is helpful for 'fine tuning' or optimizing our attempts to improve our quality of life.  Where do we get this assumption that we should take care of each other and minimize each other's suffering?  It could come from some higher being, but it is adequately explained by evolution as well.  if I am understanding Sam correctly, he would say that most organized religions do not operate under this assumption, and as a result they have caused a great degree of otherwise preventable suffering.  He develops this idea in The Moral Landscape, which I haven't read yet.  It seems like an intriguing idea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My eyes glazed over with a lot of what Wololo said, and I take my hat off to those of you who understood and addressed his posts.

 

I read this article today:

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/05/13/illuminati-fundamentalist-christians-infiltrating-state-federal-government/

 

Which included this:

 

Indeed, part of the nine-week program includes a rigorous reading guide that lists tomes by scholars widely considered to hold radical religious views—a reality openly acknowledged by theAlliance, which warns that: 

 

 
Some materials may even contain assertions that may be construed (or misconstrued) to be unnecessarily sectarian, or even offensive to one’s particular theological or ecclesiastical tradition. No offense and certainly, no proselytizing, is intended. Rather, Alliance Defending Freedom seeks to recover the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries.
 

The list includes Gary DeMar, Andrew P. Sandlin, and the late Dr. D. James Kennedy and Greg L. Bahnsen, advocates and former leaders of the once-resurgent and controversial Christian Reconstructionism movement, a fundamentalist Calvinist movement that advocates for a theocratic national government combined with libertarian economic principles.

 

It reminded me of Wololo, with all his early-church and anti-democracy talk.  BTW, worrying article, if anyone's interested.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My eyes glazed over with a lot of what Wololo said, and I take my hat off to those of you who understood and addressed his posts.

 

I read this article today:

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/05/13/illuminati-fundamentalist-christians-infiltrating-state-federal-government/

 

Which included this:

 

Indeed, part of the nine-week program includes a rigorous reading guide that lists tomes by scholars widely considered to hold radical religious views—a reality openly acknowledged by theAlliance, which warns that: 

 

 
Some materials may even contain assertions that may be construed (or misconstrued) to be unnecessarily sectarian, or even offensive to one’s particular theological or ecclesiastical tradition. No offense and certainly, no proselytizing, is intended. Rather, Alliance Defending Freedom seeks to recover the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries.
 

The list includes Gary DeMar, Andrew P. Sandlin, and the late Dr. D. James Kennedy and Greg L. Bahnsen, advocates and former leaders of the once-resurgent and controversial Christian Reconstructionism movement, a fundamentalist Calvinist movement that advocates for a theocratic national government combined with libertarian economic principles.

 

It reminded me of Wololo, with all his early-church and anti-democracy talk.  BTW, worrying article, if anyone's interested.

 

I feel an evil presence reading that article. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Rod, tell us who our next contestant will be.....in The Lion's Den!"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Wololo took the last train for the coast, so I'm not going to finish my response to his delusions.  

 

I have a suggestion for responding to Xtians here. Some of them "deserve" to have a straight forward, sincere response to their attempts to "enlighten" us with their god-given knowledge of the unknown. If they appear to be sincere I suggest we give them a reasonable doubt and respond accordingly. If they are clearly here for other purposes, that's a different matter. But I think if we respond in a hostile way, we may be giving them ammunition to further confuse their fellow Xtians as to what we are about. What do you think?  bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Wololo took the last train for the coast…

We are not up to his standards.  I'm glad I was able to oblige him.  I take it as a compliment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" pretty much sums up Wololo. He knew just enough about science/philosophy to screw it up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Wololo took the last train for the coast, so I'm not going to finish my response to his delusions.  

 

I have a suggestion for responding to Xtians here. Some of them "deserve" to have a straight forward, sincere response to their attempts to "enlighten" us with their god-given knowledge of the unknown. If they appear to be sincere I suggest we give them a reasonable doubt and respond accordingly. If they are clearly here for other purposes, that's a different matter. But I think if we respond in a hostile way, we may be giving them ammunition to further confuse their fellow Xtians as to what we are about. What do you think?  bill

 

I think this subforum "The Lion's Den" is just a small part of the forums on the site. I would hope that visiting/lurking Christians take a look at all of the forums and the extimonies of people who have left the faith, especially paying attention to 'why' they left. You are correct though in that there is a lot of automatic hostility when a Christian starts posting pro-Christian stuff here...then again, check the website name.

