(03-02-2010 05:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-02-2010 03:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Considering that in our society, people with higher IQ's are far more likely to end up in academically prestigious universities where they are barraged with leftist faculty brainwashing, I'm surprised only that the correlation is not higher.
I guess a lot of those guys get out in the real world and figure out how the cow really eats the cabbage.

Cows? Cabbage?
Are you sure you're not a TAMU alumnus?

LOL

Just a figure of speech.

(03-03-2010 02:24 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

Quote:For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

John 3:16-18

I treat this as step one to considering yourself a Christian. Where it goes from there is a long and complicated position for me, which I also have not fully worked out myself. Only Christians (those who accepted Christ as Savior) may enter Heaven. Only an individual truly knows if he's honestly and fully accepted Christ as his Savior.

Sorry, felt obligated to share. Carry on.

Are there lies wherein my philosophical disagreement with religion.

What about the billions of people who aren't Christian? Are they excluded perhaps because their parents raised them Budhist? What about the Muslims in Saudia Arabia, who never even have a chance to convert? What about the millions upon millions of people who were born prior to Christ? What about the millions upon millons of people who were born after Christ, but never heard his name? What about children who die before they understand a choice of relegion?

And most importantly, what about those true believers who commit heinous crimes in the name of religion, or even heinous crimes not in the name of religion.

The answer can't just be "God works in mysterious ways," can it?

You certainly see the issue here, and I know you don't have the answer.

But so you understand someone like myself, I rationalize the above to be:

A.) No heaven, because it doesn't exist
B.) All heaven, because all humans are flawed (when judged by religiosity) so everyone gets a free pass.

And Paul, please don't mistake my questions for anger. I am a remarkably non-confrontational, even curious, atheist, and in fact support with time and money a couple local religious charities. The spaghetti dinner at St. Helena's is a nice way to spend last Tuesday night.

(03-03-2010 09:29 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  And Paul, please don't mistake my questions for anger. I am a remarkably non-confrontational, even curious, atheist, and in fact support with time and money a couple local religious charities. The spaghetti dinner at St. Helena's is a nice way to spend last Tuesday night.

Apologies. I should have excluded you and Steve from my last question. Being agnostic and someone who would really like to know the answers myself, I share all your above questions.

I tend to believe if Heaven exist, I'll see everyone there. There is no burning eternal fire. At worst, there will be "a separation from God". Or nothing at all. No fire. Separation. Even Satan, after having been cast out, has been invited, and excepted, an invitation to visit Heaven.

Reb, thought you stayed away from these social threads? You are all over this one!!! Notice I'm staying out of this fray!!

(03-02-2010 09:15 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-02-2010 09:10 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  No, there obviously is no 'faith' needed in Atheism. You see, based on your own assumption that there is a god you then assume that it takes 'faith' to understand that it is all myth.

Really? You know for a fact there is no God? Or you have faith there is no God. If you "know", then I'll be waiting on your proof.

This is at least part of the reason I call myself an ignostic. I don't think anyone can accuse ignostics of requiring faith.

(03-02-2010 09:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2010 06:10 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-02-2010 03:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Considering that in our society, people with higher IQ's are far more likely to end up in academically prestigious universities where they are barraged with leftist faculty brainwashing, I'm surprised only that the correlation is not higher.
I guess a lot of those guys get out in the real world and figure out how the cow really eats the cabbage.

Why is the faculty leftist to begin with, and if they're actually that smart, why would brainwashing work?

Academia is pretty much a closed-loop system that perpetuates itself. A PhD in, say, sociology has probably never actually DONE anything--except, of course, teach and write (for publications where the peer reviewers are of the same leftist mindset, because they've pretty much never actually DONE anything, either). If real-world experience were included as a requirement to teach, along with the ubiquitous PhD, we'd have a very different edocational system.

As for the students, they're trying to make an "A" and the way to do that is to regurgitate the brainwashing on the test. Some students remember to forget all that once their grade is posted; some don't.

But, aren't you actually in academia? i.e. the exception that proves the rule? (Oh, I get it, nevermind...)

(03-03-2010 11:26 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Reb, thought you stayed away from these social threads? You are all over this one!!! Notice I'm staying out of this fray!!

I normally do unless it's a topic where I have to defend myself. I could care less how someone worships, or doesn't. Doesn't concern me in the least. You can worship Teedle the timid taxidermist for all I care. That's not my point.

