The Ron Brown Religion & Persecution Thread

[The Dude]

They live a life without faith, that takes conviction in the fact there isn't a God and live by that tennat.

I can't speak for every atheist, but I don't claim to know for certain God doesn't exist. I'm just unconvinced He does until adequate evidence can be provided to support that hypothesis.

[Hoosker]

They live a life without faith, that takes conviction in the fact there isn't a God and live by that tennat.

I can't speak for every atheist, but I don't claim to know for certain God doesn't exist. I'm just unconvinced He does until adequate evidence can be provided to support that hypothesis.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[JJ Husker]

They live a life without faith, that takes conviction in the fact there isn't a God and live by that tennat.

I can't speak for every atheist, but I don't claim to know for certain God doesn't exist. I'm just unconvinced He does until adequate evidence can be provided to support that hypothesis.

That is fine and reasonable. But I am curious, given the nature of the existence of God, exactly what do you imagine "adequate evidence" would look like? The rest of us who claim God is real and does exist have to rely on faith. I cannot grasp what hard evidence could ever manifest that could possibly change a persons mind. What is it that you keep an eye out for that could possibly change your mind? I mean it would be overly obvious if he could be seen surfing on the clouds, larger than life, but what short of something like that are you waiting for? (btw- if that did occur, most of the non-believers on this board would write it off as merely anecdotal).

[Chimpsmack]

That is fine and reasonable. But I am curious, given the nature of the existence of God, exactly what do you imagine "adequate evidence" would look like? The rest of us who claim God is real and does exist have to rely on faith. I cannot grasp what hard evidence could ever manifest that could possibly change a persons mind. What is it that you keep an eye out for that could possibly change your mind? I mean it would be overly obvious if he could be seen surfing on the clouds, larger than life, but what short of something like that are you waiting for? (btw- if that did occur, most of the non-believers on this board would write it off as merely anecdotal).

 

 

In evidence-based decision making, every piece of empirical evidence is taken into consideration, and weighed on it's own merit. The evidence collects, and is continually evaluated as to whether, in it's totality, it meets the burden of proof. As new evidence is uncovered, ideas are modified or discarded on the basis of increased understanding.

 

Among scientists, there is a concept known as the Sagan Standard, which states that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Religious claims, by their very nature, are generally among the most extraordinary possible. And yet, there is a substantial lack of evidence for faith-based claims.

 

 

So, while I can't speak for everyone, I guess what I would be looking for is any piece of empirical evidence that any religious tradition is true. As a starting point.

[The Dude]

They live a life without faith, that takes conviction in the fact there isn't a God and live by that tennat.

I can't speak for every atheist, but I don't claim to know for certain God doesn't exist. I'm just unconvinced He does until adequate evidence can be provided to support that hypothesis.

That is fine and reasonable. But I am curious, given the nature of the existence of God, exactly what do you imagine "adequate evidence" would look like? The rest of us who claim God is real and does exist have to rely on faith. I cannot grasp what hard evidence could ever manifest that could possibly change a persons mind. What is it that you keep an eye out for that could possibly change your mind? I mean it would be overly obvious if he could be seen surfing on the clouds, larger than life, but what short of something like that are you waiting for? (btw- if that did occur, most of the non-believers on this board would write it off as merely anecdotal).

I guess I wouldn't know for certain until the evidence is actually presented. Seeing evidence that everything was created in 7 days would be a good start I guess, but we already have mountains of evidence to the contrary (literally and figuratively).

 

If I could see a giant bearded white guy surfing around the clouds right now, I suppose that would count as physical evidence for... something. As long as everyone could see it, so I knew I wasn't just crazy. It would only be anecdotal if you told me you saw it, it was put through no scientific scrutiny, and I'd just have to take your word for it.

[Hoosker]

They live a life without faith, that takes conviction in the fact there isn't a God and live by that tennat.

I can't speak for every atheist, but I don't claim to know for certain God doesn't exist. I'm just unconvinced He does until adequate evidence can be provided to support that hypothesis.

That is fine and reasonable. But I am curious, given the nature of the existence of God, exactly what do you imagine "adequate evidence" would look like? The rest of us who claim God is real and does exist have to rely on faith. I cannot grasp what hard evidence could ever manifest that could possibly change a persons mind. What is it that you keep an eye out for that could possibly change your mind? I mean it would be overly obvious if he could be seen surfing on the clouds, larger than life, but what short of something like that are you waiting for? (btw- if that did occur, most of the non-believers on this board would write it off as merely anecdotal).

I guess I wouldn't know for certain until the evidence is actually presented. Seeing evidence that everything was created in 7 days would be a good start I guess, but we already have mountains of evidence to the contrary (literally and figuratively).