 

Someone who is deconverting may not want to post in the Lion's Den subforum if their faith/non-faith is shakey. I figure the only reason a Christian is posting in the Lion's Den is to bring us back to Jesus, unless they specify otherwise. I don't like the ones that try to hide their true intention of recruiting people for Jesus. It reminds me of the Amway business opportunity meeting.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will try to be a little more patient with our guests…   :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will too.  :)

 

(But he was just so arrogantly annoying.  Made himself an easy target then whined about it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bet if we pandered to them they would still report back that we're assholes. How would it look to say anything nice. We don't believe in their fairy tales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, they would. But on the other hand being nicer to them keeps them here longer, which is more entertaining for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bet if we pandered to them they would still report back that we're assholes. How would it look to say anything nice. We don't believe in their fairy tales.

 

Those who are easily led by others' opinions may conclude we are evil godless assholes.

Those who are just discovering that the opinions of others and their holy books are  BS may come here and give us a shot.

 

If someone comes here with the intention of converting us to Christianity they will be recognized and their efforts thwarted.

If someone comes here requesting help to let go of a Christian faith that has become toxic to them, we will help them.

 

The messages on the various threads bear that out. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I will admit that my exchanges with WoeLOL have given me pause to reconsider some of my more redneck-ish tactics.  But, then again, he said from the outset that he didn't mind aggression and would give as good as he got.  That's why I was surprised when the excuse he gave for leaving was that somebody said dirty words to him (I do hold that it was just an excuse, not the real reason).  I will try, in future, to size a person up better before launching an assault, not necessarily out of respect for their position, but because I want to be as effective as possible for the lurkers.

 

*Hugs to all the lurkers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest afireinside

Guys I gotta say I got over-offended at him and spewed out a lot of "abuse". I felt like he was mocking me in a few posts and I should have just ignored his comments/attitude but I snapped and gave him an excuse to remove himself. Part of me thinks people like that are good but another part thinks F off, you come into someone's house and take a piss on their carpet you will get told. I'm recently deconverted and need to learn to curb my anger and show a bit more maturity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Guys I gotta say I got over-offended at him and spewed out a lot of "abuse". I felt like he was mocking me in a few posts and I should have just ignored his comments/attitude but I snapped and gave him an excuse to remove himself. Part of me thinks people like that are good but another part thinks F off, you come into someone's house and take a piss on their carpet you will get told. I'm recently deconverted and need to learn to curb my anger and show a bit more maturity.

Nah, fire, you didn't give him the excuse to remove himself; he was already looking for it.  He said he was okay with aggression and would give as good as he got.  In the end, that turned out to not be the truth.  While learning to curb your anger and show more maturity (which is something even the best of us, including myself, sometimes struggle with) are both good for personal development, I wouldn't beat yourself up too much over WoeLOL.  He realized he had been bested and wasn't mature enough to admit it.  He would have used any excuse to get the hell out of Dodge, whether you provided it or not.  Besides, damn shit fuck bitch ass cunt whore.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

twatwaffle and clusterfuck

 

Just thought I'd add my own creative curses…  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a while I was thinking about looking up the "the fruit of the spirit is peace, patience, whatever they all are" verse and posting it, interspersing Wololo's posts where he was least doing all of those things. I mean, it was a little weird how he would say "I'm just going to ignore the insults and deal with the respectful people" and then do the opposite. My plan wasn't intended to be mean, just to point out that the supposed fruit of the spirit wasn't showing up here. Maybe that would get him, or others, to ask why that was.

 

OK, it was supposed to be a little mean. And funny. But I didn't get it done. So imagine it, and laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will try to be a little more patient with our guests…   biggrin.png

 

 

Thank you Ravenstar. And I do really mean that.

 

The Lion's Den is a forum where Christian are allowed to post

and express their views on Christianity. I'm glad that you seem to at

least be patient with our presence here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I will try to be a little more patient with our guests…   biggrin.png

 

 

Thank you Ravenstar. And I do really mean that.

 

The Lion's Den is a forum where Christian are allowed to post

and express their views on Christianity. I'm glad that you seem to at

least be patient with our presence here.

 

I think she was referring to a guest who arrived, spat all sorts of venom at us, and left as quickly as he came.

 

You are much more respectful than that so it's easier to be patient with you and I don't think we need to improve on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I will try to be a little more patient with our guests…   biggrin.png

 

 

Thank you Ravenstar. And I do really mean that.

 

The Lion's Den is a forum where Christian are allowed to post

and express their views on Christianity. I'm glad that you seem to at

least be patient with our presence here.

 

 

So how patient should we be, IH?

 

I'm still waiting on answers to questions I put to you weeks and months ago.  And I won't be honoring any request of yours for information about what questions these were.  You said you'd make the effort to try and answer them.  

.

.

.

 

So honor YOUR word and make the effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hint:

If you aren't going to put in the effort - don't give your word that you will.

Doing that causes us to doubt your sincerity and it leads us to question the quality of your spiritual fruit.

 

Galatians 5 : 22 & 23.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, .....faithfulness....????

23 gentleness and self-control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.