NationStates Jolt Archive

I do get rather sick of a small number of people on this forum who think that just because you are a Christian you are in some way mentally challenged. Let me just offer up an important fact. Christiainty is one third of Earth's population. It is the single largest religious group on the face of the planet. While this is not proof that Chrisitanity is right (as many people can believe a foolish thing and it is still foolish). However, what it does mean is that it is very likely that Christiaity has been gone into a great deal and analyised and studied and thus there is a valid system there. You cannot simpley dismiss it as "A load of rubbish" because its obviously got a lot of complexity and logic to it or else it wouldnt be around today. While I cant prove it nessecarly to be completely true, it must be more complex than "a load of rubbish" which is what many people disguard it as.

Speaking as a Christian, I feel that anyone is free to disagree with Christianity, attack it, or say bad things about it.

It's called Free Will, and it's a central tenet of Christianity. So stop complaining about them exercising their free will.

I do get rather sick of a small number of people on this forum who think that just because you are a Christian you are in some way mentally challenged. Let me just offer up an important fact. Christiainty is one third of Earth's population. It is the single largest religious group on the face of the planet. While this is not proof that Chrisitanity is right (as many people can believe a foolish thing and it is still foolish). However, what it does mean is that it is very likely that Christiaity has been gone into a great deal and analyised and studied and thus there is a valid system there. You cannot simpley dismiss it as "A load of rubbish" because its obviously got a lot of complexity and logic to it or else it wouldnt be around today. While I cant prove it nessecarly to be completely true, it must be more complex than "a load of rubbish" which is what many people disguard it as.
And if it dies out some day does that prove that it is because of illogic and lack of complexity

And as such how does it factor in that Islam is now growing WAY faster then Christianity and may surpass it

Does that mean it is more correct that Christianity?

Christiainty is one third of Earth's population. It is the single largest religious group on the face of the planet. While this is not proof that Chrisitanity is right (as many people can believe a foolish thing and it is still foolish). However, what it does mean is that it is very likely that Christiaity has been gone into a great deal and analyised and studied and thus there is a valid system there.
No, it doesn't.

Speaking as a Christian, I feel that anyone is free to disagree with Christianity, attack it, or say bad things about it.

It's called Free Will, and it's a central tenet of Christianity. So stop complaining about them exercising their free will.

Agreed, although people should try and be polite when discussing other people's deeply held beliefs.

I'm sure the Romans thought the same of their gods and the Norse of theirs too. Having large numbers of followers doesn't stop you from being foolish ...look no further than the Nazis.


I do get rather sick of a small number of people on this forum who think that just because you are a Christian you are in some way mentally challenged. Let me just offer up an important fact. Christiainty is one third of Earth's population. It is the single largest religious group on the face of the planet. While this is not proof that Chrisitanity is right (as many people can believe a foolish thing and it is still foolish). However, what it does mean is that it is very likely that Christiaity has been gone into a great deal and analyised and studied and thus there is a valid system there. You cannot simpley dismiss it as "A load of rubbish" because its obviously got a lot of complexity and logic to it or else it wouldnt be around today. While I cant prove it nessecarly to be completely true, it must be more complex than "a load of rubbish" which is what many people disguard it as.

No religion has a rational foundation. Thus followers of all religions are tainted by irrationality by default. This cannot really be disputed. So the whole Christian thing strikes me as a persecution complex.

It is important to remember however, that this irrational element may not manifest itself in a given individual, in a detrimental fashion. That is, it is perfectly possible for a religious person to live a decent life as a useful member of his/her community without declaring a holy war or attempting to rewrite the bits of reality they do not like. Nor indeed, is there any rule which says that non-religious people are free from irrational thoughts - it simply means that a particular superstition is absent. Take this as consolation if the first statement is too painful.

No religion has a rational foundation. Thus followers of all religions are tainted by irrationality by default. This cannot really be disputed. So the whole Christian thing strikes me as a persecution complex.

It is important to remember however, that this irrational element may not manifest itself in a given individual, in a detrimental fashion. That is, it is perfectly possible for a religious person to live a decent life as a useful member of his/her community without declaring a holy war or attempting to rewrite the bits of reality they do not like. Nor indeed, is there any rule which says that non-religious people are free from irrational thoughts - it simply means that a particular superstition is absent. Take this as consolation if the first statement is too painful.
Agreed religion has a foundation in faith not rationality … not to say it is a good or a bad thing but I refuse to butter it up for people just because they like to think of their faith as rational to its end

Agreed religion has a foundation in faith not rationality … not to say it is a good or a bad thing but I refuse to butter it up for people just because they like to think of their faith as rational to its end

Faith, by definition, is not rational.

