Anyone Changing Their Mind

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Nellinator
I was just wondering if anyone on the site has changed their religous beliefs based on what they have read on this website? It doesn't seem likely, but it would be interesting to know if this forum even serves a real purpose.

Alliance
thumb down

The point is not to change minds...

Its called exposure, entertianment, and discussion.

Wonderer
YES! I have changed my mind from atheist to a real practicing and chanting Buddhist because of this site! Happy Dance

I think most other people here are just too proud and full of ego to really consider the ideas of other people. People are too proud while basking in the magnificance of their own ideas. Be more open minded and willing to be persuaded by the other side - it might just save your life or alter it for the better.

Final Warrior
Originally posted by Wonderer
I think most other people here are just too proud and full of ego to really consider the ideas of other people. People are too proud while basking in the magnificance of their own ideas. Be more open minded and willing to be persuaded by the other side - it might just save your life or alter it for the better.


I think you're partially right. Many people here are too proud and full of ego to attempt to understand another's point of view, or simply engage in debate to amuse themselves rather than to receive or give enlightenment about a subject. That's something I've been guilty of a myself on many occassions.

Still some of my obstinance comes from personal angst against the inherent stupidity found in others arguments. Usually these stupid arguments are supported by many other stupid people with like minded stupid views, and when their inherent stupidity is finally brought to the forefront for all to see, they resort to ganging up on the individual who's proven them wrong, using ridicule and fallacious arguments to damage that individual's character.

All this being said, I believe it important to note that not all arguments presented are meant to change others views. Some are just meant to convict the individual with the truth, so that when the final day comes between them and their maker, they can have no excuse for not knowing what the truth really was.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Final Warrior
Still some of my obstinance comes from personal angst against the inherent stupidity found in others arguments. Usually these stupid arguments are supported by many other stupid people with like minded stupid views, and when their inherent stupidity is finally brought to the forefront for all to see, they resort to ganging up on the individual who's proven them wrong, using ridicule and fallacious arguments to damage that individual's character.

Care to give an example of a religious thread where a group of stupid people have ganged up on an person who has proven them wrong?

Wonderer
Originally posted by Final Warrior
I think you're partially right. Many people here are too proud and full of ego to attempt to understand another's point of view, or simply engage in debate to amuse themselves rather than to receive or give enlightenment about a subject. That's something I've been guilty of a myself on many occassions.

Still some of my obstinance comes from personal angst against the inherent stupidity found in others arguments. Usually these stupid arguments are supported by many other stupid people with like minded stupid views, and when their inherent stupidity is finally brought to the forefront for all to see, they resort to ganging up on the individual who's proven them wrong, using ridicule and fallacious arguments to damage that individual's character.

All this being said, I believe it important to note that not all arguments presented are meant to change others views. Some are just meant to convict the individual with the truth, so that when the final day comes between them and their maker, they can have no excuse for not knowing what the truth really was.
My friend, I think you not only fear stupidity, but also imperfection and ultimately yourself. You forget that in the infinite magnitude of the universe, stupidity is everywhere, including yourself.

Alliance
execpt thats from a buddhist perspective....


Wherein lies the issue. Everyone thinks from thier own perspective and not yours.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Final Warrior
...All this being said, I believe it important to note that not all arguments presented are meant to change others views. Some are just meant to convict the individual with the truth, so that when the final day comes between them and their maker, they can have no excuse for not knowing what the truth really was.

That is not your place.
To me, what you just said above is stupidity to it's highest degree. Should I point it out to you so you will have no excuse? laughing No, I wish you great happiness.

Alliance
laughing I must have skimmed that part.

That bumps HW way up the hypocritical list.

DigiMark007
Can't say it's been a 180 or anything like that, but yeah, I've learned a lot from this forum.

Not so much a drastic changing of beliefs, but moreso refining knowledge of specific beliefs, practices, and religions, as well as adding depth to many of the beliefs I had already.

I was also in the process of leaving Christianity when I found this forum. It would have happened anyway, but it was probably hastened somewhat by things from this site.

Regret
Originally posted by Nellinator
I was just wondering if anyone on the site has changed their religous beliefs based on what they have read on this website? It doesn't seem likely, but it would be interesting to know if this forum even serves a real purpose.

I am restating what has been said, but I discuss religion on here to learn about other peoples views. I challenge their views so that I am able to better understand the reasoning behind their views. Also, by arguing on here, I am given a dry run at discussion in real life. I am able to put forth arguments and see that yes, that one was just stupid, or yes, that one does make sense. I am honing my skills at discussing religion by, basically, using this group as a sounding board for those arguments.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Regret
I am restating what has been said, but I discuss religion on here to learn about other peoples views. I challenge their views so that I am able to better understand the reasoning behind their views. Also, by arguing on here, I am given a dry run at discussion in real life. I am able to put forth arguments and see that yes, that one was just stupid, or yes, that one does make sense. I am honing my skills at discussing religion by, basically, using this group as a sounding board for those arguments.

eek! You are just using us... eek! stick out tongue

Regret
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
eek! You are just using us... eek! stick out tongue

Yes wink Does it make you feel dirty? Or is it an enjoyable experience? laughing laughing

I enjoy the conversations as well, but I do very little without purpose.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Regret
Yes wink Does it make you feel dirty? Or is it an enjoyable experience? laughing laughing

I enjoy the conversations as well, but I do very little without purpose.

stick out tongue

Alliance
Originally posted by Regret
I am restating what has been said, but I discuss religion on here to learn about other peoples views. I challenge their views so that I am able to better understand the reasoning behind their views. Also, by arguing on here, I am given a dry run at discussion in real life. I am able to put forth arguments and see that yes, that one was just stupid, or yes, that one does make sense. I am honing my skills at discussing religion by, basically, using this group as a sounding board for those arguments.

thumb up me too.

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
thumb up me too.

big grin

I figure that most of those I hold respect for in this forum are probably here for very similar reasons cool

Alliance
AWWW! love

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
AWWW! love

laughing

The Omega
Originally posted by Regret
I am restating what has been said, but I discuss religion on here to learn about other peoples views.

As some wise person once said - first UNDERSTAND then be understood.

I see nothing wrong with using a forum to test ones arguments and argumentation-technique. Some... hm... patterns emerge after a while... wink

debbiejo
I have changed my mind from a hard core Christian to that of god is bigger than that, or what we my perceive this intelligence as like a god....Actually I think the word "god" give a wrong perception in my mind..........but ok, we call call it that, if you like........IT TO ME IS JUST WHAT IS........

Regret
It is wise to have beliefs that are malleable... otherwise when you or I find out we're wrong we won't handle it well.

Echuu
I used to like this forum.

Now I've come to the realization that most things you say here are worthless.

Alliance
This coming from someone who often is incorrect about what hes talking about?

debbiejo
Originally posted by Echuu
I used to like this forum.

Now I've come to the realization that most things you say here are worthless. laughing out loud

On the contrary I find these forums quite entertaining.

cking
it is only fun when debbiejo is here. big grin

debbiejo
Are you listening to Satan again???? He is quite influential...laughing out loud

cking
well you could be quite the Satan.

Alliance
Yes, I am quite the Spartan.

debbiejo
Spartans were the bad guys.......bad bad bad.........well it depends on your interpretation of it.........

Echuu
Originally posted by Alliance
This coming from someone who often is incorrect about what hes talking about?

That's ironic..... Seeing as you are the person who said Jesus wanted people to be killed in front of him but didn't look at the other sciptures around it which showed him speaking a parable.

Then when I showed this to you, you didn't even respond.
Remeber the 'Jesus also thought that non-believers should be stoned?'

Regret
Oh, was Alliance claiming to be a good guy? whistle

debbiejo
Originally posted by Echuu
That's ironic..... Seeing as you are the person who said Jesus wanted people to be killed in front of him but didn't look at the other sciptures around it which showed him speaking a parable.

Then when I showed this to you, you didn't even respond.
Remeber the 'Jesus also thought that non-believers should be stoned?' Jesus in the scriptures didn't say for anyone to be killed, but yet his disciples had weapons...........ie...cut off the guards ear, which Jesus did heal........why did they have these weapons and would ready to use them in such a way as this?

