Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?
March 29, 2018 at 12:49 pm
(March 29, 2018 at 10:30 am)Whateverist Wrote:
(March 29, 2018 at 9:53 am)Drich Wrote: You simply and blindly identify with pop science. for you there is no faith in that as it is been programmed into you to be automatic. however the truth is if you took the time to understand all of the competing theories in science on things like the big bang and evolution you'd see that some of it makes more sense as it is a more modern understanding of the evidence or facts that what was postulated several hundred years ago. So again if you understood or acknoweledged anything else not pop science had to offer you could see your own faith in your brand of science.
Rinse and repeat, regardless of what anyone says to your inane questions. Do you really need us to hear this internal dialogue? Why do you engage people with this nonsense and then clearly ignore every point they make only to look for an opening to repeat one of your mantras. You're not really ready to interact with people having different ideas from your own.
...Or let's look at my answer from a 20+ year veteran's perspective. There is nothing new any of you bring to the table. There is an establish system of anti belief and none of you dare stray far from it. For instance You believe in science because you like mindless religious people have been indoctrinated/not question their Gods/science, because belief (not faith) is a self full filling system of thought control. You don't need God to be at the head of indoctrination. any system of superiority will work. Your's is simply called science. and because your science is affiliated with practical science you believe piratical science to be the same as theoretical science.
One takes little faith to believe because we reep the benfits of it everyday, while therotical science is 100% faith, but because the two are married and share a last name the lie is you can not have one without the other.
For you It's not a matter of just faith it is a matter of belief in evidences. So say the religious as well. There is no difference between the fanatical religious and the indoctrinated science, unless one can both look at his god (science) and another's god with the SAME objectivity. Meaning you must be able to break your belief down to it's primal components of faith and want or your just prepuating indoctrination, no matter which side of the argument you are on.
Can you see my arguement goes a little deep than what you have given me credit for?
Can you see that both religious and science zelot share blind obediance to their system of belief.
Do you understand that I am saying the only way to break this hold religion or "science' has on us/how we think it to admit the same ask 'god/science' no questions take what is said as gospel.
All I am pointing out is that the same if not more faith is required in science as God only requires a mustard seed's worth.
(March 29, 2018 at 9:53 am)Drich Wrote: why would you approach religion as you would approach science?
would it not be more 'fair'/make more sense to approach religion as you would a trial or a court case and process evidences as you would in a legal proceeding?
Quote:I don't approach religious proselytizing with the methodology of either science or law. I merely go on believing what I have the best reason to think is true. Speculation is a different matter, and I have my own which at least does not conflict with what I have reason to think is true. Why would I be interested in trading that for something as ridiculous as a biblical narrative?
Is truth limited to the mundane? Does truth always have to follow the known path? is truth always judged as 'normal?" Are you the final authority on truth? then why put limitations on what is true and simply follow where it leads?
For instance Jesus said He/God requires only a mustard seeds worth of faith and He via the Holy Spirit will remove all doubt.
Big bang requires that believe the whole universe was compressed to a size smaller than a basket ball (but larger than a volley ball) then exploded into the known universe.
Have you seen a mustard seed before? some of them are little more than a grain of sand.
Have you seen a basket ball... yeah bigger than a grain of sand... can you phathom the depths of the universe? can you at least admit the vastness of the universe exceeds a grain of sand.. can you believe it is bigger than a basket ball?
To any honest person one must want to call B/S on the basketball thing. but you know it's 'science' and who among us can ever question 'science' lest we be labled a popular science hater..
(March 29, 2018 at 9:53 am)Drich Wrote: After all if there is a promise to meet God in this life and people have claimed to have done this, then shouldn't the path to God be examined through the lenses of testimony and verification? rather than try and make God bend or kneel to our scientific understanding/put God in a box.
And so you stand in your corner babbling your nonsense to yourself after ignoring everyone's points. Boring.
[/quote]
awe, you don't understand the depth of my analogy and your making fun of the surface points.
How about this:
By the definition God gives of Himself in the bible (still with me?/How God defines Himself) if 'science' could summon/produce or experiment on God, then by definition He would cease being God/Alpha and Omega. Therefore not worthy of worship. Do you get it? the one method you want to 'proove' disqualifies Him as God according to his own words. In fact if Science could reach God despite his will of hiding from the wise and learned of this world, would make science God.
Do you get what I am saying now? Why seek God with a method doomed to fail because it circumvents what God is said to be.. Rather why not seek God using a method He PROMISED to meet us on?