Adhering to any set of postulates that cannot be proven is by definition irrational.

Faith, by definition, is not rational.

Adhering to any set of postulates that cannot be proven is by definition irrational.
and I would be fine with people calling me irrational well, at least not as mad as I get when they assume that I am less intelligent than they are because of my beliefs. ;)

Faith, by definition, is not rational.

Adhering to any set of postulates that cannot be proven is by definition irrational.
Yes thats what I was trying to get at

Though at a certian level postulates themselfs reach their foundation ... hence it is best to rely on the least amount of postulates when possible

and I would be fine with people calling me irrational well, at least not as mad as I get when they assume that I am less intelligent than they are because of my beliefs. ;)

Mathematics are based on sets of postulates that are adhered to by faith, and I don't hear anyone calling a mathematician an idiot because he believes in them.

The nicest people I've ever met were religious. Christian, Hindu, Moslem, and Jew. Have not yet met an ardent atheist that was half as nice.

And if it dies out some day does that prove that it is because of illogic and lack of complexity

And as such how does it factor in that Islam is now growing WAY faster then Christianity and may surpass it

Does that mean it is more correct that Christianity?

Notice how I didnt say that it makes it more correct, just that it means there must be something complex behind it which cannot be simpley dismissed as "its rubbish"

I'm sure the Romans thought the same of their gods and the Norse of theirs too. Having large numbers of followers doesn't stop you from being foolish ...look no further than the Nazis.

You know I did actually say that. What I do mean however is that there is something complex and logical unto itself here, so I think its unfair for it to be dismissed as "rubbish" without providing intellegent reasons as to why.

Mathematics are based on sets of postulates that are adhered to by faith, and I don't hear anyone calling a mathematician an idiot because he believes in them.

The nicest people I've ever met were religious. Christian, Hindu, Moslem, and Jew. Have not yet met an ardent atheist that was half as nice.

Right, well there being almost no atheists in comparison would make your personal experience hardly revealing. In fact, you've probably met equally nice atheists and just not known about it. Unless you make it a point to find out the religious standing of every single person you meet?

You know I did actually say that. What I do mean however is that there is something complex and logical unto itself here, so I think its unfair for it to be dismissed as "rubbish" without providing intellegent reasons as to why.

Go back to my first post. I provided an intelligent reason. And I dismiss your idea as rubbish.

Mathematics are based on sets of postulates that are adhered to by faith, and I don't hear anyone calling a mathematician an idiot because he believes in them.

The nicest people I've ever met were religious. Christian, Hindu, Moslem, and Jew. Have not yet met an ardent atheist that was half as nice.
yeah I know. I have seen many posts on here (even one today) that seem to imply that religious people or even Christians are stupid, even if they think what I believe is stupid, I don't think it is very intelligent of them to assume that I am.

Notice how I didnt say that it makes it more correct, just that it means there must be something complex behind it which cannot be simpley dismissed as "its rubbish"
complexity is not always a good thing ... some of the best con jobs in history are done through presenting complexity logicaly

No religion has a rational foundation. Thus followers of all religions are tainted by irrationality by default. This cannot really be disputed. So the whole Christian thing strikes me as a persecution complex.
Incorrect. The study of mythological theory offers hypotheses of rational foundation for religions.

Irrationality is what it's all about --making inferences and connections between events and data, between symbols and meanings, and holding to them faithfully. You make it sound like that's a bad thing. If it were not for irrationality, we would not have language, science or stop signs on street corners.

It is important to remember however, that this irrational element may not manifest itself in a given individual, in a detrimental fashion. That is, it is perfectly possible for a religious person to live a decent life as a useful member of his/her community without declaring a holy war or attempting to rewrite the bits of reality they do not like. Nor indeed, is there any rule which says that non-religious people are free from irrational thoughts - it simply means that a particular superstition is absent. Take this as consolation if the first statement is too painful.
Most irrational (imaginary) things are not detrimental until mistaken for reality. If a clear and honest line is drawn between what is real and what is taken for real, then there is no mis-take.

I do get rather sick of a small number of people on this forum who think that just because you are a Christian you are in some way mentally challenged.

Aww! Is the tiny minority oppressing you again? Where's my micro-violin.

Let me just offer up an important fact. Christiainty is one third of Earth's population. It is the single largest religious group on the face of the planet

Ooh! Christianity is a majority! Wow! Thanks for offering that, I had no idea, I thought actually atheism was a majority in this country, and the world overall. Well I learn something new everyday it seems.


