WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Post Reply New Topic

Wow. I have only read the read few pages of this thread admittedly before I thought I had stepped into the Twilight Zone (not to be confused with the vampire and werewolf twilight series).

I am Agnostic. I don't believe in God's existence nor do I believe the stories in the bible or any other doctrine as being much more than fables and analogies and metaphors for the most part.
That said, I do respect the strength that comes with religious conviction and the power derived from it (good and bad). I recognise too that there are no ultimate proofs that can be leveled one way or another as to God's existence or Heaven or any other Deity or Spiritual resting place.

So with this in mind I read the Christian OP's remarks and thought, "Meh, he is being over-sensitive." Then I read the Moderator's response

You know if SuperboyIan wanted to give proof of intolerance and disrespecting members with religious persuasion, this would be the example to give. (And from a Moderator too)

Wow.

So really this is a way of saying, "Thanks SuperBoyIan for posting about your deluded and irrational belief systems. I, Tallyman from the moderator team, think your beliefs are comical but you want to express them here then feel free."

Is the site Anti-Christian?

Is your own attitude Anti-Christian?

I think it's safe to say that "free will" vs "determinism" arguments amount to little more IF anything at all other than "glass half-empty/half-full." I rather think some things we had a say in, and other things we didn't. I didn't choose to be born, for instance. I didn't choose THIS universe to be born into. You can still have choices and the power to choose even if you aren't completely free. I don't believe there is such a thing as "absolute" freedom. I mean, there ARE absolutes out there, but that's not really one of them. I would say that we are free to choose between heaven and hell. Others would argue (legitimately) that eternal reward for "getting lucky" OR eternal punishment isn't really a choice. So can we have free will if we aren't completely free in the strictest sense? I think so. Do we really have that many choices? No. Yet we still get to make the choice...

So, is the glass half empty or half full?

If a glass is half-empty, it is also half-full. I see both and take that approach to everything I perceive.

The 20th century philosopher Alan Watts emphasized the hidden unity of polar opposites. One of his books, Two Hands of God, showed examples of this from many cultures throughout history including both eastern and western religions. Polar opposites such as life and death, good and evil, even being and non-being, are like opposite ends of the same stick, or the front and back of the same coin. One implies the other.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 28 Apr 2011, 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

So you have a scientific approach to belief. Did bacteria exist before 1674? OK rhetorical question. Were we to take the leap of faith and say to someone (prior to this date) "You know, I really think that there is tiny incy wincy little living creatures swimming around in my blood, and in my stomach, and on my food, and in the air that by and large does me no harm, and are actually invisible to the naked eye....what...no I am serious. No we just haven't seen it yet. no I can't prove it."

Would I be right saying the above? Could i prove it? Would the scientific community be able to back my assertions?
Invisible beings in my body that I can not see but think is there and all around us everywhere, in and n all things.

You know it kind of sounds similar to an argument against something else that you are calling irrational and unscientific because it can not be proved.

But carry on.

Why can a moderator not be anti-christian in their own beliefs? They can sure be flip when you suggest they stay on topic, and that seems to be perfectly okay. At least TallyMan was on topic in his opinion, and if you will read the entire thread, you'll see he gave logical and respectful explanations for his opinion.

Personally, I agree with him. I don't think that means that the two of us make the entire site "anti-christian." I think that means there are a lot of different opinions on the site.

Funny that you quote his line, but ignore this one. Is it different, or more acceptable, because it is a christian viewpoint? I don't understand the difference.

The best way I can put it, per strong materialists, its considered corrupt and immoral to make the assertion of belief that something exists without proof and their take would be that we should all be atheists until God can be proven real - which in their current state of emotion is an oxymoron, God and any possibility of life hereafter are fiction because they know so (a little ironic right?).

I'll put it this way - if they feel that it has no place making law and public policy, I can't argue that point. However, to argue against people's right to believe or to rule it delusional with the certainty they do, IMO its as vacuous as trying to assert religious laws on similar heresay and intuition.

Welcome to WP and PPR, Tolerant!