RE: What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?
March 29, 2018 at 1:16 pm (This post was last modified: March 29, 2018 at 1:17 pm by drfuzzy.)
(March 29, 2018 at 12:49 pm)Drich Wrote:
(March 29, 2018 at 10:30 am)Whateverist Wrote:
Rinse and repeat, regardless of what anyone says to your inane questions. Do you really need us to hear this internal dialogue? Why do you engage people with this nonsense and then clearly ignore every point they make only to look for an opening to repeat one of your mantras. You're not really ready to interact with people having different ideas from your own.
...Or let's look at my answer from a 20+ year veteran's perspective. There is nothing new any of you bring to the table. There is an establish system of anti belief and none of you dare stray far from it. For instance You believe in science because you like mindless religious people have been indoctrinated/not question their Gods/science, because belief (not faith) is a self full filling system of thought control. You don't need God to be at the head of indoctrination. any system of superiority will work. Your's is simply called science. and because your science is affiliated with practical science you believe piratical science to be the same as theoretical science.
One takes little faith to believe because we reep the benfits of it everyday, while therotical science is 100% faith, but because the two are married and share a last name the lie is you can not have one without the other.
For you It's not a matter of just faith it is a matter of belief in evidences. So say the religious as well. There is no difference between the fanatical religious and the indoctrinated science, unless one can both look at his god (science) and another's god with the SAME objectivity. Meaning you must be able to break your belief down to it's primal components of faith and want or your just prepuating indoctrination, no matter which side of the argument you are on.
Can you see my arguement goes a little deep than what you have given me credit for?
Can you see that both religious and science zelot share blind obediance to their system of belief.
Do you understand that I am saying the only way to break this hold religion or "science' has on us/how we think it to admit the same ask 'god/science' no questions take what is said as gospel.
All I am pointing out is that the same if not more faith is required in science as God only requires a mustard seed's worth.
(March 29, 2018 at 9:53 am)Drich Wrote:
why would you approach religion as you would approach science?
would it not be more 'fair'/make more sense to approach religion as you would a trial or a court case and process evidences as you would in a legal proceeding?
Quote:
I don't approach religious proselytizing with the methodology of either science or law. I merely go on believing what I have the best reason to think is true. Speculation is a different matter, and I have my own which at least does not conflict with what I have reason to think is true. Why would I be interested in trading that for something as ridiculous as a biblical narrative?
Is truth limited to the mundane? Does truth always have to follow the known path? is truth always judged as 'normal?" Are you the final authority on truth? then why put limitations on what is true and simply follow where it leads?
For instance Jesus said He/God requires only a mustard seeds worth of faith and He via the Holy Spirit will remove all doubt.
Big bang requires that believe the whole universe was compressed to a size smaller than a basket ball (but larger than a volley ball) then exploded into the known universe.
Have you seen a mustard seed before? some of them are little more than a grain of sand.
Have you seen a basket ball... yeah bigger than a grain of sand... can you phathom the depths of the universe? can you at least admit the vastness of the universe exceeds a grain of sand.. can you believe it is bigger than a basket ball?
To any honest person one must want to call B/S on the basketball thing. but you know it's 'science' and who among us can ever question 'science' lest we be labled a popular science hater..
(March 29, 2018 at 9:53 am)Drich Wrote:
After all if there is a promise to meet God in this life and people have claimed to have done this, then shouldn't the path to God be examined through the lenses of testimony and verification? rather than try and make God bend or kneel to our scientific understanding/put God in a box.
And so you stand in your corner babbling your nonsense to yourself after ignoring everyone's points. Boring.
awe, you don't understand the depth of my analogy and your making fun of the surface points.
How about this:
By the definition God gives of Himself in the bible (still with me?/How God defines Himself) if 'science' could summon/produce or experiment on God, then by definition He would cease being God/Alpha and Omega. Therefore not worthy of worship. Do you get it? the one method you want to 'proove' disqualifies Him as God according to his own words. In fact if Science could reach God despite his will of hiding from the wise and learned of this world, would make science God.
Do you get what I am saying now? Why seek God with a method doomed to fail because it circumvents what God is said to be.. Rather why not seek God using a method He PROMISED to meet us on?
[/quote]
Eh, I was going to reply to your earlier response, but the crew here has done a much better job that I would have. And then there is your stubbornness in using the terms "faith" and "belief" with regard to science. They simply do not apply.