While this is not proof that Chrisitanity is right (as many people can believe a foolish thing and it is still foolish). However, what it does mean is that it is very likely that Christiaity has been gone into a great deal and analyised and studied and thus there is a valid system there.

A valid system? Of what? Determining what you can and can't eat on certain days? Accurately describing local politics of the early Middle East? Delineating between the evil people and the good people, in case one couldn't tell without the book?

You cannot simpley dismiss it as "A load of rubbish"

Ooh, actually I can.

because its obviously got a lot of complexity and logic to it or else it wouldnt be around today.

That doesn't make sense. Survivability of an idea has nothing to do with how complex or logical it is.

While I cant prove it nessecarly to be completely true, it must be more complex than "a load of rubbish" which is what many people disguard it as.

That conclusion doesn't follow from your erroneous logic above. As for whether it can be called rubbish?

rub·bish Audio pronunciation of "rubbish" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rbsh)
n.

1. Refuse; garbage.
2. Worthless material.
3. Foolish discourse; nonsense.


It has no worth to me, and I can put a Bible in the trash, and a whole lot of arguments spawned by Christians qualifies as foolish discourse.

Therefore, a load of rubbish. Perhaps several loads. ;)

Speaking as a Christian, I feel that anyone is free to disagree with Christianity, attack it, or say bad things about it.

It's called Free Will, and it's a central tenet of Christianity. So stop complaining about them exercising their free will.
As usual, Sierra's come up with a better Christian point than the originating Christian.

I mean seriously, Avalon, as a Christian in this world, you kind of have to learn to have a thick skin about it all. It also depends more on what denomination you are as well -- as a Catholic, I'm often reviled by both the "fundie" Christian bigots for being too liberal, and by the non-Christians for being to fundamentalist (seems way backwards to me....stereotypes....bah). I think all you have to do is realize that they're entitled to their own opinions, and just because they think you're wrong doesn't mean that they're even worth the time to argue. I've got tons of agnostic and atheist friends who I never even discuss the issue with, simply because we know to leave it well enough alone -- similarly, just because some non-Christian tries to egg you on, you absolutely DO NOT have to respond in kind.

If only we could go back to the good old days, where religion and politics were left quite out of polite conversation :rolleyes:

1. Christianity is followed by 1/3 of the earth's population. Therefore, it is very unlikely that Christianity makes people stupid. I disagreed with an atheist. I am Christian. Do our faiths(or lack of) make one of us right and the other wrong by default? Einstein was Jewish, which is basicly Christianity without Jesus or those years of persecuting and being persecuted(yes, their early years wren't exactly problem free. Nero dispised the Christians. It was the Romans that crusified them(being nailed to the cross wasn't too uncommon in Roman days). Anyway, Einstien had a religion. Should we discard all his theories, like E=mc^2, all because of his faith?

Mathematics are based on sets of postulates that are adhered to by faith, and I don't hear anyone calling a mathematician an idiot because he believes in them.

The nicest people I've ever met were religious. Christian, Hindu, Moslem, and Jew. Have not yet met an ardent atheist that was half as nice.

Some of the most vile and objectionable people I've ever met were religious. I've never met an athiest that was half as hateful or intolerant.

Mathematics is provable by demonstration. Even 2+2=4 is not an article of faith. It has a proof that is about 2 pages long.

The problem with people trying to accuse science of being faith based is that they tend to define faith as "the point where explanations get hard to understand and if I haven't been convinced yet I just stop listening." Take ID for example. All the refutations of evolution are based on assumptions that are false, but easily accepted by people who don't know much about evolution.

1. Christianity is followed by 1/3 of the earth's population. Therefore, it is very unlikely that Christianity makes people stupid. I disagreed with an atheist. I am Christian. Do our faiths(or lack of) make one of us right and the other wrong by default? Einstein was Jewish, which is basicly Christianity without Jesus or those years of persecuting and being persecuted(yes, their early years wren't exactly problem free. Nero dispised the Christians. It was the Romans that crusified them(being nailed to the cross wasn't too uncommon in Roman days). Anyway, Einstien had a religion. Should we discard all his theories, like E=mc^2, all because of his faith?
using statistics to prove your point really isn't helpful here so 1/3 of the population of the world follows Christianity that is roughly 33% now it is known around here that 1 in 5 people believe that the sunrevolves around the earth and that is about 20% that isn't a big difference, just because a number of people believe something doesn't mean it is true.


and don't flame me either, I am a Christian, I do believe it is true, I am just saying that repeating that statistic isn't really going to get you anywhere....