Could this be only part of a story about Jesus?

Echuu
Originally posted by debbiejo
Jesus in the scriptures didn't say for anyone to be killed, but yet his disciples had weapons...........ie...cut off the guards ear, which Jesus did heal........why did they have these weapons and would ready to use them in such a way as this?

Could this be only part of a story about Jesus?

Jesus did not condone those weapons though did he? He told his disciple to put away his weapon because those who live by the sword will die by it.

Alliance
Originally posted by debbiejo
Spartans were the bad guys.......bad bad bad.........well it depends on your interpretation of it.........
No. big grin
Originally posted by Regret
Oh, was Alliance claiming to be a good guy? whistle
*smack* laughing explain yourself.
Originally posted by Echuu
That's ironic..... Seeing as you are the person who said Jesus wanted people to be killed in front of him but didn't look at the other sciptures around it which showed him speaking a parable.

Then when I showed this to you, you didn't even respond.
Remeber the 'Jesus also thought that non-believers should be stoned?'

Do you remeber the passage, I forget where it was.

And If you don't like this forum, just leave. Many of us like it.

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
*smack* laughing explain yourself.
laughing didn't really mean anything there wink

Alliance
band

MyOwnMuse

Alliance
Diversity is a good thing, but is a position based soley on faith and not on logic a sound position?

It seems to me that if you wish to ignore logical asnd have a position based solely on faith, it doesn't really have a place in a public discussion.

MyOwnMuse
We create a rationalized system for our faith.

And then we call it logic.

Wonderer
Originally posted by Alliance
execpt thats from a buddhist perspective....


Wherein lies the issue. Everyone thinks from thier own perspective and not yours.
No, it's from a universal perspective! What's Buddhist about stupidity and an infinite universe!? I think you're just being against Buddhists for no good reason. Or you're simply unable to think logical.

Alliance
its justification.

Justification is definately a start, but it should be more than a simple personal justification, your justification needs to have some sort of societal contextualization and factual base.

Wonderer
Originally posted by Alliance
its justification.

Justification is definately a start, but it should be more than a simple personal justification, your justification needs to have some sort of societal contextualization and factual base.
My friend, anything can be justified based on subjectivity. And a 'factual base' is relative and subjective. I merely made a comment that we're all stupid in the end when it comes to the infinity of the universe. Sort of mirroring what the wise Socrates also said that the wise knows he knows nothing. Or are you implying that we as mere human beings in an infinitely vast universe can authoratatively claim to know things? If you are, you're simply arrogant and pointless.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Echuu
Jesus did not condone those weapons though did he? He told his disciple to put away his weapon because those who live by the sword will die by it. yes he said for them to put them away, not to THROW them away..... roll eyes (sarcastic)

Alliance
Originally posted by Wonderer
My friend, anything can be justified based on subjectivity. And a 'factual base' is relative and subjective. I merely made a comment that we're all stupid in the end when it comes to the infinity of the universe. Sort of mirroring what the wise Socrates also said that the wise knows he knows nothing. Or are you implying that we as mere human beings in an infinitely vast universe can authoratatively claim to know things? If you are, you're simply arrogant and pointless.

I see your point, but then I don't.

Socrates was referencing that line "the more you know the more you know you don't know" (not directly obviously). He himself tried to explain the universe. This leads me to believe that simply because you can't obtain the best possible answer, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

Whats your practical solution to the problem?

Echuu
Originally posted by Alliance
Do you remeber the passage, I forget where it was.

And If you don't like this forum, just leave. Many of us like it.

I could look it up again in the thread but otherwise I believe it was from Matthew. It was basically a parable about a nobleman/lord who gave money to three servants and the first two did something with the money and made profit but the third one put it away to be safe and didn't make any.

I like this forum but I don't think people show much respect to others.

debbiejo
I always thought parables were kinda cool.........what's you take on that parable you just quoted........I take it as we are all born with special gifts and they should be used, as in using them to the good of mankind....though it is all up to interpretation. One interpretation is that Jesus was talking about Missionary work.....

Hmmm maybe I'll make a parable thread sometime...

Oh and again I like these forums, It's great to read other views from around the world........very eye opening.

Echuu
Originally posted by debbiejo
what's you take on that parable you just quoted........I take it as we are all born with special gifts and they should be used, as in using them to the good of mankind....though it is all up to interpretation.

I like that interpretation.

Alliance
Originally posted by Echuu
I could look it up again in the thread but otherwise I believe it was from Matthew. It was basically a parable about a nobleman/lord who gave money to three servants and the first two did something with the money and made profit but the third one put it away to be safe and didn't make any.

I like this forum but I don't think people show much respect to others.

laughing I havent eaxctly found you to me the most respectful person on here.

I will search again for the passage.

Echuu
Originally posted by Alliance
laughing I havent eaxctly found you to me the most respectful person on here.

And your examples of this would be what.........?

Wonderer
Originally posted by Alliance
I see your point, but then I don't.

Socrates was referencing that line "the more you know the more you know you don't know" (not directly obviously). He himself tried to explain the universe. This leads me to believe that simply because you can't obtain the best possible answer, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

Whats your practical solution to the problem?

Socrates never tried to explain the universe.
There is no solution to the 'problem' at all - if you see a problem, then you're misguided, because the meaning of life is self-revealing if you stop searching and make peace. You will realise when you open your heart and mind that you have been living inside the absolute truth all along. smile

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Wonderer
Socrates never tried to explain the universe.
There is no solution to the 'problem' at all - if you see a problem, then you're misguided, because the meaning of life is self-revealing if you stop searching and make peace. You will realise when you open your heart and mind that you have been living inside the absolute truth all along. smile

We live in the absolute truth, the mystic law or Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, but we cannot see it, or understand it.

Atlantis001
Originally posted by Wonderer
if you see a problem, then you're misguided, because the meaning of life is self-revealing if you stop searching and make peace.

Thats true. There are things that must be perceived, and can not be deduced from anywhere. There is one part of our knowledge that can only be obtained via perceptions(i.e. insights), and not from deductions.

I think that is where spirituality can play its role.

Storm
Originally posted by Nellinator
I was just wondering if anyone on the site has changed their religous beliefs based on what they have read on this website? It doesn't seem likely, but it would be interesting to know if this forum even serves a real purpose.
I' m not engaging in the debates to win an argument or to vent negative emotions about religion, nor to convert people. I enjoy new experiences and new people, because I am inspired by how others view the world. There are many ways to approach different issues related to a topic. And what better way to find the right path for myself, than by discovering what other people' s experiences, views and opinions are.

debbiejo
ditto

Alliance
da...da...ditto.

allofyousuckkk
I always was secretly atheist, thinking that it's not a regular thing and the people I'm around all see it as a disgrace. When i started reading some topics I realized I wasn't alone and it didn't really seem like a big deal anymore.

Has anyone changed their minds about god from this forum?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by allofyousuckkk
I always was secretly atheist, thinking that it's not a regular thing and the people I'm around all see it as a disgrace. When i started reading some topics I realized I wasn't alone and it didn't really seem like a big deal anymore.

Has anyone changed their minds about god from this forum?

Not about God, but I have changed my mind about Christians. There are some good Christians, they just get over shadowed by bad Christians.

Regret
Originally posted by allofyousuckkk
I always was secretly atheist, thinking that it's not a regular thing and the people I'm around all see it as a disgrace. When i started reading some topics I realized I wasn't alone and it didn't really seem like a big deal anymore.

Has anyone changed their minds about god from this forum? I think there was a thread with nearly this exact title somewhere in the religion forum.

DigiMark007
Yes.

Not entirely because of KMC (I was in the process of change already) but various members, posts, links, etc. helped me through the changes. There's really a wealth of information, and opportunities for personal growth, both on the internet and elsewhere if you're open to them and are able to sift through the crap-with-an-agenda to find what you believe.

So yes, occasionally the system works....or at least it helps out.

crazy
This forum has definitely helped me engage in learning about a lot of different religions including the one I was raised as.