But the easy response here is in reply to the question above.
"Why seek God with a method doomed to fail." Well, let's see, if an omnipotent, omniscient being WANTS humans to "find" it, it will make it impossible for me NOT to find it. If that same being places such limitations on achieving this "connection and awareness" as to make it limited to not only the information found in a hugely flawed single piece of literature, the correct interpretation of said literature, and the proper mindset while praying, then it has doomed 90 + percent of humanity to failure from the moment its plan was put into place. Which makes it evil.
And even THEN, the question is irrelevant. Because there isn't enough proof that the creature exists.
You should shorten that to "why seek god?". It's the same as "why seek the Great Pumpkin"? It's a total waste of my time, and only up for debate because we are surrounded by people who judge us for not dedicating our lives to the Great Pumpkin.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
RE: What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?
March 29, 2018 at 4:04 pm
(March 29, 2018 at 1:16 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:
(March 29, 2018 at 12:49 pm)Drich Wrote:
...Or let's look at my answer from a 20+ year veteran's perspective. There is nothing new any of you bring to the table. There is an establish system of anti belief and none of you dare stray far from it. For instance You believe in science because you like mindless religious people have been indoctrinated/not question their Gods/science, because belief (not faith) is a self full filling system of thought control. You don't need God to be at the head of indoctrination. any system of superiority will work. Your's is simply called science. and because your science is affiliated with practical science you believe piratical science to be the same as theoretical science.
One takes little faith to believe because we reep the benfits of it everyday, while therotical science is 100% faith, but because the two are married and share a last name the lie is you can not have one without the other.
For you It's not a matter of just faith it is a matter of belief in evidences. So say the religious as well. There is no difference between the fanatical religious and the indoctrinated science, unless one can both look at his god (science) and another's god with the SAME objectivity. Meaning you must be able to break your belief down to it's primal components of faith and want or your just prepuating indoctrination, no matter which side of the argument you are on.
Can you see my arguement goes a little deep than what you have given me credit for?
Can you see that both religious and science zelot share blind obediance to their system of belief.
Do you understand that I am saying the only way to break this hold religion or "science' has on us/how we think it to admit the same ask 'god/science' no questions take what is said as gospel.
All I am pointing out is that the same if not more faith is required in science as God only requires a mustard seed's worth.
Is truth limited to the mundane? Does truth always have to follow the known path? is truth always judged as 'normal?" Are you the final authority on truth? then why put limitations on what is true and simply follow where it leads?
For instance Jesus said He/God requires only a mustard seeds worth of faith and He via the Holy Spirit will remove all doubt.
Big bang requires that believe the whole universe was compressed to a size smaller than a basket ball (but larger than a volley ball) then exploded into the known universe.
Have you seen a mustard seed before? some of them are little more than a grain of sand.
Have you seen a basket ball... yeah bigger than a grain of sand... can you phathom the depths of the universe? can you at least admit the vastness of the universe exceeds a grain of sand.. can you believe it is bigger than a basket ball?
To any honest person one must want to call B/S on the basketball thing. but you know it's 'science' and who among us can ever question 'science' lest we be labled a popular science hater..
And so you stand in your corner babbling your nonsense to yourself after ignoring everyone's points. Boring.
awe, you don't understand the depth of my analogy and your making fun of the surface points.
How about this:
By the definition God gives of Himself in the bible (still with me?/How God defines Himself) if 'science' could summon/produce or experiment on God, then by definition He would cease being God/Alpha and Omega. Therefore not worthy of worship. Do you get it? the one method you want to 'proove' disqualifies Him as God according to his own words. In fact if Science could reach God despite his will of hiding from the wise and learned of this world, would make science God.
Do you get what I am saying now? Why seek God with a method doomed to fail because it circumvents what God is said to be.. Rather why not seek God using a method He PROMISED to meet us on?
Eh, I was going to reply to your earlier response, but the crew here has done a much better job that I would have. And then there is your stubbornness in using the terms "faith" and "belief" with regard to science. They simply do not apply.
But the easy response here is in reply to the question above.
"Why seek God with a method doomed to fail." Well, let's see, if an omnipotent, omniscient being WANTS humans to "find" it, it will make it impossible for me NOT to find it. If that same being places such limitations on achieving this "connection and awareness" as to make it limited to not only the information found in a hugely flawed single piece of literature, the correct interpretation of said literature, and the proper mindset while praying, then it has doomed 90 + percent of humanity to failure from the moment its plan was put into place. Which makes it evil.
