The reason why Christianity seems so unrealistic and naive

[OPTIONAL777]

Conceptualizing is an experience...doh!!!

Quote from PatternRec:

Conceptualizing totality is not the same thing as experiencing, perceiving, and recognizing Totality as indistinguishable from anything else.

Defining it is perfectly reasonable.

Now, let's go out and test for it. Moreover, if we think we've found it, now we will need to falsify it just to be sure.

 

[PatternRec]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Conceptualizing is an experience...doh!!!

Really? I just conceptualized a seriously sexy alien female who orgasms at the touch of her genitalia. Which in turn involuntarily causes her to glow from bio-luminescence. Right, also something chemical in her gel like saliva causes a sense of euphoria in me. Etc. Etc.

Have I experienced?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"Really? I just conceptualized a seriously sexy alien female who orgasms at the touch of her genitalia."

To each their own...I guess.

Have you experienced? In your mind, of course.

Tell me of any experience that doesn't ultimately take place in the mind...

Just because an experience doesn't come through the senses does not mean the experience isn't valid and a very real experience.

Now the counter is to say, "that is just imagination."

Tell me what theory, invention, political movement, etc. didn't begin as an imagination.

Just because others are not able to experience for themselves though their senses what another experiences doesn't mean the experience is invalid.

It only means that someone can't prove it to another, but to suggest that only that which can be known via the senses is real and exists...is a daft thinking...it is a claim that only a posteriori knowledge is real or has value.

Your fantasy below is not known to actually be true or false, it is only possible for me to confirm it through the physical senses...because your description is of something physical in nature.

God is not physical in nature, as the physical is limited and bound by time and space...where God exists eternally in all times and all spaces equally, and in no time and no space simultaneously. That is because God, by my definition is Totality, but where most people think of Totality only existing as a totality...a net result of the total of all the parts, God eternally exists as both a Totality, and each part within the boundaries of the Totality of God have the same value as the Totality itself.

You cut a rope in two, you have two ropes, or you have one rope cut in two. Depends on how you want to describe it. The rope is the same, just divided.

God however is indivisible, because each part of the Whole is the same as the Whole.

This won't make any sense if someone is holding God to time and space...but a three dimensional object would not make sense to a flat object that knows only two dimensions...

Placing a requirement on God to be known through the physical senses, when God is by definition beyond the reach of the physical senses...makes no sense.

Quote from PatternRec:

Really? I just conceptualized a seriously sexy alien female who orgasms at the touch of her genitalia. Which in turn involuntarily causes her to glow from bio-luminescence. Right, also something chemical in her gel like saliva causes a sense of euphoria in me. Etc. Etc.

Have I experienced?

 

[FeenixRizin]

Quote from Free Thinker:

christianity is so naive because they are indoctrinated from birth to believe that the bible is the infalible word of god. everything they believe comes from the bible. there is no outside evidence.
they are taught to believe that their god is perfect and his book has to be perfect. if any error in the bible is admitted to it makes the whole book suspect.
this belief puts them into an intellectual quandry. if the bible has errors what they believe could be wrong. the only way out of this quandry is to embrace willfull ignorance. they just refuse to believe anything that differs from the bible to the point where they teach their children this:



"if conclusions contradict the word of God, the conclusions are wrong no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."biology textbook printed by conservative Christian publisher Bob Jones University Press

I've learned a few things ... only one from reading you...


better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool then open it...


"naive" .. indeed.


signing off, reading the idiocy on this site has sufficiently driven me mad (it's unfortunate to realize that it may represent the thinking of the 'new' generation)

 

[fkbsuhites]

Both absolute creationists and absolute evolutionists are not absolutely correct.

Both sides have set their brains on "speak-to-the-hand" mode when debating the issue with the other side.

In the short time I have, I will try and delve into the subject as best I can.


The Creationist fallacy:


Part I.

Part I investigates why the Creationist belief system has to rooted in absolute faith to survive.


By Creationists I refer to the evangelical Christians who literally believe the earth is 6000 years old.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DH_wPUVlJ38&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DH_wPUVlJ38&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

It is incomprehensible how a otherwise sane person can disregard fossil evidence and scientific data from the earth crust that the earth is way older than their belief the earth is 6000 years old.

The Bible describes Adam, Eve, Noah etc.

Creationists can not reconcile the fact that Pyramids in Egypt show a advanced civilization was flourishing at the time of the "supposed flood" that killed off humanity?

or

Creationists can not reconcile the fact from fossil evidence that God did not create humans first, but created Dinosaurs first.