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Nellinator
I was just wondering if anyone on the site has changed their religous beliefs based on what they have read on this website? It doesn't seem likely, but it would be interesting to know if this forum even serves a real purpose.

Hmm..I had my doubts about Buddhism. I originally thought that it was mostly comprised of delusional - ignorant - misguided people. Upon speaking to several members on this forum, however, all doubts have been erased..He..He.He...

And that is indeed the absolute truth...but I still wish them much happiness...wink

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Nellinator
I was just wondering if anyone on the site has changed their religous beliefs based on what they have read on this website? It doesn't seem likely, but it would be interesting to know if this forum even serves a real purpose.

I believe I am less Agnostic and more Atheist then when I began, but that isn't a big change as I have always been borderline between the two.

But I have learnt plenty, and seen some interesting views.

xmarksthespot
"I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
Nothing presented to me on KMC has changed this view. Although I'm open to possibilities, plausibilities are more relevant to the everyday.
Originally posted by Echuu
I like this forum but I don't think people show much respect to others. If you mean respect for others' opinions. With regard to opinion, respect must be justifiable. Everyone has the right to an opinion, be it religious or otherwise, but only so much as they don't present that opinion as fact without substantive corroboration.

Lord Urizen
Coming on these forums has enlightened me very much.

It has shown me the amounts of Hate that can stem from all sides of the spectrum of belief..whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Agnosticism, or Athiesm...ignorance is a very common factor, and intolerance is very abundant among all sides.

I have found that Buddhism spawns the kindest and most confident aspects of a person. While Christians, Muslims, Jews, Agnostics, and Athiest are VERY QUICK to insult each other and put each other down, I have found that almost every Buddhist on this thread has never engaged in negative input or the attacking of another person.

Buddhists always seem content, while Christians and Muslims often seem insecure about thier own beleifs. Athiests seem very very very fed up and intolerant of religion as a whole....And some Jews on this forum don't even know where they really stand. But somehow, Buddhists seem not only so content and secure in thier religion, but seem to be some of the most logical people as well.

This forum has given me a great impression of Buddhism in general. Unfortunately, it has given me a very bad impression of Christianity, especially Evangelism. I am sad to say that these forums have only confirmed my previous suspicions....that most Christians are not only close minded, but willfully ignorant. And then some other Christians are just plain hateful.

I have met many Christians on these forums who have been some of the most wondorful people....but sadly, they are overshadowed and outnumbered by the Christians of ignorance, hate, and intolerance.

Same goes for Athiests...many Athiests on these forums also happen to be very intolerant of religion and even agnosticism, claiming that agnostics don't know where to stand.

And even more surprising to me is how ignorant many Athiests actually are. While many Christians, Jews, and Muslims will argue all based on personal beleif, and very often willfully ignore Facts that contradict thier point of view, Athiests will often SHOOT DOWN any point of view that is based on personal beleif, and which cannot be proven.

It is wrong on both ends, and Minds need to open. I am speaking to myself as well. We all need to open our minds and see that what we beleive is nothing more than beleifs.

The wisest person is the one who realizes they do not know all, and cherishes the perspective of others.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Coming on these forums has enlightened me very much.

It has shown me the amounts of Hate that can stem from all sides of the spectrum of belief..whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Agnosticism, or Athiesm...ignorance is a very common factor, and intolerance is very abundant among all sides.

I have found that Buddhism spawns the kindest and most confident aspects of a person. While Christians, Muslims, Jews, Agnostics, and Athiest are VERY QUICK to insult each other and put each other down, I have found that almost every Buddhist on this thread has never engaged in negative input or the attacking of another person.

Buddhists always seem content, while Christians and Muslims often seem insecure about thier own beleifs. Athiests seem very very very fed up and intolerant of religion as a whole....And some Jews on this forum don't even know where they really stand. But somehow, Buddhists seem not only so content and secure in thier religion, but seem to be some of the most logical people as well.

This forum has given me a great impression of Buddhism in general. Unfortunately, it has given me a very bad impression of Christianity, especially Evangelism. I am sad to say that these forums have only confirmed my previous suspicions....that most Christians are not only close minded, but willfully ignorant. And then some other Christians are just plain hateful.

I have met many Christians on these forums who have been some of the most wondorful people....but sadly, they are overshadowed and outnumbered by the Christians of ignorance, hate, and intolerance.

Same goes for Athiests...many Athiests on these forums also happen to be very intolerant of religion and even agnosticism, claiming that agnostics don't know where to stand.

And even more surprising to me is how ignorant many Athiests actually are. While many Christians, Jews, and Muslims will argue all based on personal beleif, and very often willfully ignore Facts that contradict thier point of view, Athiests will often SHOOT DOWN any point of view that is based on personal beleif, and which cannot be proven.

It is wrong on both ends, and Minds need to open. I am speaking to myself as well. We all need to open our minds and see that what we beleive is nothing more than beleifs.

The wisest person is the one who realizes they do not know all, and cherishes the perspective of others.

Who are you and what have you done with Lord Urizen?

(Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

xmarksthespot
Frankly I found it a bit unctuous.

+I didn't know there were Jews on the forum.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Frankly I found it a bit unctuous.

+I didn't know there were Jews on the forum.

Well there is someone who might be a Jew, a sock or some form of mold that has learnt how to form rudimentary half sentences in order to express its dislike for certain groups.

And yes, not like LU to say things like that....

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well there is someone who might be a Jew, a sock or some form of mold that has learnt how to form rudimentary half sentences in order to express its dislike for certain groups.

And yes, not like LU to say things like that.... Especially considering he tends to be one of the most belligerent, abrasive, and overzealous against those who are resolute in belief without tangible reason while at the same time being resolute without tangible reason in some beliefs.

I take it I'm apparently among those "close-minded atheists" who "shoot down any view based on personal belief."

To which I'm simply going to reiterate the above:
With regard to opinion, respect must be justifiable. Everyone has the right to an opinion, be it religious or otherwise, but only so much as they don't present that opinion as fact without substantive corroboration.

I have no compunctions with seeking naturalistic explanations for phenomena. Likewise I don't see anything wrong with holding those who seek to explain phenomena based on personal credulity or incredulity as accountable as those who seek naturalistic explanations. And I personally don't see it as close-minded. But to each their own I believe the saying goes.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
With regard to opinion, respect must be justifiable. Everyone has the right to an opinion, be it religious or otherwise, but only so much as they don't present that opinion as fact without substantive corroboration.

I have no compunctions with seeking naturalistic explanations for phenomena. Likewise I don't see anything wrong with holding those who seek to explain phenomena based on personal credulity or incredulity as accountable as those who seek naturalistic explanations. And I personally don't see it as close-minded. But to each their own I believe the saying goes.

I agree entirely. Well said.

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The wisest person is the one who realizes they do not know all - and cherishes the perspective of others.


If one does not know what represents truth within themselves, they will not know what represents truth within others. For only the wise man loves truth, while only the fool cherishes folly.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Who are you and what have you done with Lord Urizen?

(Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

What do you mean? There are times where I debate seriously....

I often act stupid to be humorous. We all do that. But there are times where I feel like saying what I truly think. I take it you agree with my above assertion?



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Especially considering he tends to be one of the most belligerent, abrasive, and overzealous against those who are resolute in belief without tangible reason while at the same time being resolute without tangible reason in some beliefs.


I do not think a personal opinion has to be justified....we all have the right to it. If you beleive in the existance of Love as purely a physical entity, or in Love as something spiritual...there is no harm in either assertion.

When you claim that those who beleive differently from you are going to end up in Hell, and deserve to be tortured for all eternity, then yes, there is a major problem and harm coming from that kind of claim.

In my "If Jesus is Love" thread, I was not telling anyone how to live there life. I was not condemning anybody, or trying to force my beleifs down anyone's throat. I was only debating.

In every Christian "warning" thread, myself and other people are told that if we do not change, we will be tortured for all eternity in a place created by thier "Loving" God. I find that claim utterly rediculous, and if you are going to tell people how to live thier lives, then you better have some justification to back that shit up.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I take it I'm apparently among those "close-minded atheists" who "shoot down any view based on personal belief.".