And even THEN, the question is irrelevant. Because there isn't enough proof that the creature exists.
You should shorten that to "why seek god?". It's the same as "why seek the Great Pumpkin"? It's a total waste of my time, and only up for debate because we are surrounded by people who judge us for not dedicating our lives to the Great Pumpkin.
[/quote]
Seriously?!?!?
Do you people really think I am the only person who thinks this way?
Here are some liber/non God affiliated sources who take the same view as I do that there is indeed a measure of faith in science because all of science is not known. maybe they can exlain it to the degree you need to understand.
The NPR article is especially enlightening (Which mean you should skip it if you wish to retain a closed mind.)
The crux of it highlights the construction of the hadron super colider in search of the higgsboson particle. Now if you are unaware the h/b was touted as the 'god particle' it was to unlock all the secretes of subatomic creation and tie all theories together. Now before this colider was built is was speculated that the particle existed, why because the found what they thought was particle decay from this particle in smaller coliders... Now it took over a trillion euros to build this POS colider based on "Scientific fact." then the ran it, and it blew up. they fixed it and ran it again for like 4 years what did they find the same particle decay as before, but this time this 'evidence' was enough to confirm the particle.
Now tell me you do not see 'faith' being used to justify the expenditure of trillions of euros...
RE: What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?
March 29, 2018 at 6:37 pm
It doesn't take an ounce of faith to hunt for a deer where you find deer shit. Try again.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
RE: What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?
March 30, 2018 at 10:09 am (This post was last modified: March 30, 2018 at 10:09 am by drfuzzy.)
(March 29, 2018 at 4:04 pm)Drich Wrote:
(March 29, 2018 at 1:16 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:
awe, you don't understand the depth of my analogy and your making fun of the surface points.
How about this:
By the definition God gives of Himself in the bible (still with me?/How God defines Himself) if 'science' could summon/produce or experiment on God, then by definition He would cease being God/Alpha and Omega. Therefore not worthy of worship. Do you get it? the one method you want to 'proove' disqualifies Him as God according to his own words. In fact if Science could reach God despite his will of hiding from the wise and learned of this world, would make science God.
Do you get what I am saying now? Why seek God with a method doomed to fail because it circumvents what God is said to be.. Rather why not seek God using a method He PROMISED to meet us on?
Eh, I was going to reply to your earlier response, but the crew here has done a much better job that I would have. And then there is your stubbornness in using the terms "faith" and "belief" with regard to science. They simply do not apply.
But the easy response here is in reply to the question above.
"Why seek God with a method doomed to fail." Well, let's see, if an omnipotent, omniscient being WANTS humans to "find" it, it will make it impossible for me NOT to find it. If that same being places such limitations on achieving this "connection and awareness" as to make it limited to not only the information found in a hugely flawed single piece of literature, the correct interpretation of said literature, and the proper mindset while praying, then it has doomed 90 + percent of humanity to failure from the moment its plan was put into place. Which makes it evil.
And even THEN, the question is irrelevant. Because there isn't enough proof that the creature exists.
You should shorten that to "why seek god?". It's the same as "why seek the Great Pumpkin"? It's a total waste of my time, and only up for debate because we are surrounded by people who judge us for not dedicating our lives to the Great Pumpkin.
Seriously?!?!?
Do you people really think I am the only person who thinks this way?
Here are some liber/non God affiliated sources who take the same view as I do that there is indeed a measure of faith in science because all of science is not known. maybe they can exlain it to the degree you need to understand.
The NPR article is especially enlightening (Which mean you should skip it if you wish to retain a closed mind.)
The crux of it highlights the construction of the hadron super colider in search of the higgsboson particle. Now if you are unaware the h/b was touted as the 'god particle' it was to unlock all the secretes of subatomic creation and tie all theories together. Now before this colider was built is was speculated that the particle existed, why because the found what they thought was particle decay from this particle in smaller coliders... Now it took over a trillion euros to build this POS colider based on "Scientific fact." then the ran it, and it blew up. they fixed it and ran it again for like 4 years what did they find the same particle decay as before, but this time this 'evidence' was enough to confirm the particle.
Now tell me you do not see 'faith' being used to justify the expenditure of trillions of euros...
[/quote]
drfuzzy Reply :
Something has gone all wonky with the quote tags here.