As I've said many a time, Christians in general are not accustomed to having their beliefs so thoroughly challenged. We are taught, I think, that our views are superior by default and that Christian arguments win every time. That MIGHT be true, but it doesn't mean that Christians are active in countering alternative viewpoints or that they're prepared to handle new ones. That takes practice, and I'm not certain that many of us really do practice. Reading and understanding the Bible is a good start. Learning as many relevant facts regarding our faith is a good start. Studying the arguments against our faith and their counterarguments is a good start. Actually participating in discussions that challenge those views and putting those ideas to the test make the faith much more "real," forcing us to really know our stuff. If WP PPR seems unfriendly to Christians, I think it's because Christians are surprised by how much better unbelievers know the Bible than they do. Christians fail to honestly self-evaluate. Christians fail to catch the logical errors of their opponents, which I have found to be a key component of any refutation. When Christians DO stand their ground, their opponents break down into logically useless straw men and ad hominems that serve no purpose than to evoke an emotional response from the Christian. If the Christian actually falls for it, it's only a matter of time before they make similar or worse mistakes, at which point the Christian argument falls apart. One of the best things you can do is learn to realize when a discussion ceases to be a serious discussion.

I'm not convinced a lot of Christians understand that, so it does make PPR appear to be especially unfriendly to Christians. The particularly unkind behavior I'm talking about is much less frequent than it used to be, but even with the more well-meaning atheists and agnostics here, PPR can really seem like a hostile environment to Christians especially when an opponent breaks apart an argument in groups of 3 to 5 words! However, it is a skill like any other skill, and anyone--even Christians--can learn to do it.

It is a trap, however. We Christians, if we don't work at articulating our views and make sense of our faith, are labeled "ignorant," "stupid," and "intellectually dishonest." If we DO adequately express our views to the same degree that our opponents do, we are "mean" and "intolerant." Personally, I'd rather side with "mean" and "intolerant." If nothing else at all, I can make a valid point and refute false statements.

s**t happens.


And back to how all this started.... Does your above description of God seem like the being that would encourage or condone his followers to be critical of a person just because of the gender of the person they fall in love with?

Would not have even thought I ought to feel compelled to be addressing a Moderator on this and yet here I am. I actually don't believe in God and neither do you and yet here we are in the Twilight Zone and here I am feeling obliged to tell you that your viewpoint is inherently disrespectful, arrogant and entirely simplistic.

Your viewpoint is basically saying that belief systems are without merit or credibility and to hold such views in deluded and irrational.

I will say that yours are actually not that much better and certainly not worthy as you may think.
Your views work fine IF you make the rather arrogant assumption that you know all the facts and can draw logical conclusions based on this. My scientific friend, you don't and you can't.

Many things in this world are not easily quantifiable or qualifiable, in scientific ways, but are not without merit.
You ever had a sudden overwhelming rush of anxiety and dread over a loved one or friend or family member and "irrational" concerns for their well being? Strong enough that you felt compelled to strongly voice them to your partner and ring frantically many times over a 24 hour period? Something you felt you were being stupid about but it felt real and compelling and washed over you unexpectedly without any verifiable trigger?
Could you scientifically explain that?

I have and it was not fun. Less fun when i later discovered that person had varicose veins in her throat burst and she during this time was drowning in her own blood.

Course it makes no real sense does it? I can't quantify it or qualify it. I don't have the facts. I had a feeling and it made and makes no real sense. Doesn't fall in line with what you have spouted though, huh?

Yep. Either that, or hardline free will and hardline determinism taken together form a false dichotomy. To which I'd say you aren't "less free" than you are just because there are limits imposed on your freedom. That's even evident in nature (e.g. energy bonds holding molecules together, for example). If we are on a predetermined path, we are faced with choices along the way but not choices external to that path. The end result of my life is physical death. Do I choose heaven or hell after that? I do not get to choose, for example, the arrangement of the stars in the sky.

I don't see TallyMan's position to be what you claim. He is stating as fact that religions are based on faith, not any demonstrable evidence. He does not say they are without merit or credibility, only that there is no hard evidence that one can measure to support such views. Some religions say that about themselves, that one must take a leap of faith to believe in them.

I know some people deny reality (such as the fact of evolution) because of their belief systems. The tactics of some of the sources those people use are despicable (spreading known lies, distortions, misquotes, and quotes taken out of context to imply the opposite of what is meant). I don't care what they choose to believe until they try to sabotage the science education of everybody else's children, which I think is harmful to our country and to humanity, besides being clearly unconstitutional.

LOL. I did not even think that others would have time to answer my responses but already a slew of responses.