No. Don't flatter yourself.

There are Athiests who have absolutely no tolerance for religious beleif of any kind, and instead of participating in debate, they just insult religious people without end. Atleast you debate.



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
To which I'm simply going to reiterate the above:
With regard to opinion, respect must be justifiable. Everyone has the right to an opinion, be it religious or otherwise, but only so much as they don't present that opinion as fact without substantive corroboration..

Give respect and you shall recieve it. That's how i see it. Sorry we don't share the same philosophy on that matter.

Your claim for the entitlement to respect is just as wrong as a religious person who disrespects ALL assertions that challenge his faith.

I agree, however, that no one should present thier opinion as fact, without an entirely credible and undeniable basis.



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I have no compunctions with seeking naturalistic explanations for phenomena. Likewise I don't see anything wrong with holding those who seek to explain phenomena based on personal credulity or incredulity as accountable as those who seek naturalistic explanations. And I personally don't see it as close-minded. But to each their own I believe the saying goes.


Being unaccepting of someone else's beleif without investigating it further is willful ignorance.

A religious person's refusal to look into the scientific and logical aspect of a situation is willful ignorance, and it is sickenly common.

An Athiest's refusal to investigate the possibility of the super natural, and disregard it as non-existant, with no evidense as to its non-existance is equally ignorant.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
If one does not know what represents truth within themselves, they will not know what represents truth within others. For only the wise man loves truth, while only the fool cherishes folly.

Sounds like something Buddha would say. smile

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Sounds like something Buddha would say. smile

Well then you were either grossly idiotic or grossly ignorant in interpreting what I have stated, and since I have no tolerance for idiocy - I'll have compassion on you and assume that you were the latter of the two.

The point being made was that an individual who lies to themselves about the truth, is unable to recognize and/or cherish the truth when it is presented to them by others.

This type of individual will quickly take offense and reject truth when it is presented before them - regardless of how loving the character of the presenter. The end result of this rejection, is an individual who becomes a lover of individual opinions, regardless of how untruthful or depraved such opinions may be.

Does thou understand this lesson now Urizen?

Perhaps not so let me elucidate -

The "truth" that makes men free is the "truth" which most prefer not to hear -- But it is the only "truth" that is loving.

As always good day to you Urizen. God bless.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Meh, you often present your opinion as fact or truth. The amount of "harm" an opinion causes does not dictate whether or not the opinion may need to be justified if presented as fact or truth.

If someone tells me the Earth is flat, purporting it as an absolute. Then respect for that opinion presented as fact is completely unjustified.

I seek naturalistic explanations for phenomena because I hold the view that they are adequate to explain said phenomena. I don't discount the possibility of things beyond the natural, but the plausibility is not sufficient to be of relevance to my views.

Tell me why exactly must one investigate the supernatural in order to be open-minded? Religion is to me no more than a historical and sociological curiousity. I don't care either way about the supernatural, I don't feel it relevant. Time has to be prioritized, and I would rather focus on what is here.

Prove it isn't there, is a logical fallacy.

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Meh, you often present your opinion as fact or truth.

He..He..He. I was wondering when Urizen would realize the contradiction his own opinion presented. But as the old saying goes -

If you repeat a lie long enough - people will start to believe it, including oneself.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I do not think a personal opinion has to be justified....we all have the right to it. If you beleive in the existance of Love as purely a physical entity, or in Love as something spiritual...there is no harm in either assertion....

Why is my name in all the quote boxes? I don't want to be stealing xmarksthespot's thunder.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Why is my name in all the quote boxes? I don't want to be stealing xmarksthespot's thunder. Liar. I know you do. Liar!

Nellinator
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Who are you and what have you done with Lord Urizen?

(Sorry, couldn't help myself.)
He has been acting a lot more personable for pretty much the entire week... I'm hoping it continues. smile

Alliance
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
This type of individual will quickly take offense and reject truth when it is presented before them - regardless of how loving the character of the presenter. The end result of this rejection, is an individual who becomes a lover of individual opinions, regardless of how untruthful or depraved such opinions may be.
Are you describing yourself?

Alliance
Originally posted by Nellinator
He has been acting a lot more personable for pretty much the entire week... I'm hoping it continues. smile

I think several of us took a much needed break from this forum and have come back with a clean slate. Yourself and myself included.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Alliance
I think several of us took a much needed break from this forum and have come back with a clean slate. Yourself and myself included.
I'd like to think I have always been polite and patient, but maybe I haven't... This forum seems to stir up resentment so getting away can really bring things back into perspective.

Alliance
Thats what happend to me.

I try to be polite, yet agressively argue.

Nellinator
And poke sometimes too?
Wait... is that a poke by me?

Alliance
Some people need a poke to wake up.

Nellinator
Fact.

Alliance
Is often not realized by the people who are in need of it the most.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Alliance
Is often not realized by the people who are in need of it the most.
A hidden jab perhaps? Or am I just being paranoid?

Alliance
It was a general statement and one that has many interpretations. I meant it as a general concept.

Nellinator
Ok then, I am paranoid.

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Alliance
Are you describing yourself?

Naaah..I love the "truth." It sets me free and keeps me complete, without it I would be completely lost - but to be quite honest - at first it usually ticks me off...laughing

Alliance
Originally posted by Nellinator
Ok then, I am paranoid. I could apply it to you smile

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Alliance
I could apply it to you smile

Well then if I have heard the truth from your mouth so be it. As Martin Luther King stated -

"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant."

Alliance
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Well then if I have heard the truth from your mouth so be it.

You slipped in a post. It was intended for Nellinator.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Naaah..I love the "truth." It sets me free and keeps me complete, without it I would be completely lost - but to be quite honest - at first it usually ticks me off...laughing

Most peole claim that their "truth" sets them free and completes them. They also claim that without it they would be lost.

These interpretations are simply the side effects of not being able or willing to understand a larger view of existance. Truth is subjective.

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Alliance
You slipped in a post. It was intended for Nellinator.


Yes - but I believe perhaps God intended it for me too wink



If one believes in God - and you believe that he is truth - then they will be content in knowing that he is absolute in this truth. I can't imagine having a God rule over me who was a liar - perverted - and cared nothing about anyone else other than himself.(which sad to say - unfortunately - all of mankind can now be described as these 3 things, due to their inherent "sin" nature)

So those who have faith in God, sincerely hope(have faith) that he is as truthful as he claims - and that his truth is absolute, because if it wasn't then that would mean that there is truly no hope for mankind. I usually reconcile my faith in God's truth with the "cross" - for I can't see how an "unloving" and/or "untruthful" God would make such a selfless sacrafice if he truly did not love his creations.

lil bitchiness
Anyway...yeah I changed my mind regarding humanity not necesseraly my religious beliefs.
I also got to release (alhough not fully of course, since I do not live in America) why Atheists hate Christians so much, then point out how Christians are hating.

Having that said, a lot of people shit their pants defending all other religions (and in particular Islam), while complitely refusing to acknowledge its falibilities.

Furthermore, if one dares say anything which is not ''Islam is a religion of peace'' one is branded as ''hateful'', while calling Christians all kinds of names is ok - because living in America gives you the Christian-hate-free card!

I love this forum.

lord xyz
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Anyway...yeah I changed my mind regarding humanity not necesseraly my religious beliefs.
I also got to release (alhough not fully of course, since I do not live in America) why Atheists hate Christians so much, then point out how Christians are hating.

Having that said, a lot of people shit their pants defending all other religions (and in particular Islam), while complitely refusing to acknowledge its falibilities.

Furthermore, if one dares say anything which is not ''Islam is a religion of peace'' one is branded as ''hateful'', while calling Christians all kinds of names is ok - because living in America gives you the Christian-hate-free card!

I love this forum. laughing out loud That actually made some sense. But Islam is better than christianity, mostly because when it was made people were smarter and their was more Science.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Meh, you often present your opinion as fact or truth.

Name one instance.....




Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The amount of "harm" an opinion causes does not dictate whether or not the opinion may need to be justified if presented as fact or truth..

yes Yes it does.