People use the term "faith" for many, many reasons. I have scientist friends who do use it in the sense of "I have faith that the data is pointing to ____ and eventually we will find ____." It's a term they were raised with - as was I. It doesn't HAVE to have any religious connotation at all. LHC scientists and others use it, fine. Some scientists are theists and use it, fine. Who cares?
For me, the term is an insult. I refuse to use it. Simple.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
RE: What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?
March 30, 2018 at 11:10 am
I've got Drich on ignore again. You can only take so much intellectual dishonesty and shameless stupidity. He hardly seems worth conversing with. It'll just make you think less of xtians generally.
RE: What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?
March 30, 2018 at 1:57 pm
(March 30, 2018 at 10:09 am)drfuzzy Wrote:
(March 29, 2018 at 4:04 pm)Drich Wrote:
Eh, I was going to reply to your earlier response, but the crew here has done a much better job that I would have. And then there is your stubbornness in using the terms "faith" and "belief" with regard to science. They simply do not apply.
But the easy response here is in reply to the question above.
"Why seek God with a method doomed to fail." Well, let's see, if an omnipotent, omniscient being WANTS humans to "find" it, it will make it impossible for me NOT to find it. If that same being places such limitations on achieving this "connection and awareness" as to make it limited to not only the information found in a hugely flawed single piece of literature, the correct interpretation of said literature, and the proper mindset while praying, then it has doomed 90 + percent of humanity to failure from the moment its plan was put into place. Which makes it evil.
And even THEN, the question is irrelevant. Because there isn't enough proof that the creature exists.
You should shorten that to "why seek god?". It's the same as "why seek the Great Pumpkin"? It's a total waste of my time, and only up for debate because we are surrounded by people who judge us for not dedicating our lives to the Great Pumpkin.
Seriously?!?!?
Do you people really think I am the only person who thinks this way?
Here are some liber/non God affiliated sources who take the same view as I do that there is indeed a measure of faith in science because all of science is not known. maybe they can exlain it to the degree you need to understand.
The NPR article is especially enlightening (Which mean you should skip it if you wish to retain a closed mind.)
The crux of it highlights the construction of the hadron super colider in search of the higgsboson particle. Now if you are unaware the h/b was touted as the 'god particle' it was to unlock all the secretes of subatomic creation and tie all theories together. Now before this colider was built is was speculated that the particle existed, why because the found what they thought was particle decay from this particle in smaller coliders... Now it took over a trillion euros to build this POS colider based on "Scientific fact." then the ran it, and it blew up. they fixed it and ran it again for like 4 years what did they find the same particle decay as before, but this time this 'evidence' was enough to confirm the particle.
Now tell me you do not see 'faith' being used to justify the expenditure of trillions of euros...
drfuzzy Reply :
Something has gone all wonky with the quote tags here.
People use the term "faith" for many, many reasons. I have scientist friends who do use it in the sense of "I have faith that the data is pointing to ____ and eventually we will find ____." It's a term they were raised with - as was I. It doesn't HAVE to have any religious connotation at all. LHC scientists and others use it, fine. Some scientists are theists and use it, fine. Who cares?
For me, the term is an insult. I refuse to use it. Simple.
[/quote]
That's just it sport, they are not using the word "faith for many different reasons."
As I pointed out in the beginning by defining the word you all have mischaracterized the term to mean something it does not. so as to protect yourselves from being like the blissfully ignorant. when in fact at the beginning of your journey in science Faith is required no matter what you believe.
So then it all comes down to a matter of preference as to what you want to believe. If you argue the superiority of either over the other as to not require basic faith then you show signs of indoctrination in whatever you believe. As you refuse to acknowledge the truth of the very definition of the word Faith. If you can not accept the truth then your mind is not yours as it belongs to those who pull at the strings of science. That my poor lost friend is the very definition of indoctrination. to deny truth and substitute with what you want to be true!
RE: What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?
March 30, 2018 at 3:16 pm
(March 30, 2018 at 1:57 pm)Drich Wrote:
(March 30, 2018 at 10:09 am)drfuzzy Wrote: Seriously?!?!?
Do you people really think I am the only person who thinks this way?
Here are some liber/non God affiliated sources who take the same view as I do that there is indeed a measure of faith in science because all of science is not known. maybe they can exlain it to the degree you need to understand.
The NPR article is especially enlightening (Which mean you should skip it if you wish to retain a closed mind.)