Notice it's not me who is proselytizing, it's the liberals and "agnostics".

(03-02-2010 09:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I've always liked the Pascal's Wager approach, formulated (but perhaps not first) by Blaise Pascal, French mathematician and philosopher.

There are two possibilities with God--He exists or He doesn't.
There are two possibilities for you--you believe that He exists or you don't.

If you believe God exists, and He does exist, fine and dandy.
If you believe God exists, and He doesn't exist, you're wrong but not really hurt.
If you believe God does not exist, and He doesn't exist, again, fine and dandy.
But what if you believe God does not exist, and He does exist? Now you have a big problem.

Now given that there's only one really bad bet, and given that I can't prove that God exists and you can't prove that He doesn't, what is the smart bet?

The first problem here is that I don't accept the first item I've highlighted is true.

The second problem is that for the second item - what if the god in question is not "good". Even if the Christian description of God were true, I do not thing it is a god that I would praise.

So, Pascal's wager just doesn't make much of an impression with me.

(03-02-2010 09:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2010 06:10 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-02-2010 03:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Considering that in our society, people with higher IQ's are far more likely to end up in academically prestigious universities where they are barraged with leftist faculty brainwashing, I'm surprised only that the correlation is not higher.
I guess a lot of those guys get out in the real world and figure out how the cow really eats the cabbage.

Why is the faculty leftist to begin with, and if they're actually that smart, why would brainwashing work?

Academia is pretty much a closed-loop system that perpetuates itself. A PhD in, say, sociology has probably never actually DONE anything--except, of course, teach and write (for publications where the peer reviewers are of the same leftist mindset, because they've pretty much never actually DONE anything, either). If real-world experience were included as a requirement to teach, along with the ubiquitous PhD, we'd have a very different edocational system.

As for the students, they're trying to make an "A" and the way to do that is to regurgitate the brainwashing on the test. Some students remember to forget all that once their grade is posted; some don't.

So if they had experience they'd be teaching something completely different? Sounds like they're just not that smart then.

I don't think the IQ test measures intelligence very well.

(03-02-2010 11:09 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-02-2010 10:41 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Dawkins: "Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc."

F--k Dawkins. How many people are out there dying for God, aside from Muzzies, who worship a false God (Conjecture on my part, I know)? It isn't Christians. This is NOT the crusade era. Christians and Jews want to live and let live. Sure, they are sometimes judgmental, but who the f--k isn't? Are you not?

No, not at all...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8542297.stm Wrote:Karadzic defends Bosnian Serb 'holy' cause at trial

Former leader Radovan Karadzic has said the Serb cause in the Bosnian war was "just and holy" as he began his defence at his genocide trial at The Hague.

Mr Karadzic, 64, suspended his boycott and appeared in court along with his lawyer on Monday as the trial resumed.

"I will defend that nation of ours and their cause that is just and holy," Mr Karadzic said in translated comments at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

"I stand here before you not to defend the mere mortal that I am, but to defend the greatness of a small nation in Bosnia-Hercegovina, which for 500 years has had to suffer," he told the court. "We have a good case. We have good evidence and proof."

(03-02-2010 09:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I've always liked the Pascal's Wager approach, formulated (but perhaps not first) by Blaise Pascal, French mathematician and philosopher.

There are two possibilities with God--He exists or He doesn't.
There are two possibilities for you--you believe that He exists or you don't.

If you believe God exists, and He does exist, fine and dandy.
If you believe God exists, and He doesn't exist, you're wrong but not really hurt.
If you believe God does not exist, and He doesn't exist, again, fine and dandy.
But what if you believe God does not exist, and He does exist? Now you have a big problem.

Now given that there's only one really bad bet, and given that I can't prove that God exists and you can't prove that He doesn't, what is the smart bet?

And how strong is your faith if you say you believe in God just because you're worried about going to hell if he does exist? If that's your reason for 'believing in God' are you actually going to behave in such a way that you actually go to heaven? Or would God still consider you to be faithless, since it's pretty much a strictly self-serving decision, and He of course would know that.

(03-03-2010 12:02 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-03-2010 11:26 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Reb, thought you stayed away from these social threads? You are all over this one!!! Notice I'm staying out of this fray!!