Christian (actually, religion as a whole) is not indicative of lesser mental ability, just of a tendency to think illogically. Fundamentalism is the worst for this, and is sometimes openly hostile to science.

Christian (actually, religion as a whole) is not indicative of lesser mental ability, just of a tendency to think illogically. Fundamentalism is the worst for this, and is sometimes openly hostile to science.
Religion, as a whole, is "indicative" of an ability to think in non-linear terms. This is not necessarily ill-logic.

The problem with fundamenalists is not that they "think illogically" but that they adhere to concretization; that is, trying to materalise concepts in the real world, treating the "as if real" as if it was real.

Of course, if it's real then it becomes open to being scientifically examined.

Christian (actually, religion as a whole) is not indicative of lesser mental ability, just of a tendency to think illogically. Fundamentalism is the worst for this, and is sometimes openly hostile to science.
Call me egotistical if you feel, but I'm an open Christian and I very much don't consider myself illogical. I don't think any of my friends (or most of my rivals, for that matter) would back up any claim that I'm illogical. In fact, I don't know a whole lot of illogical Christians, except those born-agains down the block. And they're just, well....kinda creepy.

Simonist']Call me egotistical if you feel, but I'm an open Christian and I very much don't consider myself illogical. I don't think any of my friends (or most of my rivals, for that matter) would back up any claim that I'm illogical. In fact, I don't know a whole lot of illogical Christians, except those born-agains down the block. And they're just, well....kinda creepy.

Hmm... good point. I'd it's the desire for religion to be true that stops the religious from considering other opinions logically - i.e. religious people would tend to reject anything that contradicts their religion straight away, rather than thinking about this. Of course, where religion is not contradicted, the religious person is able to think as logically as they can.

Hmm... good point. I'd it's the desire for religion to be true that stops the religious from considering other opinions logically - i.e. religious people would tend to reject anything that contradicts their religion straight away, rather than thinking about this. Of course, where religion is not contradicted, the religious person is able to think as logically as they can.
Glad to broaden the point :D

I believe that it's the intellectual duty of an educated and modern religiously-minded individual to take all things into account before coming to a decision on stance, rather than simply "Does this contradict my religious teachings". I think it's actually for that reason that I get as much credit as I do for being rational, and that most of my newer friends don't ever even realize that religion plays into my life one bit.

But yes, I agree, when a person's judgement is being clouded simply by the refusal to consider options beyond religious views, that's when problems can often start.

Can't we all just get along? :confused:

... Islam is now growing WAY faster then Christianity and may surpass it. Does that mean it is more correct that Christianity?
No, all it means is that Islam is growing faster than Christianity. I suspect, although I have no way of proving this, that the exhaulted place to which Islam elevates men, combined with strictures against birth control while encouraging a man to have "many sons," all have an impact on this growth.

Can't we all just get along? :confused:
I thought we were. :confused:

No, all it means is that Islam is growing faster than Christianity. I suspect, although I have no way of proving this, that the exhaulted place to which Islam elevates men, combined with strictures against birth control while encouraging a man to have "many sons," all have an impact on this growth.

Or maybe it's more successful because it's more fundamentalist (and therefore a stronger reaction against modern society).

Or maybe it's more successful because it's more fundamentalist (and therefore a stronger reaction against modern society).
Good point! As Christianity makes fewer and fewer real demands on people, its growth has slowed. As Islam makes more and more realy demands on people, its growth has accelerated. Is there a correlation?

Good point! As Christianity makes fewer and fewer real demands on people, its growth has slowed. As Islam makes more and more realy demands on people, its growth has accelerated. Is there a correlation?

Hmm... I don't know. Here's some of the newscientist article I got my point from: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18825201.200 (it's only the start - you have to buy the mag to read the full article)

Good point! As Christianity makes fewer and fewer real demands on people, its growth has slowed. As Islam makes more and more realy demands on people, its growth has accelerated. Is there a correlation?
It's just as easy to liken the correlation to the relative ages of the two groups, in my opinion.

Besides, think of it this way: as long as our children are allowed to come to their own conclusions, rather than just take the same bullshit that their parents (us) tell them to, what difference does it make what path they choose? As long as they're happy, that's all that should matter.

Worked wonders for me.

No, all it means is that Islam is growing faster than Christianity. I suspect, although I have no way of proving this, that the exhaulted place to which Islam elevates men, combined with strictures against birth control while encouraging a man to have "many sons," all have an impact on this growth.

And this, I suspect is why catholicisim (And therefore christianity for the most of its history) grew so very quickly?

Oh, and another thing, the variant of Islam we are all referring to is Wahabisim. We should refer to it as that, as we would otherwise be branding the hole of the rest of Islam, as the same, which it isnt.