 

If I could see a giant bearded white guy surfing around the clouds right now, I suppose that would count as physical evidence for... something. As long as everyone could see it, so I knew I wasn't just crazy. It would only be anecdotal if you told me you saw it, it was put through no scientific scrutiny, and I'd just have to take your word for it.

[lo country]

Faith (as it relates to a religious belief). You either have it or you do not. No amount of scientific proof will ever convince the skeptics of the existence of Christ. It is called having faith, not having proof.

 

Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Christians all have faith. It is the difference in theologies that sets the beliefs apart. Why do people ridicule Christians for this faith, but no one ever calls Buddhists myth believers or Jews or Muslims? Christianity is the one faith that can be publicly mocked, pointed to and ridiculed with complete acceptance. Why is that? If it is all "myth" based, why the fear, why attack something many deem so foolish?

 

As a Christ follower, you will suffer for your faith. Shouldn't come as a surprise.

 

"And who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, 15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 16 and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong."

 

The above, even if not a Christian seem like pretty good words to live by. Take out the "religious" speak and it sounds like a very noble cause. Suffer for right, do right even when there are consequences etc........Hard not to agree with it. Again, why ridicule Christianity?

 

For those who talk about our laws and the Bible should not influence them, look at our laws, and look at the Bible. Pretty consistent with common sense. We were founded and originally ruled with the thought of the Judea-Christian mind set.

 

Arguments for or against will take up as many pages as the mods allow.

 

I have no issues with those who deny the thought or existence of Christ. It allows others to point towards scripture and hopefully change some thoughts as it relates to their pre-conceived notion of Christ followers.

[tschu]

Has anyone ever won a religious debate?

[Nebula]

They live a life without faith, that takes conviction in the fact there isn't a God and live by that tennat.

I can't speak for every atheist, but I don't claim to know for certain God doesn't exist. I'm just unconvinced He does until adequate evidence can be provided to support that hypothesis.

That is fine and reasonable. But I am curious, given the nature of the existence of God, exactly what do you imagine "adequate evidence" would look like? The rest of us who claim God is real and does exist have to rely on faith. I cannot grasp what hard evidence could ever manifest that could possibly change a persons mind. What is it that you keep an eye out for that could possibly change your mind? I mean it would be overly obvious if he could be seen surfing on the clouds, larger than life, but what short of something like that are you waiting for? (btw- if that did occur, most of the non-believers on this board would write it off as merely anecdotal).

I guess I wouldn't know for certain until the evidence is actually presented. Seeing evidence that everything was created in 7 days would be a good start I guess, but we already have mountains of evidence to the contrary (literally and figuratively).

 

If I could see a giant bearded white guy surfing around the clouds right now, I suppose that would count as physical evidence for... something. As long as everyone could see it, so I knew I wasn't just crazy. It would only be anecdotal if you told me you saw it, it was put through no scientific scrutiny, and I'd just have to take your word for it.

I am not an atheist. I guess, if I had to be classified as something, it would be agnostic.

 

But the truth is, I have literally no idea how the universe was created, nor what form the zenith of all living beings residing in the vastness of the cosmos takes. Could be a non-physical entity of pure energy consciousness, could be one of the Abrahamic deities, or literally an endless number of other possibilities. I acknowledge the feasibility of all theological philosophies, because I have no evidence to give additional credibility to one philosophy/theology over another. The only thing I'm willing to state with 99.9% degree certainty is that we, as members of the human species, do not represent the highest form of life in the universe. Define "highest form" however you like.

 

But I am not a meek person. I reciprocate the way I am treated. And I take great umbrage when people refuse to acknowledge that, using the word again, there are feasible alternatives to what they personally subscribe to. Does this devastate the purity of one's devotion to their particular religion, if they acknowledge that other belief systems are at least possible? That I do not know. I've met very compassionate, level headed, intelligent and open-minded Christians. I've met incredibly intolerant atheists/agnostics (in fact, I used to be one, until I realized the hypocrisy of demonizing a subset of humanity for being intolerant while, in turn, being detestably intolerant myself).

 

It boils down to two groups for me: those willing to acknowledge that belief systems outside of their own have merit and are within the realm of possibility, and those that imperiously dismiss anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they do as either heretics (the religious) or idiots (the atheist/agnostics) with righteous, indignant scorn. I have no patience for the latter. And on all sides of this debate, every group has their set that fall into that latter category. Sadly, they usually speak the loudest.

 

Ron Brown, by the way, is firmly embedded with the latter camp.

[lo country]

They live a life without faith, that takes conviction in the fact there isn't a God and live by that tennat.

I can't speak for every atheist, but I don't claim to know for certain God doesn't exist. I'm just unconvinced He does until adequate evidence can be provided to support that hypothesis.