The frightening aspect of the creationists is they are brain washing an entire generation into living in stupifying ignorance.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ppQhleVuWPM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ppQhleVuWPM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


He says it best:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4qAVgG7UTnQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4qAVgG7UTnQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


The confusion on the part of the Creationists is they literally interpret the Bible. A book that has been revised and translated in near infinite iterations.

Here's the latest Iteration of the Bible

The Conservative Bible Project is a project utilizing the "best of the public" to render God's word into modern English without liberal translation distortions
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Creationists disregard criticism of their literal interpretation because of their blind Faith in the Bible as Gods work.

They resort to the circular logic : Gods is all-powerful, therefore His words can not be incorrect.

Point taken.

However, THE BIBLE IS *NOT* GODS WORDS. The Bible is a repository of HUMAN STORIES that have been passed down and interpreted and twisted to mean whatever the ruling elite of the day wanted it to state.

The DISTORTIONS IN THE BIBLE started way BEFORE King James got his hands on Greek manuscripts to try and re-write it as it originally was meant.

IF THE BIBLE CAN BE RE-WRITTEN TODAY TO FIT THE POLITICAL MEANS OF A FEW DISFRANCHISED INDIVIDUALS, YOU CAN BET IT WAS RE-WRITTEN DURING THE CHRISTIAN CONSOLIDATION OF PAGAN ROME.

EVEN CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS HAVE BEEN CHANGED to mesh with the pagan believes.

Many Bible Scholars believe Jesus celebrated the Sabbath on Saturday. Yet Christians today celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday. It's simply because Constantine wanted to make it easier for Pagan Romans to become Christians by changing the Sabbath to Sunday. Roman religion and Mithraism observed Sunday as their day of religious observance

Many Bible scholars believe Jesus never eat swine flesh.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/574145/should_christians_eat_pork.html


ANY rational mind that studies Roman civilization and it's metamorphosis into the "Holy Roman Empire" will realize that the Bible and Christianity HAVE BEEN CHANGED MANY TIMES TO FIT THE NEEDS OF THE RULERS OF THE TIMES.

Evangelicals when shown these facts will resort to FAITH and state America was founded by Christians. That is a fallacy. America was founded by DEISTS. All the founding fathers were DEISTS.

Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) whose mental acuity is head and shoulders above any current living American politician, DID NOT PANDER to the masses and went as far as RIPPING PAGES OUT OF THE BIBLE and keeping only the parts that MADE SENSE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_bible)


Now some may construe my post as a full frontal assault on Christianity. And there will be some who are turned off by EXERCISE OF LOGIC.

As my Teabagger thread has proven, many INDIVIDUALS HAVE THEIR PERSONA ATTACHED TO THEIR BELIEFS.

THEREFORE BY SIMPLY QUESTIONING THEIR BELIEFS, THEY LITERALLY THINK YOU ARE HARMING THEM PHYSICALLY. THEREFORE THEY WILL TUNE OFF AND GO INTO ATTACK MODE.

The only way anyone sane would believe in the Bible as it is currently written is by resorting to absolute FAITH


Part II.


Part II investigates why the Creationist belief system DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON MONOTHESIM

There are many other religions that also believe in the concept of a Supreme Creator Being

they just happen to call Him by other names.

Can so many religions that all believe in 1 Supreme Creator ALL be wrong And only the Creationist version is correct?

It is Highly unlikely that all the religions are wrong and only the creationists version is the correct one.

The answer lies in the fact that ALL THESE RELIGIONS AND RELIGIOUS DOGMA ARE *NOT* LITERAL GODS WORDS. . Anything that is passed down from one generation to the next is done by

(a) Oral Tradition (b) Written down in images/languages

That is why Oral traditions from the same region are VERY SIMILAR.

Sumerians have written history that is identical to the Old testament. Example the Gligamesh flood myth is comparable to the Biblical Noahs flood.

Gilgamesh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth
Noah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark


In human civilization, the masses have began to read only in the last few hundred years with the help of industrialization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_Revolution#The_Printing_Revolution

So who was doing the writing and reading before mass printing?

The ELITES OF THE TIME. THE PRIESTS AND RULERS were the ones doing the reading and writing.

As time passes, Oral traditions are written down by the ruling elites and they conveniently only put in parts that fit their political agenda.


Because of the similarities between the beliefs of the creationists and other religions, It is now become apparent the Creationists CAN NOT be given a monopoly on human oral history or the concept of a single Deity

There are numerous OTHER Religions that believe in the concept of a Supreme single Creator Being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism

Since the Creationists do not have a monopoly on their own stories ( example: as proven by the flood epic of Gilgamesh) AND other religions also claim the SAME UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES, the obvious conclusion should be the Creationists are NOT CORRECT IN CLAIMING THEIR VERSION OF THE "TRUTH" IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE VERSION.