If you beleive in spirits, you do not have to justify why. You have the right to beleive it. If you beleive in something hateful or something that classifies a people as superior or inferior in anyway, especially when that beleif creeps its way into politics, then yes...you better have justification for such a belief.

Alliance
Originally posted by lord xyz
laughing out loud That actually made some sense. But Islam is better than christianity, mostly because when it was made people were smarter and their was more Science.

One of its prime contributions. Saving the Classical world.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I also got to release (alhough not fully of course, since I do not live in America) why Atheists hate Christians so much, then point out how Christians are hating.
Though, I would love to point out to you that if you consider things that I say to be "hateful" I can't imagine how you would unbaisedly classify your critique of Islam.

Hate is a very strong word. I don't think Christians should be killed. However, I feel strongly that people losse their rights when their actions infringe upon the rights of others. This is one of the cornerstones of the US Constitution and my philosophy as well. Attacking Christians for attacking others is not hating. And unless you've read all the threads (you seem to continuously participate in a few) you've likedly missed some stuff and are formulating these conjuctures based on a nonrepresentative sample.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Furthermore, if one dares say anything which is not ''Islam is a religion of peace'' one is branded as ''hateful'', while calling Christians all kinds of names is ok - because living in America gives you the Christian-hate-free card!
You know thats not true, so stop it.

Capt_Fantastic
Islam helped to define the world. Not really to save it.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by lord xyz
But Islam is better than christianity, mostly because when it was made people were smarter and their was more Science.
I disagree.

If anything, Christians were rather smart at the begining of Christianity. It was only after the institualisation of Christianity into a Church, and then of course, when the Leaders of Rome were converted that the problems begun.


As far as science goes - There were many scientists and thinkers who were Christians. And far more so than Islamic.

Remember,
Even Galileo claimed that Bible cannot err, and that his explanation was an alternative interpretation of the Bible.

Of course the simple minded Pope of the time was ''offended'' at that. HA! Idiot.

What about Robert Boyle?! He was a governor of Missionary organization for propagating the gospel in New England and he personally funded bible translations into Turkish and Arabic.

He is the founder of Modern Chenistry / Gas Dynamics, for those who can't jog the memory back to Chemistry Class.

And how about Mr Morse. The very first thing EVER to be sent by electric telegraph was a Bible verse.

Johannes Kepler - Founder of Astronomy/Laws of Planetary Motion was also a Christian.
He said: ''I am a Christian...I believe... only and alone in the service of Jesus Christ...In Him is all refuge, all solace.''

Michael Faraday was also a Christian, as was Blaise Pascal and of course not forgetting Nicola Tesla.

There are/were more scientists, thinkers, writers, philosophers who were Christian. There are also a lot of Jewish scientists, who were all of the above.


(Note - everyone tries to claim Albert Einstein (Christians, Jews, athiests...) simply because of the weight of his intelect - he was agnostic however, as far as sources say.)

The reason this worked so well for the people at the time is that those people understood ALL knowledge they found as tied with God and Jesus, as opposed to ''SATANIC'' which we get quite a lot of these days...ironically.

Makes you wonder then, doesn't it....

Nellinator
Tesla may have been the smartest man to ever live.

Alliance
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I disagree.

You forget. Christianity destroyed science and Classicism. Islam preserved it and reintroduced it to Europe to start the Scientific Renaissance, which led into the Scientific Revolution.

Those terms are specific. You can't have a renaissance unless something has died. I suggest you read the introductions to Vesalius' "De humani corporis fabrica" and Copernicus' " De revolutionibus orbium coelestium," both published in 1543. They tell firsthand about how Europe is an intellectual wasteland.

Not to mention, most of those writers were after the Protestant Reformation. Galileo was a stauch proponent that there could be personal interpretation of the bible, a stong anti-Chirstian belief of the time.

Thats covers Scientific Revolution wirters. Scientific Renaissance writers didn't appear until the Moral Crisis. Christianity got so screwed up because of the Reformation, the validity of the Bible was challenged, Europe was discovering countless new cultures, and people finally realized how much they had been missing since antiquity. It took Europe until the 1700s to recover what the Romans knew in 476. The loss of that knowledge was directly contributed to by Christianity. Its reintroduction was directly inhibited by Christianty.

Secondly, of course Christians have contributed to science.

However, thats not the issue. Christians may have contributed to science, but Christianity is anti-science. Its a lot easier for the Christian church to swallow something like a battery, than to swallow something that defies its doctrine. Christianity itself has alway been against science, because it has the inability to promote free science that is in conflict with its beliefs. Its often takes the church centuries to come to terms with inconsistancies. If you look at scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, etc whose views actually challenge the church (as opposed to bringing up non-issue science) you will find that Christianity has an abysmal record.

Many Christian scientists directly and consiciously ignore or re-interpret aspects of Christian dogma to fit with science. Thats wonderful in my opion, however, its widely despiesed in the Christian church.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Name one instance.....
yes Yes it does.

If you beleive in spirits, you do not have to justify why. You have the right to beleive it. If you beleive in something hateful or something that classifies a people as superior or inferior in anyway, especially when that beleif creeps its way into politics, then yes...you better have justification for such a belief. The abortion thread. This thread. Most threads in general.

Either belief needs to be justified if one asserts it as true.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Alliance
You forget. Christianity destroyed science and Classicism. Islam preserved it and reintroduced it to Europe to start the Scientific Renaissance, which led into the Scientific Revolution.

Those terms are specific. You can't have a renaissance unless something has died. I suggest you read the introductions to Vesalius' "De humani corporis fabrica" and Copernicus' " De revolutionibus orbium coelestium," both published in 1543. They tell firsthand about how Europe is an intellectual wasteland.

Not to mention, most of those writers were after the Protestant Reformation. Galileo was a stauch proponent that there could be personal interpretation of the bible, a stong anti-Chirstian belief of the time.

Thats covers Scientific Revolution wirters. Scientific Renaissance writers didn't appear until the Moral Crisis. Christianity got so screwed up because of the Reformation, the validity of the Bible was challenged, Europe was discovering countless new cultures, and people finally realized how much they had been missing since antiquity. It took Europe until the 1700s to recover what the Romans knew in 476. The loss of that knowledge was directly contributed to by Christianity. Its reintroduction was directly inhibited by Christianty.

Secondly, of course Christians have contributed to science.

However, thats not the issue. Christians may have contributed to science, but Christianity is anti-science. Its a lot easier for the Christian church to swallow something like a battery, than to swallow something that defies its doctrine. Christianity itself has alway been against science, because it has the inability to promote free science that is in conflict with its beliefs. Its often takes the church centuries to come to terms with inconsistancies. If you look at scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, etc whose views actually challenge the church (as opposed to bringing up non-issue science) you will find that Christianity has an abysmal record.

Many Christian scientists directly and consiciously ignore or re-interpret aspects of Christian dogma to fit with science. Thats wonderful in my opion, however, its widely despiesed in the Christian church.
The fall of Rome had more to do with the downfall of science than did Christianity. You are being very biased here and its simply not all true. Christianity is not anti-science. I would say that every field of science has major contributor that was/is Christian. By the church you are referring to the Catholics, who at that time were very close minded, but understandably so, because the renewal of science was bringing forth a lot of new information in a short period of time. People were simple-minded and that much new discovery was no doubt a shock to them. People generally resist change whether they are religious or not and that was a time of great change.

Alliance
You clearly did not read what I said. Try again.

1. What I wrote was not biased and was not my personal opinion.

2. I never blamed the fall of Rome on the fall of science or the rise of Christianty. Christianity did contribute to the fall of Rome, but it was one of the least significant factors.

3. I CLEARY made a distinction between Christians and Christianity. GET IT?

4. Catholics WERE Christianity, there was no difference. Since the split both Catholicsm and Protestantism have been guilty of what I have described.

5. Nothing new was described in science until the Moral Crisis. Things like heliocentrism were proposed in the Greek times. The issue was that Christianity supressed science and free thought. It took almost a millenium for it to return, thanks to the interestd of several scholars and the academic perserverances of the Ottoman and Islamic empires.