The crux of it highlights the construction of the hadron super colider in search of the higgsboson particle. Now if you are unaware the h/b was touted as the 'god particle' it was to unlock all the secretes of subatomic creation and tie all theories together. Now before this colider was built is was speculated that the particle existed, why because the found what they thought was particle decay from this particle in smaller coliders... Now it took over a trillion euros to build this POS colider based on "Scientific fact." then the ran it, and it blew up. they fixed it and ran it again for like 4 years what did they find the same particle decay as before, but this time this 'evidence' was enough to confirm the particle.
Now tell me you do not see 'faith' being used to justify the expenditure of trillions of euros...
drfuzzy Reply :
Something has gone all wonky with the quote tags here.
People use the term "faith" for many, many reasons. I have scientist friends who do use it in the sense of "I have faith that the data is pointing to ____ and eventually we will find ____." It's a term they were raised with - as was I. It doesn't HAVE to have any religious connotation at all. LHC scientists and others use it, fine. Some scientists are theists and use it, fine. Who cares?
For me, the term is an insult. I refuse to use it. Simple.
That's just it sport, they are not using the word "faith for many different reasons."
As I pointed out in the beginning by defining the word you all have mischaracterized the term to mean something it does not. so as to protect yourselves from being like the blissfully ignorant. when in fact at the beginning of your journey in science Faith is required no matter what you believe.
So then it all comes down to a matter of preference as to what you want to believe. If you argue the superiority of either over the other as to not require basic faith then you show signs of indoctrination in whatever you believe. As you refuse to acknowledge the truth of the very definition of the word Faith. If you can not accept the truth then your mind is not yours as it belongs to those who pull at the strings of science. That my poor lost friend is the very definition of indoctrination. to deny truth and substitute with what you want to be true!
[/quote] drfuzzy Reply
"poor lost friend"
I happen to be grateful every day that I no longer have any "faith" or follow any dogma, and I happen to think that my mind has been freed from religious chains.
So what if you think I have been "indoctrinated"? I claim to have been freed from indoctrination, and it's my life and my choice and none of your business.
I'm not "sport". If you are telling me that you think I need to change my lack of "beliefs" and that I need your guidance, you are not my friend, you're just an egotistical asshole.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
RE: What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?
April 3, 2018 at 9:27 am
(March 30, 2018 at 3:16 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:
(March 30, 2018 at 1:57 pm)Drich Wrote: drfuzzy Reply :
Something has gone all wonky with the quote tags here.
People use the term "faith" for many, many reasons. I have scientist friends who do use it in the sense of "I have faith that the data is pointing to ____ and eventually we will find ____." It's a term they were raised with - as was I. It doesn't HAVE to have any religious connotation at all. LHC scientists and others use it, fine. Some scientists are theists and use it, fine. Who cares?
For me, the term is an insult. I refuse to use it. Simple.
That's just it sport, they are not using the word "faith for many different reasons."
As I pointed out in the beginning by defining the word you all have mischaracterized the term to mean something it does not. so as to protect yourselves from being like the blissfully ignorant. when in fact at the beginning of your journey in science Faith is required no matter what you believe.
So then it all comes down to a matter of preference as to what you want to believe. If you argue the superiority of either over the other as to not require basic faith then you show signs of indoctrination in whatever you believe. As you refuse to acknowledge the truth of the very definition of the word Faith. If you can not accept the truth then your mind is not yours as it belongs to those who pull at the strings of science. That my poor lost friend is the very definition of indoctrination. to deny truth and substitute with what you want to be true!
drfuzzy Reply
"poor lost friend"
I happen to be grateful every day that I no longer have any "faith" or follow any dogma, and I happen to think that my mind has been freed from religious chains.
So what if you think I have been "indoctrinated"? I claim to have been freed from indoctrination, and it's my life and my choice and none of your business.
I'm not "sport". If you are telling me that you think I need to change my lack of "beliefs" and that I need your guidance, you are not my friend, you're just an egotistical asshole.
[/quote]
So says the indoctrination. My person life philosophy is freedom from both religious and secular indoctrinations. It is the ability to live apart from social narratives and the freedom to think for yourself. How do I know you do not think for you self? because your dishonesty and or inability to use the proper definition of faith in describing belief in science. So you are saying it is ok to be indoctrinated if it is in the name of science? What if the scientific community belong to nazi germany? Without God/A set standard how do you know that this soceity's "morality" is indeed moral?