Therefore, the Creationist version of "The Truth" is only partially correct at best.

The thesis presented in Part I and Part II have shown the Creationists to be NOT FULLY CORRECT . And why they have to resort to the concept of FAITH to explain away the devastating circular fallacies the Bible engages in.

 

[fkbsuhites]

The Evolutionists fallacy:

Running short on time so I will make this part shorter. A Evolutionist by definition should have logical and rational mind. Therefore allowing for brevity.


Part I

Evolution did not create Consciousness

Humans are the only creatures who are able to rationalize the concept of "I".

Why did the Human ape suddenly win a quantum leap in the "evolutionary" lottery for consciousness while the rest of the animal kingdom was left behind?

Evolutionists run into similar circular logical fallacies as the creationists when trying to answer the question of why, when and how humans "evolved" to be conscious.

When did this concept of "I" take hold in the Human ego during evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conciousness

Did it happen the way portrayed here:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ML1OZCHixR0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ML1OZCHixR0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>


Part II

If a human acquired consciousness of its persona through higher intelligence during evolution, why are there no other reasonably intelligent creature that exhibit similar conscious abilities?

The probability that a amoeba eventually metamorphosed, over Billion of years, into the concious modern Human capable of identifying with the concept of "I" is so infinitesimal as to be non-existent.



The answer must lie in between the two extremes being discussed. Science does not have the answer based on scientific probability and neither do creationists have the answer based on blind nonsensical faith.


Logic therefore dictates the possibility of a superior being(s) who is/was involved in eliminating the infinitesimal probability of evolutionary consciousness.

Logic further dictates that if there is such powerful being(s), then He/they could also be ONE


Conclusion:

There is a higher probability of there existing a GOD, a supreme creator Being, capable of changing the outcome of the game of evolutionary dice, than the lower probability of human apes being the sole benefactors of a evolutionary quirk.


To the creationists, He says: Your "religion" is NOT unique.

How can your puny deeds and irrelevant trials, tribulations and silly endeavors effect the master plan of such a Powerful Creature?

By "faithfully" following your religion you are NOT using the gift of consciousness and therefore most probably subverting His Will for you to evolve and be free.

To the Evolutionists, I say. May God have mercy on your souls.

 

[PatternRec]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"Really? I just conceptualized a seriously sexy alien female who orgasms at the touch of her genitalia."

To each their own...I guess.

Have you experienced? In your mind, of course.

Tell me of any experience that doesn't ultimately take place in the mind...

Just because an experience doesn't come through the senses does not mean the experience isn't valid and a very real experience.

Now the counter is to say, "that is just imagination."

Tell me what theory, invention, political movement, etc. didn't begin as an imagination.

Just because others are not able to experience for themselves though their senses what another experiences doesn't mean the experience is invalid.

It only means that someone can't prove it to another, but to suggest that only that which can be known via the senses is real and exists...is a daft thinking...it is a claim that only a posteriori knowledge is real or has value.

Your fantasy below is not known to actually be true or false, it is only possible for me to confirm it through the physical senses...because your description is of something physical in nature.

God is not physical in nature, as the physical is limited and bound by time and space...where God exists eternally in all times and all spaces equally, and in no time and no space simultaneously. That is because God, by my definition is Totality, but where most people think of Totality only existing as a totality...a net result of the total of all the parts, God eternally exists as both a Totality, and each part within the boundaries of the Totality of God have the same value as the Totality itself.

You cut a rope in two, you have two ropes, or you have one rope cut in two. Depends on how you want to describe it. The rope is the same, just divided.

God however is indivisible, because each part of the Whole is the same as the Whole.

This won't make any sense if someone is holding God to time and space...but a three dimensional object would not make sense to a flat object that knows only two dimensions...

Placing a requirement on God to be known through the physical senses, when God is by definition beyond the reach of the physical senses...makes no sense.

I can tell that this is going to get more psuedo-esoteric, circular and convoluted if it continues.

So I'll stop here.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Were someone to be truly certain of God, not even .000001% doubt in their heart of mind, they would be one with God.

For a theist to say they are practicing faith in God means just that...they have not perfected faith to a level of 100% certainty which would Divinize their mind to be on with Divine God.

Well, many people will say they are truly certain of God, not even .000001% doubt. Then they are at one with God, no doubt in their heart of mind..... that there isn't one.