6. Religon resists change, hence why religion has always been on the wrong side of science.

I seriously question your ability to analyze. Are you reading what I'm saying or reading what you want me to say? I study the scientific revolution every day. I am a history of science MAJOR. This is not a biased opinion.

If you'd like an athiest persepective, I can give it to you. That was the academic persepective.

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Alliance
If you'd like an athiest persepective, I can give it to you. That was the academic persepective.


Oweeee boy! You sure do rite fast. I say you done give us 4 more dem dere statements from da atheest perpective..and den we'll ad dem to da other 6 statments ya gave us an we'll have the Good ol Atheist version of da 10 commandments. So watcha think bout dat boy?

Nellinator
Originally posted by Alliance
You clearly did not read what I said. Try again.

1. What I wrote was not biased and was not my personal opinion.

2. I never blamed the fall of Rome on the fall of science or the rise of Christianty. Christianity did contribute to the fall of Rome, but it was one of the least significant factors.

3. I CLEARY made a distinction between Christians and Christianity. GET IT?

4. Catholics WERE Christianity, there was no difference. Since the split both Catholicsm and Protestantism have been guilty of what I have described.

5. Nothing new was described in science until the Moral Crisis. Things like heliocentrism were proposed in the Greek times. The issue was that Christianity supressed science and free thought. It took almost a millenium for it to return, thanks to the interestd of several scholars and the academic perserverances of the Ottoman and Islamic empires.

6. Religon resists change, hence why religion has always been on the wrong side of science.

I seriously question your ability to analyze. Are you reading what I'm saying or reading what you want me to say? I study the scientific revolution every day. I am a history of science MAJOR. This is not a biased opinion.

If you'd like an athiest persepective, I can give it to you. That was the academic persepective.
1. OK then.
2. I said that the fall of Rome destroyed science, not Christianity and you did not refute that.
3. Seeing it now.
4. Not in terms of Copernicus and Galileo. The Reformation started in 1520. Zwingli (whom I consider the starter of the real Reformation) died in 1531. Copernicus published his theory in 1543 and received skepticism from Luther and Melanchthon, but Pope Clement VII was acutally impressed. Kepler (1571-1630) also used a heliocentric model and was the court astronomer of the Holy Roman Emperor (very Catholic) with no problems. Pope Gregory XIII had no problems changing the accepted calender when it proven faulty. He did this sometime between 1572-85, can't quite remember exactly though. Galileo published his work in 1611 adn 1632, many years after the Reformation had taken place. He was unfortunate enough to have the hatred of the Dominican Order and a closeminded Pope (Urban VIII). Galileo had bad timing, but as a whole Christianity was not hostile to science in that era. Almost everything Newton said starting in 1687 was accepted, showing a openness to science.
5. Not true, see 4
6. People resist change. Some people are religious, it is no mystery.

I don't care what your major is in if you present 'facts' twisted by personal bias or the bias with which you were taught (profs can be terrible sometimes). I was a science student in my day and a history student before choosing psychology. The Reformation is an area I am actually pretty well informed in and am very interested in. I am not stupid and unaware of the facts.

Nellinator
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Oweeee boy! You sure do rite fast. I say you done give us 4 more dem dere statements from da atheest perpective..and den we'll ad dem to da other 6 statments ya gave us an we'll have the Good ol Atheist version of da 10 commandments. So watcha think bout dat boy?
Why have you started talking like a hillbilly. Please type normally, its easier to read and will warrant you a more personable response.

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Nellinator
Why have you started talking like a hillbilly. Please type normally, its easier to read and will warrant you a more personable response.

Just a little humour to lighten the mood. :wink: No offense to anyone. You are indeed correct, sometimes I do indeed get a bit carried away with myself. Me thinks its time for me to take a break for a while. sleep

Nellinator
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Just a little humour to lighten the mood.
http/images.killermovies.com/forums/smilies/cartoon/wink.gif
No offense to anyone. You are indeed correct. Me thinks its time for me to take a break for a while. sleep
I am not mad at you, I would just hate to see the language you use create reason for the thread to degenerate.

usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Nellinator
I am not mad at you, I would just hate to see the language you use create reason for the thread to degenerate.


Its cool. I understood. I actually appreciate your criticism. smile You made an excellent point. But it is indeed time for me to go to bed. I've been on this forum waaay to much today. Have a good night.

Alliance
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Oweeee boy! You sure do rite fast. I say you done give us 4 more dem dere statements from da atheest perpective..and den we'll ad dem to da other 6 statments ya gave us an we'll have the Good ol Atheist version of da 10 commandments. So watcha think bout dat boy?
If you're not going to contribute, please don't post. I thing that your decision to take a break was a good ides.
Originally posted by Nellinator
I said that the fall of Rome destroyed science, not Christianity and you did not refute that. The Christian minority of the Roman empire threw off many of the traditional Roman philosophies instead of their own. Instead of supporting philosophy, they would rather sit on poles all day and contemplate their religion. When the Western RE fell, Christianity became the dominant force in Europe, rising to become the sole power. During this time, 476 until the Reformation, there were no significant advances in science. Science was but a fraction of what it was under Classical times. Now, you may state that science was already in decline at the end of the RE, and I'd agree with you, but you go almost an entire millenia under Chrstianity with little or no development in fields from medicine to natural philosophy. That is not the Romans, thats Christianity. Many other empires, notably the Islamic and Ottoman empires had no problem carrying on the majority of the Classical tradition, even improving upon it. It took some real brilliant minds in Europe to overcome this deficit.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Not in terms of Copernicus and Galileo. The Reformation started in 1520. Zwingli (whom I consider the starter of the real Reformation) died in 1531. Copernicus published his theory in 1543 and received skepticism from Luther and Melanchthon, but Pope Clement VII was acutally impressed. Kepler (1571-1630) also used a heliocentric model and was the court astronomer of the Holy Roman Emperor (very Catholic) with no problems. Pope Gregory XIII had no problems changing the accepted calender when it proven faulty. He did this sometime between 1572-85, can't quite remember exactly though. Galileo published his work in 1611 adn 1632, many years after the Reformation had taken place. He was unfortunate enough to have the hatred of the Dominican Order and a closeminded Pope (Urban VIII). Galileo had bad timing, but as a whole Christianity was not hostile to science in that era. Almost everything Newton said starting in 1687 was accepted, showing a openness to science.
What your missing is the history. Osiander had no problem slipping in his preface to Copernicus, stating that the Copernican model was just a way of looking at things, and NOT a physical model of reality. Of course Copernicus thought different, its obvious from his texts. That was a few years after what was later termed the reformation had begun. Most astronomers that used the Heliocentric model were forced or had to edit their papers to make it clear that the helocentric model was a mathematical model and was not a physical model of reality. When lines like that were crossed (as in Galileos case...Galileo was also in many ways stupid to make the structure of the cosmos a public debate) censorship occurred. Protestants critiqued heliocentrism, Catholics banned the books. Especially as it became increasingly clear that the Reformation was going to be a permanent solution, the Catholic church tightened its grip on the intellectual community. After the Council of Trent and the Decree of the Index, Copernicus' book was only allowed in an edited version, even with Osianders' parasitic preface. Publications that gave a biblical justification to heliocentrism, like Foscarini's were banned.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Not true, see 4.
No, true. Heliocentrism was proposed in Classical times. Copernicus cites the previous models in his introduction. This was post-Ptolemy stuff, but the model was definitely present and viable in Antiquity.

Classical thought was lost for a millenia, then several people re-opened up the classic disciplines. Then, after these men have passed, we get to the Moral Crisis. Then Europe discovered the true depth of Classical thinking and what they had been missing. The writings of Sextus Impiricus really shook them up too.

Then we can get to scientists like Newton. Newton's threat was a constant threat to Christianity. The mechanization of the natural world was strongly rejected by the church and Newton spent a lot of time defending himself. Despite Newton's claims to the contrary, his work removed God from the equation and the church too GREAT threat from that.