That is fine and reasonable. But I am curious, given the nature of the existence of God, exactly what do you imagine "adequate evidence" would look like? The rest of us who claim God is real and does exist have to rely on faith. I cannot grasp what hard evidence could ever manifest that could possibly change a persons mind. What is it that you keep an eye out for that could possibly change your mind? I mean it would be overly obvious if he could be seen surfing on the clouds, larger than life, but what short of something like that are you waiting for? (btw- if that did occur, most of the non-believers on this board would write it off as merely anecdotal).

I guess I wouldn't know for certain until the evidence is actually presented. Seeing evidence that everything was created in 7 days would be a good start I guess, but we already have mountains of evidence to the contrary (literally and figuratively).

 

If I could see a giant bearded white guy surfing around the clouds right now, I suppose that would count as physical evidence for... something. As long as everyone could see it, so I knew I wasn't just crazy. It would only be anecdotal if you told me you saw it, it was put through no scientific scrutiny, and I'd just have to take your word for it.

I am not an atheist. I guess, if I had to be classified as something, it would be agnostic.

 

But the truth is, I have literally no idea how the universe was created, nor what form the zenith of all living beings residing in the vastness of the cosmos takes. Could be a non-physical entity of pure energy consciousness, could be one of the Abrahamic deities, or literally an endless number of other possibilities. I acknowledge the feasibility of all theological philosophies, because I have no evidence to give additional credibility to one philosophy/theology over another. The only thing I'm willing to state with 99.9% degree certainty is that we, as members of the human species, do not represent the highest form of life in the universe. Define "highest form" however you like.

 

But I am not a meek person. I reciprocate the way I am treated. And I take great umbrage when people refuse to acknowledge that, using the word again, there are feasible alternatives to what they personally subscribe to. Does this devastate the purity of one's devotion to their particular religion, if they acknowledge that other belief systems are at least possible? That I do not know. I've met very compassionate, level headed, intelligent and open-minded Christians. I've met incredibly intolerant atheists/agnostics (in fact, I used to be one, until I realized the hypocrisy of demonizing a subset of humanity for being intolerant while, in turn, being detestably intolerant myself).

 

It boils down to two groups for me: those willing to acknowledge that belief systems outside of their own have merit and are within the realm of possibility, and those that imperiously dismiss anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they do as either heretics (the religious) or idiots (the atheist/agnostics) with righteous, indignant scorn. I have no patience for the latter. And on all sides of this debate, every group has their set that fall into that latter category. Sadly, they usually speak the loudest.

 

Ron Brown, by the way, is firmly embedded with the latter camp.

 

I think what it all boils down to is the definition that is used for Christianity. It is simply "one who follows Christ". To be a Christian means believing that no one gets to the Father (God) , except through me (Jesus). People often mistake this for being judgementL, but as a Christian, if I do not believe this I have a false faith. God knows your heart and man does not. I just know what I believe. It also means that while I acknowledge the existence of other faiths, I cannot be a true Christ follower if I do not believe what Jesus has stated. No more than a person of Jewish faith can admit that Christ was the Messiah or a Muslim deny Muhammad was the one true prophet of Allah. It is what makes a believer in a certain faith "faithful".

[The Dude]

Faith (as it relates to a religious belief). You either have it or you do not. No amount of scientific proof will ever convince the skeptics of the existence of Christ. It is called having faith, not having proof.

 

Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Christians all have faith. It is the difference in theologies that sets the beliefs apart. Why do people ridicule Christians for this faith, but no one ever calls Buddhists myth believers or Jews or Muslims? Christianity is the one faith that can be publicly mocked, pointed to and ridiculed with complete acceptance. Why is that? If it is all "myth" based, why the fear, why attack something many deem so foolish?

Why is blindly believing something without evidence a good thing?

 

 

I think the difference in Buddhism is (as far as I know) they don't believe in a god. Buddha wasn't a god, he was an "enlightened" man. I think their ideas of karma, reincarnation, ect are myths.

 

Jews and Muslims are ridiculed all the time in this country. Watch South Park sometime. You probably just don't have as much of an emotional response when it's not happening to you.

[The Dude]

They live a life without faith, that takes conviction in the fact there isn't a God and live by that tennat.

I can't speak for every atheist, but I don't claim to know for certain God doesn't exist. I'm just unconvinced He does until adequate evidence can be provided to support that hypothesis.

That is fine and reasonable. But I am curious, given the nature of the existence of God, exactly what do you imagine "adequate evidence" would look like? The rest of us who claim God is real and does exist have to rely on faith. I cannot grasp what hard evidence could ever manifest that could possibly change a persons mind. What is it that you keep an eye out for that could possibly change your mind? I mean it would be overly obvious if he could be seen surfing on the clouds, larger than life, but what short of something like that are you waiting for? (btw- if that did occur, most of the non-believers on this board would write it off as merely anecdotal).

I guess I wouldn't know for certain until the evidence is actually presented. Seeing evidence that everything was created in 7 days would be a good start I guess, but we already have mountains of evidence to the contrary (literally and figuratively).