Every bit as valid as your idea to the contrary.

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

No.

I am certain of Totality, and I have faith that Totality is God.

What are you not clear on?

What are you trying to be so unclear about?

"Certainty of Totality is still certainty without fact." ...same difference


You've said belief in God is a practice of faith as you are not certain of God. ok, fine.

So then you called God something else . A so called Totality.
Now you believe Totality is God, as if shifting one uncertainty over to another confirms certainty.

Like I said to unretired, belief seems to be something which gets made often and easy with the religious.

Apparently both of you make-belief, for any old reason .
..... is it only because you can't abide belief to sound in any way inferior to the original point that ....

"God is certainty without fact"
"Science is fact without certainty.

just sayin'

 

[stu]

Quote from fkbsuhites:

Part II

If a human acquired consciousness of its persona through higher intelligence during evolution, why are there no other reasonably intelligent creature that exhibit similar conscious abilities?

The probability that a amoeba eventually metamorphosed, over Billion of years, into the concious modern Human capable of identifying with the concept of "I" is so infinitesimal as to be non-existent.

Why make a false argument to try and prove your point when that will only serve to undermine it?
Evolution is nothing to do with an amoeba eventually metamorphosing over billions of years into the conscious modern Human.

You should perhaps study what Evolution does explain before making up stuff which it does not.

Quote from fkbsuhites:

The answer must lie in between the two extremes being discussed. Science does not have the answer based on scientific probability and neither do creationists have the answer based on blind nonsensical faith.

What answer? Evolution is fact and theory based on fact. Those facts and theories of Evolution are not about creation.... so what answer are you trying to force Evolution into providing?

Quote from fkbsuhites:

Logic therefore dictates the possibility of a superior being(s) who is/was involved in eliminating the infinitesimal probability of evolutionary consciousness.

Logic further dictates that if there is such powerful being(s), then He/they could also be ONE

Logic dictates no such things. There is no logic in making false arguments to support false claims for a so called superior being.

Quote from fkbsuhites:

Conclusion:

There is a higher probability of there existing a GOD, a supreme creator Being, capable of changing the outcome of the game of evolutionary dice, than the lower probability of human apes being the sole benefactors of a evolutionary quirk.

Another one coming to a conclusion without substantial evidence or any corroborating facts.
You sound like a creationist knocking both creationism and Evolution to make the case for creationists.

Quote from fkbsuhites:

To the creationists, He says: Your "religion" is NOT unique.

No, that's you saying "He says: Your 'religion' is NOT unique."

Quote from fkbsuhites:

How can your puny deeds and irrelevant trials, tribulations and silly endeavors effect the master plan of such a Powerful Creature?

By "faithfully" following your religion you are NOT using the gift of consciousness and therefore most probably subverting His Will for you to evolve and be free.

Not using the gift of consciousness is clearly advisable when talking for "Him".

Quote from fkbsuhites:

He says:
To the Evolutionists, I say. May God have mercy on your souls.

Rather than shamming unasked for mercy onto others through your own blind nonsensical faith, I think you might do better seeking some factual knowledge of Evolution for yourself.

just a suggestion.

 

[PatternRec]

Quote from fkbsuhites:

Both absolute creationists and absolute evolutionists are not absolutely correct.

Both sides have set their brains on "speak-to-the-hand" mode when debating the issue with the other side.

In the short time I have, I will try and delve into the subject as best I can.

While you have the Young Earth creationist position nailed, you're misrepresenting the evolutionist and other creationist position by using the qualifier word "absolute."

For one, many adherents to evolution simply do not embrace the concept of a creator since there is no evidence of one. They do not know exactly how life started but once it did, it evolved. They are at all times open to new evidence.

Various Creationist schools of thought other than Young Earthers, leave room for evolution, some embracing it, but contend that a creator (intelligent designer or Judeo-Christian God) is the prime motivator and first cause of all things. They do not take issue with scientific discovery or theories. Whatever exists, to them whether explained or unexplained, is the work of a creator.

The only absolutist is the Young Earth Creationist(YEC) which is a necessary position to take in order to adhere to it. Because of its simplistic literal interpretation of the Genesis record without reconciliation or critical thought coupled with the belief in biblical inerrancy, there is no room left to account for anything contrary. All things contrary are considered lies and trickery. YEC's are notorious for misrepresenting the facts and opposing viewpoints. Omissions, obfuscations, fabrications, subversion, gainsay, and twisting are hallmark tactics of this group. Naturally since it is the least defensible position to take concerning the origin of the natural universe and all there in.