Again. The church can let stuff slide if it doesn't conflict with their views. If you discover a new species of insect, they have no problem. However, if you mess with their interpretation of God, they'll bastardize your work.

Originally posted by Nellinator
People resist change. Some people are religious, it is no mystery.
Please don't tell me that you've simplified this to this level. The majority of people in the religious. Its difficult to embrace every type of change. However, I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about institutions. These things are not coincidence. They happen deliberately. Whether is a direct suppression of the Reformation or merely the absence of developments, these things have reasons and exist beyond simple "people resist change." There is an institutionalized reaction against science in religion. I see it and work around it every day.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I don't care what your major is in if you present 'facts' twisted by personal bias or the bias with which you were taught (profs can be terrible sometimes). I was a science student in my day and a history student before choosing psychology. The Reformation is an area I am actually pretty well informed in and am very interested in. I am not stupid and unaware of the facts.
Here we go again. Honestly, for being an adult you need to grow up a bit. You've insulted my education before. I don't state my major to say that I'm right, I state it to show that I'm active in the field and I do my research.

I try to be as unbiased as possible. That the way I live every day. Thats how you have to be in my field. I do my research, I know what positions are widely supported and which aren't. Of course there may not be one right answer, but there are a range of right ones.
I try to keep rhetoric out of intellectual arguments.

You may not be unaware of facts, but you had gross misinterpretations in my first writings. As I said, I question your motives. The Church has an institutionalized practice against science, just as they do civil rights (but thats another story). This is not saying that all religious people hate science, many scientists I know have religious beliefs. They two are perfectly compatible...however, when it comes down to it, religion has to bend.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Alliance
The Christian minority of the Roman empire threw off many of the traditional Roman philosophies instead of their own. Instead of supporting philosophy, they would rather sit on poles all day and contemplate their religion. When the Western RE fell, Christianity became the dominant force in Europe, rising to become the sole power. During this time, 476 until the Reformation, there were no significant advances in science. Science was but a fraction of what it was under Classical times. Now, you may state that science was already in decline at the end of the RE, and I'd agree with you, but you go almost an entire millenia under Chrstianity with little or no development in fields from medicine to natural philosophy. That is not the Romans, thats Christianity. Many other empires, notably the Islamic and Ottoman empires had no problem carrying on the majority of the Classical tradition, even improving upon it. It took some real brilliant minds in Europe to overcome this deficit.

What your missing is the history. Osiander had no problem slipping in his preface to Copernicus, stating that the Copernican model was just a way of looking at things, and NOT a physical model of reality. Of course Copernicus thought different, its obvious from his texts. That was a few years after what was later termed the reformation had begun. Most astronomers that used the Heliocentric model were forced or had to edit their papers to make it clear that the helocentric model was a mathematical model and was not a physical model of reality. When lines like that were crossed (as in Galileos case...Galileo was also in many ways stupid to make the structure of the cosmos a public debate) censorship occurred. Protestants critiqued heliocentrism, Catholics banned the books. Especially as it became increasingly clear that the Reformation was going to be a permanent solution, the Catholic church tightened its grip on the intellectual community. After the Council of Trent and the Decree of the Index, Copernicus' book was only allowed in an edited version, even with Osianders' parasitic preface. Publications that gave a biblical justification to heliocentrism, like Foscarini's were banned.

No, true. Heliocentrism was proposed in Classical times. Copernicus cites the previous models in his introduction. This was post-Ptolemy stuff, but the model was definitely present and viable in Antiquity.

Classical thought was lost for a millenia, then several people re-opened up the classic disciplines. Then, after these men have passed, we get to the Moral Crisis. Then Europe discovered the true depth of Classical thinking and what they had been missing. The writings of Sextus Impiricus really shook them up too.

Then we can get to scientists like Newton. Newton's threat was a constant threat to Christianity. The mechanization of the natural world was strongly rejected by the church and Newton spent a lot of time defending himself. Despite Newton's claims to the contrary, his work removed God from the equation and the church too GREAT threat from that.

Again. The church can let stuff slide if it doesn't conflict with their views. If you discover a new species of insect, they have no problem. However, if you mess with their interpretation of God, they'll bastardize your work.

Please don't tell me that you've simplified this to this level. The majority of people in the religious. Its difficult to embrace every type of change. However, I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about institutions. These things are not coincidence. They happen deliberately. Whether is a direct suppression of the Reformation or merely the absence of developments, these things have reasons and exist beyond simple "people resist change." There is an institutionalized reaction against science in religion. I see it and work around it every day.

Here we go again. Honestly, for being an adult you need to grow up a bit. You've insulted my education before. I don't state my major to say that I'm right, I state it to show that I'm active in the field and I do my research.

I try to be as unbiased as possible. That the way I live every day. Thats how you have to be in my field. I do my research, I know what positions are widely supported and which aren't. Of course there may not be one right answer, but there are a range of right ones.
I try to keep rhetoric out of intellectual arguments.

You may not be unaware of facts, but you had gross misinterpretations in my first writings. As I said, I question your motives. The Church has an institutionalized practice against science, just as they do civil rights (but thats another story). This is not saying that all religious people hate science, many scientists I know have religious beliefs. They two are perfectly compatible...however, when it comes down to it, religion has to bend.
I am happier with this post because you actually used facts instead of vague arguments. However, I do not believe that I showed any immaturity as you claim. To be honest that is the real reason I attacked your education. However, to be fair, I do not recall attacking your education beforehand. Please enlighten if I am wrong. I like to know when I make mistakes as such. That said, I am not sure what motives could really be other than that I disagree about your belief that Christianity (as an institution) is hostile to science when history has shown many cases otherwise. At times, I admit there were times when the church was close-minded, but it was Christian men who reestablished science and opened the populace to education and reality. A rather nonhostile situation.

1. I am in fact saying that science was already in decline at the end of the Roman Empire. However, I would not contribute the failure of the reestablishment of science to Christianity, but rather to the lack of education and of civilization in general. These existed in many of the Islamic nations. However, do not ignore the science of the Byzantines. Greek fire comes to mind and the fact that their science did not crumble despite being Christian.

2. You seem to be forgetting that Clement VII did not oppose Copernicus. Also, Galileo was allowed to teach his theory (as a hypothesis, mind you) which shows that the church was bent on wiping out a theory that was shown to have validity. They were overly cautious perhaps, but the science continued and was passed on. Kepler knew and accepted the basic Copernicus theory and modified it saying that the planets orbitted in an eliptical path, showing his acknowledgement of the sun being the center of the solar system. Kepler was not censored and his work was passed on. Galileo was simply unfortunate to have Urban as Pope and live during a temporary lapse in wisdom in the churches. Newton was forced to defend himself because much of what he said was revolutionary. However, his theories in physics remained for hundreds of years, his calculus is still taught today and his astronomy was generally accepted in his time. When he adequately defended himself, his theories became acceptable. Newton had a successful career and despite removing God from his science he did not truly challenge anything that the churches held dear. Mostly because science should not conflict with religion.

3. Whoops, got carried away and missed what you were saying. My apologies.

4. It may not be that simple, but institutions are usually little more than the people that are part of them. Institutions may resist change more fiercly, but people do naturally resist change. Some hold on to some aspects of their beliefs more tightly than others leading to changes in some areas rather than others. Thus deliberate changes must be made, but a lot of the time science does not change things, but rather fills in acknowledged holes in our knowledge. If Christianity suppressed science, I am not sure that Christian men would have reestablished it, but rather atheist or agnostic believers.

lil bitchiness

ThePittman

Shakyamunison

ThePittman

Shakyamunison

ThePittman

Shakyamunison

ThePittman
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not all religions are the same. Agreed but I have seen some more structured then others and others more of a philosophy then a religion.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by ThePittman
Agreed but I have seen some more structured then others and others more of a philosophy then a religion.

What would you call a philosophy with a practice?

What I mean by a practice is a meditation regiment or chanting, including ceremonies.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The abortion thread. This thread. Most threads in general.

Name an INSTANCE where I stated beleif as Fact, and not just beleif with conviction.

Saying " Oh you always do that" doesn't constitute any claim you make.




Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Either belief needs to be justified if one asserts it as true.