I normally do unless it's a topic where I have to defend myself. I could care less how someone worships, or doesn't. Doesn't concern me in the least. You can worship Teedle the timid taxidermist for all I care. That's not my point.

Notice it's not me who is proselytizing, it's the liberals and "agnostics".

I KNOW!!

(03-03-2010 12:02 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-03-2010 11:26 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Reb, thought you stayed away from these social threads? You are all over this one!!! Notice I'm staying out of this fray!!

I normally do unless it's a topic where I have to defend myself. I could care less how someone worships, or doesn't. Doesn't concern me in the least. You can worship Teedle the timid taxidermist for all I care. That's not my point.

Notice it's not me who is proselytizing, it's the liberals and "agnostics".

By this logic every time someone says, "I believe in god" could be considered proselytizing. I don't see anyone from either viewpoint trying to convert anyone in this thread. It seems to me that each side is simply producing an opinion as to why they are what they are.

Another faulty attempt to pass blame.

(03-03-2010 09:29 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Are there lies wherein my philosophical disagreement with religion.

What about the billions of people who aren't Christian? Are they excluded perhaps because their parents raised them Budhist? What about the Muslims in Saudia Arabia, who never even have a chance to convert? What about the millions upon millions of people who were born prior to Christ? What about the millions upon millons of people who were born after Christ, but never heard his name? What about children who die before they understand a choice of relegion?

Part of Christianity's reasoning for missionaries is the purpose of taking the Word to these regions. Whoever unfair it may sound, my feeling is that they are unfortunately condemned. While only God knows for certain, they don't meet the first step of acceptance into Heaven.

Quote:And most importantly, what about those true believers who commit heinous crimes in the name of religion, or even heinous crimes not in the name of religion.

That's where it gets fuzzy, because I can't say for certain what other "requirements" there are beyond the foundation. Does it mean you follow the Ten Commandments (which I do believe)? Or other laws? Don't have the answers yet.

Quote:But so you understand someone like myself, I rationalize the above to be:

A.) No heaven, because it doesn't exist
B.) All heaven, because all humans are flawed (when judged by religiosity) so everyone gets a free pass.

If I understand part B correctly, then my response is such:

All men are flawed (original sin) and will continue to sin. Jesus was God's sacrifice for man to "pay" for our sins (thus the concept of Lamb of God/Sacrificial lamb). His death and time in Hell, was served on our behalf so that man could be reunited with God in Heaven (a place reserved for perfection). But man had to accept that Jesus died in place of us. Otherwise, man can never be truly repentant for his sins, and thus enter Heaven.

Hope that makes sense.

If anyone wants to read a defense of the New Testament from a historical or evidential perspective please read, "MORE THAN a CARPENTER" by Josh McDowell . It is a great, great read.

What the chances that the knucklehead, Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa, is a liberal atheist?
How many of our dear mass murdering dictators were high IQ atheists, many.

(03-03-2010 09:39 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  If anyone wants to read a defense of the New Testament from a historical or evidential perspective please read, "MORE THAN a CARPENTER" by Josh McDowell . It is a great, great read.

I've read that book and neither of those words describe the crap that is inside of it.

(03-03-2010 10:03 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  What the chances that the knucklehead, Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa, is a liberal atheist?
How many of our dear mass murdering dictators were high IQ atheists, many.

You'll actually find that most of the people that fall into that category were very religious people.

(03-03-2010 11:49 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  You'll actually find that most of the people that fall into that category were very religious people.

Lenin was not religious. Stalin was not religious. Mao Tse Tung was not religious. Pol Pot was not religious. All of those "men", and I use that term loosely, looked down on religious people and they killed more people than any other civilization, people, or person in this world's history.

Try again, Einstein. Hell, Hitler was a pauper compared to Stalin and Mao.

(03-03-2010 11:54 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-03-2010 11:49 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  You'll actually find that most of the people that fall into that category were very religious people.

Lenin was not religious. Stalin was not religious. Mao Tse Tung was not religious. Pol Pot was not religious. All of those "men", and I use that term loosely, looked down on religious people and they killed more people than any other civilization, people, or person in this world's history. (FACT CHECK)

Try again, Einstein. Hell, Hitler was a pauper compared to Stalin and Mao.

I want you to read that word genius. Tell me its definition.

I can list all the Christians that killed many people as well. Many more of them than you can Atheists...however what would that prove? Other than my original statement is still no less true.