 

If I could see a giant bearded white guy surfing around the clouds right now, I suppose that would count as physical evidence for... something. As long as everyone could see it, so I knew I wasn't just crazy. It would only be anecdotal if you told me you saw it, it was put through no scientific scrutiny, and I'd just have to take your word for it.

I am not an atheist. I guess, if I had to be classified as something, it would be agnostic.

 

But the truth is, I have literally no idea how the universe was created, nor what form the zenith of all living beings residing in the vastness of the cosmos takes. Could be a non-physical entity of pure energy consciousness, could be one of the Abrahamic deities, or literally an endless number of other possibilities. I acknowledge the feasibility of all theological philosophies, because I have no evidence to give additional credibility to one philosophy/theology over another. The only thing I'm willing to state with 99.9% degree certainty is that we, as members of the human species, do not represent the highest form of life in the universe. Define "highest form" however you like.

 

But I am not a meek person. I reciprocate the way I am treated. And I take great umbrage when people refuse to acknowledge that, using the word again, there are feasible alternatives to what they personally subscribe to. Does this devastate the purity of one's devotion to their particular religion, if they acknowledge that other belief systems are at least possible? That I do not know. I've met very compassionate, level headed, intelligent and open-minded Christians. I've met incredibly intolerant atheists/agnostics (in fact, I used to be one, until I realized the hypocrisy of demonizing a subset of humanity for being intolerant while, in turn, being detestably intolerant myself).

 

It boils down to two groups for me: those willing to acknowledge that belief systems outside of their own have merit and are within the realm of possibility, and those that imperiously dismiss anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they do as either heretics (the religious) or idiots (the atheist/agnostics) with righteous, indignant scorn. I have no patience for the latter. And on all sides of this debate, every group has their set that fall into that latter category. Sadly, they usually speak the loudest.

 

Ron Brown, by the way, is firmly embedded with the latter camp.

I'm fairly, reasonably, possibly certain that my journeys over the past few months have turned me into a nicer person who's more open to differing opinions and outlooks even if they do tend to be regoddamntarded upon first glance. I think my posts in this forum reflect that.

[Nebula]

I think what it all boils down to is the definition that is used for Christianity. It is simply "one who follows Christ". To be a Christian means believing that no one gets to the Father (God) , except through me (Jesus). People often mistake this for being judgementL, but as a Christian, if I do not believe this I have a false faith. God knows your heart and man does not. I just know what I believe. It also means that while I acknowledge the existence of other faiths, I cannot be a true Christ follower if I do not believe what Jesus has stated. No more than a person of Jewish faith can admit that Christ was the Messiah or a Muslim deny Muhammad was the one true prophet of Allah. It is what makes a believer in a certain faith "faithful".

I've heard Christians express different views on this. It's a fallibility vs infallibility issue. I have a great deal of difficulty in engaging in constructive dialog with someone who feels their beliefs are rooted in irrefutable logic. But striving for tolerance means one must accept the right of another to believe whatever they want, so long as they don't actively persecute other human beings. I see no persecution on your part. But I also don't see much potential for philosophical discourse here.

[Nebula]

I'm fairly, reasonably, possibly certain that my journeys over the past few months have turned me into a nicer person who's more open to differing opinions and outlooks even if they do tend to be regoddamntarded upon first glance. I think my posts in this forum reflect that.

Dude, I've got nothing but good things to say about you. I can't recall one time that I've seen you attack someone without provocation, and even then, your responses are always more humorous than mean spirited.

 

And as to the bolded, I completely relate. It was an exchange on this forum that helped me see that I was being incredibly hypocritical in my condemnation of religion. Definitely, definitely wasn't trying to imply that you are in that latter camp I referred to, and if you got that sense I apologize. You're one of my favorite posters, and someone I respect.

[The Dude]

I'm fairly, reasonably, possibly certain that my journeys over the past few months have turned me into a nicer person who's more open to differing opinions and outlooks even if they do tend to be regoddamntarded upon first glance. I think my posts in this forum reflect that.

Dude, I've got nothing but good things to say about you. I can't recall one time that I've seen you attack someone without provocation, and even then, your responses are always more humorous than mean spirited.

 

And as to the bolded, I completely relate. It was an exchange on this forum that helped me see that I was being incredibly hypocritical in my condemnation of religion. Definitely, definitely wasn't trying to imply that you are in that latter camp I referred to, and if you got that sense I apologize. You're one of my favorite posters, and someone I respect.

For me it was realizing how seriously people took their religion. That may sound counter intuitive, but I've never been religious or closely exposed to many devout people so I never really had a frame of reference. Seeing how posters reacted when I referred to their god as a magical sky fairy for the first time was an eye opener (I'm looking at you Po).

 

I didn't think you were lumping me in that latter camp, so no worries. I love you too.