All beleifs are justified in some way or another. I think the word you are trying to push is proven. In your case, any beleif that cannot be scientifically proven is entirely invalid.

There is other justification besides the scientific.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Oweeee boy! You sure do rite fast. I say you done give us 4 more dem dere statements from da atheest perpective..and den we'll ad dem to da other 6 statments ya gave us an we'll have the Good ol Atheist version of da 10 commandments. So watcha think bout dat boy?

Shut up no

ThePittman
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What would you call a philosophy with a practice?

What I mean by a practice is a meditation regiment or chanting, including ceremonies. For me a religion or religious belief would believe in a higher being such as God, Allah or what ever, the practice of meditation or chanting in a relaxation or trying to achieve some type of higher consciences is more of a philosophy or type of life style.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Name an INSTANCE where I stated beleif as Fact, and not just beleif with conviction.

Saying " Oh you always do that" doesn't constitute any claim you make. Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Cancer is not alive you dumbass. Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Prevention is not killing, Abortion is. Originally posted by Lord Urizen
At around 3-4 months, the foetus already develops functional nerves, so to subject a foetus at this stage of an Abortion is tortorous.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Love is NOT A PERSON, it is a FORCE that we ALL HAVE ACCESS TO AND EQUAL ABILITY TO POSSESS AND SHARE.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Biologically normal? Every animal is different, even among the same species.

Crocidile mothers are known to commonly eat thier own children....interesting, isn't it ? How the "motherly program" isn't present in every single creature.... http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/safari/crocs/expert/expert8.htmlOriginally posted by Lord Urizen
Robtard, Instinct is a universal primal force by definition. If it exists, then it exists in all animals, not just a few.

Emotions or biases can vary in animals of the same species, but not instinct.

One lioness cannot have more "instinct" than another. Instinct is innate, it is born into the animal....according to the theory of instinct. Happy now? "Belief with conviction." Cop out much? When you assert something in a manner implying it is predicated on some sort of objective bases or rationale, you are asserting it as fact/truth.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
All beleifs are justified in some way or another. I think the word you are trying to push is proven. In your case, any beleif that cannot be scientifically proven is entirely invalid.

There is other justification besides the scientific. Belief needs to be justified if one asserts it as true, beyond logical fallacy such as argument from personal incredulity/credulity.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by ThePittman
For me a religion or religious belief would believe in a higher being such as God, Allah or what ever, the practice of meditation or chanting in a relaxation or trying to achieve some type of higher consciences is more of a philosophy or type of life style.

Scientology is a religion, and there is no diety present.

"Jedi" is now a religion and there is no deity present.

Buddhism is a religion and there is no diety present.

However, Buddhism can be flexibly formed into one's personal philosophy.



I guess you beleive that a religion must involve worship. I understand. Keep in mind though that a philosophy does not carry solid guidelines. A religion DOES.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by ThePittman
For me a religion or religious belief would believe in a higher being such as God, Allah or what ever, the practice of meditation or chanting in a relaxation or trying to achieve some type of higher consciences is more of a philosophy or type of life style.

I am a Nichiren Buddhist. We do not believe in a higher power. We chant and perform Gongyo (reading from the Lotus sutra). This is my religion, a philosophy that acts like a religion.

ThePittman

Alliance
Originally posted by Nellinator
I am happier with this post because you actually used facts instead of vague arguments.
Sorry. Its just my style. I'm obsessive about fact checking, so writing dense facts is time consuming on my part. I will argue on large terms at first and then supply examples if people feel they are needed.

Originally posted by Nellinator
That said, I am not sure what motives could really be other than that I disagree about your belief that Christianity (as an institution) is hostile to science when history has shown many cases otherwise. At times, I admit there were times when the church was close-minded, but it was Christian men who reestablished science and opened the populace to education and reality. A rather nonhostile situation.
Yet, the institution still remained oppressive. Many men, Christian and otherwise, were brilliant. However, you will find in the great scientists a significant dismissal of Church doctrine in their work. Does Christianity make a man a lesser scientist: No. However, those men had to confront the church or church doctrine often for centuries. They questioned the church, this makes them, imo, better citizens and Christians. Christian men have contributed to science, however, these men are by for the norm and are nowhere near both what I would consider the "average" Christian of the time and the Christian doctrine of the time.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I am in fact saying that science was already in decline at the end of the Roman Empire. However, I would not contribute the failure of the reestablishment of science to Christianity, but rather to the lack of education and of civilization in general. These existed in many of the Islamic nations. However, do not ignore the science of the Byzantines. Greek fire comes to mind and the fact that their science did not crumble despite being Christian.
University education was continued throughout the Dark and Middle Ages. As I said, I agree science was in decline at the end of the Roman Empire, but it took a MILLENNIUM for some areas of science to even reach their levels in the Roman Empire. Science as a whole was not at all recovered at this point, just a few random schools of thought.

Besides. Greek fire is not the pinnacle of scientific achievement. I'm sure the Church had no problem employing it as a weapon. I'm referring to above all, natural philosophy.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You seem to be forgetting that Clement VII did not oppose Copernicus. Yeah, except Revolutions wasn't published until after Copernicus' death with Osiander's anonymous, yet strategically placed preface stating that this was in no way a depiction of reality, which Copernicus clearly thought it was. The Church took the position of the preface.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Also, Galileo was allowed to teach his theory (as a hypothesis, mind you) which shows that the church was bent on wiping out a theory that was shown to have validity. They were overly cautious perhaps, but the science continued and was passed on.
You're are apparently forgetting that Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Descartes, Locke, and others all had books banned by the Christian church.

The books survived because people were intelligent enough to circumvent the church. From personal experience, if something is banned, I just want to read it more. its likely that similar feelings were felt then as well.


Originally posted by Nellinator
Kepler knew and accepted the basic Copernicus theory and modified it saying that the planets orbitted in an eliptical path, showing his acknowledgement of the sun being the center of the solar system. Kepler was not censored and his work was passed on.
Again, Kepler promoted heliocentrism as a model, not as a physical reality.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Galileo was simply unfortunate to have Urban as Pope and live during a temporary lapse in wisdom in the churches.
That "temporary" lapse lasted quite a while.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Newton was forced to defend himself because much of what he said was revolutionary.
Science often is. Yet, regardless the Church had no problem attacking every major philosopher of the time. Descartes, Bacon, Locke among them.


Originally posted by Nellinator
However, his theories in physics remained for hundreds of years, his calculus is still taught today and his astronomy was generally accepted in his time.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Newton had a successful career and despite removing God from his science he did not truly challenge anything that the churches held dear.
This statement is contradictory. Newton promoted empiricism and determinism, directly against Christian doctrine.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Mostly because science should not conflict with religion.
Science and religion don't conflict. Science and religious dogma/institutions conflict. There institutions have been on the wrong side.


Originally posted by Nellinator
It may not be that simple, but institutions are usually little more than the people that are part of them. Institutions may resist change more fiercly, but people do naturally resist change. Some hold on to some aspects of their beliefs more tightly than others leading to changes in some areas rather than others.
Its not simple, but the Christian church played a direct role in suppressing science. Every other culture in the world made leaps and bounds forward, yet Chirstians did not. Why? I ask. People clinging to their Christian beliefs as a life raft is a direct consequence of the Christian Church. The Church didn't support science, it didn't promote true science. It simply pointed to science that stood in congruence with its arbitrary rule and said "believe that."


Originally posted by Nellinator Thus eliberate changes must be made, but a lot of the time science does not change things, but rather fills in acknowledged holes in our knowledge. No, religion fills in "holes" in scientific knowledge. And religion does so arbitrarily and without truth.

Originally posted by Nellinator
If Christianity suppressed science, I am not sure that Christian men would have reestablished it, but rather atheist or agnostic believers. First off, atheism and agnosticism weren't real movements at the time. Many of these men had beliefs that today would be considered more in-line with atheism and agnosticism. (Agnosticism is one of the principles of the Moral Crisis) However, what we do see is that scientists while expressing Christian beliefs, express beliefs radically different from the Church of the time. THAT is the distinction.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.