I think that the live and let live is usually best policy.
All Gods were derived for various reasons and there are many reasons for the believe of Gods and all that goes with it.
I think it is highly idiotic to take a stance that any belief Atheist, Agnostic, Spiritual or whatever is the best one or only one of merit. Would you agree?
When you use terms like "Self-deluded " and irrational" you do this not out of a want of having too few descriptive ways of conveying your message. You have chosen to represent yourself (and in Tallyman's case unfortunately - your elevated Moderator status) as being better and such things as being acceptable. It isn't though is it?
Is "self-deluded" and "irrational"

- helpful in discussions of this nature?
- respectful in discussions of this nature?
- thoughtful in discussions of this nature?
- accepting in discussions of this nature?

OR is it something else?

The difference, and it is a significant one is that the Christians "apparently" (or at least a enough of them) are feeling a little assailed and disrespected.
Tallyman represents part of the Moderation team and comes in basically making SuperBoyIan's points and validating his claims of this very thing
Halle Bopp? She is part of the group feeling assailed and - you know she probably has a point.

Can't argue that and would not.
Life is tough and any attempt to harden your resolve and give you confidence to stake your claim is all good.
I read once that a thief is preferred to a gift-giver by beggars in Calcutta. Made no sense at all but the reasons were many and one was simply that a thief forces them to fight harder and to face harder time and find hidden reserves in themselves and the payload at the end of it makes them better people whereas gift givers make them reliant and takes there ability to strive and fight for their own survival and in turn their independence and pride.
Nothing wrong with fighting for your integrity and self-esteem.
Should you need to have to do this whilst being attacked as deluded or irrational?
I have no idea but I would say no.

Absolutely agree.

I would also absolutely agree with anyone suggestion (based on what I have read of your posts thus far) that you do not have such a mind.

Well, one must ask himself: "AM I deluded or irrational?"

Why do I believe what I believe? Because some authority "said-so"? And why was I taught that, then? To play the pawn in someone else's agenda? Am I being manipulated? Is the church I attend part of some dangerous destructive cult?

At one point in time I would have to say that I followed a "blind" faith. I believed because, well, it was obvious to ME that it was right and I had no need to question it. I didn't bother with any tests to my faith because I already knew what the answer was. It wasn't a big deal.

But it did not provide evidence for any foundational faith. I get TallyMan's purpose here, but I've merely drawn different conclusions. The assumption is that all faith is blind. It is NOT. Science itself is faith-based, it just places its faith in things other than what I place my faith in, and my religious faith and science do overlap in many ways. "Blind" faith is not the only kind of faith out there, and faith CAN be reasoned.

Take science, since most of us here seem to identify with it. How do you know that there is such a thing as bacteria and viruses? Ok, if you work in a scientific field dealing with microbiology and the like, you don't have to go far to prove that these things exist. It's part of your work, and you wouldn't have a job without it. But to the average "evidence, darnit!" materialist, there is no such thing as on-demand evidence of bacteria. You ASSUME when you accidentally incur a minor skin injury that the swelling is due to your body's response to foreign microbial intrusion. But you don't KNOW that. CENTURIES of science-in-the-making have led us to draw the reliable conclusion if THIS, then THAT. Sure, it's logic. But it's logic we are confident in. We don't have to PROVE it in order to pick up some triple-antibiotic ointment at your local pharmacy and treat the scratch. And why by the ointment? We have REASON to BELIEVE it works!

So we place faith in science, but we do it for a REASON.

I understand you do not believe as I do and I accept that. You certainly seem more open-minded than some. Christians never would have believed if they hadn't been given a REASON. "Critics" cannot make a viable case against Christianity without calling the validity of the evidence into question (the testimony of witnesses to the facts surrounding Jesus' life and ministry). By the same logic, the same critics ought to be calling their own "faith" into question. In actual practice, this doesn't seem to be happening. If a "critic" cannot take the first step upon waking up in the morning without faith that his feet will hit the ground, then neither should a Christian take attacks on written documentation of the events which form the basis for their faith with much seriousness. And not because Christians should have a "blind" faith, but because the "critics" themselves do not practice what they preach. What it really comes down to is a review of the evidence and conclusions drawn from it. And just because you have "evidence" of something doesn't mean you're going to necessarily believe it. So either the gospels are a reliable record of Jesus' life and teaching, or they're not. Either Jesus IS who He said He is, or He isn't. I can't make that decision for a person. But I don't think that the Bible as evidence should be so lightly dismissed. You can't make the argument "no evidence" when the evidence is actually documented. If we find the evidence believable, then we have reason to place our faith in Christ. If you understand WHY you believe evidence documented in the gospels, you still have faith. But it is faith with eyes wide open, not "blind" faith.