And this, I suspect is why catholicisim (And therefore christianity for the most of its history) grew so very quickly?
Perhaps. Most religions seem to have several stages of growth they go through, and sometimes these stages cycle over time; perahps a stage of stagnation is often followed by a rediscovery of the original faith? This may be what Islam is experiencing.

Beatlemania, by rights, involved an insane number of females (and some males) who yelled themselves into orgasmic frenzy any time Paul McCartney so much as blinked. Would you like to then tell me that their huge numbers meant they weren't acting irrationally and/or silly most of the time?

Beatlemania, by rights, involved an insane number of females (and some males) who yelled themselves into orgasmic frenzy any time Paul McCartney so much as blinked. Would you like to then tell me that their huge numbers meant they weren't acting irrationally and/or silly most of the time?
Soooo.....not only are you WRONGLY likening Paul McCartney to Jesus Christ, but you're trying to claim that our respect and devotion to him (Jesus, not McCartney) is anywhere NEAR a bunch of horny girls juicing themselves over some British guys with bad hair?

Bad comparison, in my mind :rolleyes:

Simonist']Soooo.....not only are you WRONGLY likening Paul McCartney to Jesus Christ, but you're trying to claim that our respect and devotion to him (Jesus, not McCartney) is anywhere NEAR a bunch of horny girls juicing themselves over some British guys with bad hair?

Bad comparison, in my mind :rolleyes:
A good example of irrationality, yes. :)

(Your post, not his.)

Simonist']Soooo.....not only are you WRONGLY likening Paul McCartney to Jesus Christ

If it was good enough for Lennon... :p

But you're trying to claim that our respect and devotion to him (Jesus, not McCartney) is anywhere NEAR a bunch of horny girls juicing themselves over some British guys with bad hair?

My point here is to say that Numbers Do Not A Smart Organization Make. The original poster seems to be under the impression that because so many people believe in something, it has to have a solid foundation and is probably full of scholars. I was only taking the time to jab at that argument, not at anything else. Don't have a fit. I could as easily have said "Were the world to wake up tomorrow and believe as a whole that the sky had suddenly turned pink, and made all sorts of studies saying it was, does that make it true?"

No religion has a rational foundation. Thus followers of all religions are tainted by irrationality by default. This cannot really be disputed. So the whole Christian thing strikes me as a persecution complex.

It is important to remember however, that this irrational element may not manifest itself in a given individual, in a detrimental fashion. That is, it is perfectly possible for a religious person to live a decent life as a useful member of his/her community without declaring a holy war or attempting to rewrite the bits of reality they do not like. Nor indeed, is there any rule which says that non-religious people are free from irrational thoughts - it simply means that a particular superstition is absent. Take this as consolation if the first statement is too painful.

I disagree with you, some religions have a more rational foundation than others, such as the Aztecs (believing that blood had to be sacrificed in order for the sun to rise).

But I do agree with the fact that it isn't a science, it's mostly faith. The faith in a being or lack of faith in a being.

My point here is to say that Numbers Do Not A Smart Organization Make. The original poster seems to be under the impression that because so many people believe in something, it has to have a solid foundation and is probably full of scholars. I was only taking the time to jab at that argument, not at anything else. Don't have a fit. I could as easily have said "Were the world to wake up tomorrow and believe as a whole that the sky had suddenly turned pink, and made all sorts of studies saying it was, does that make it true?"

True. I agree with your statement and I'd like to add on if you don't mind.

It's a poster at school "What is right isn't always popular. What is popular isn't always right." The whole idea is that the majority isn't always right. It usually is, but not always.

If it was good enough for Lennon... :p

My point here is to say that Numbers Do Not A Smart Organization Make. The original poster seems to be under the impression that because so many people believe in something, it has to have a solid foundation and is probably full of scholars. I was only taking the time to jab at that argument, not at anything else. Don't have a fit. I could as easily have said "Were the world to wake up tomorrow and believe as a whole that the sky had suddenly turned pink, and made all sorts of studies saying it was, does that make it true?"
Oh, please. I wasn't having a fit, I just thought you could've done this in a more reasonable light.

If you're going to make an argument for the Beatles as a walking Orgasmatron, why not use John to begin with?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/localhistory/journey/stars/beatles/houses/lennon.jpg
Rawr.

Simonist']Oh, please. I wasn't having a fit, I just thought you could've done this in a more reasonable light.
I would also like to point out that I do stay semi-IC at all times, if only because irrationality and nonsensical screaming is hilarious. Heh. Plus, the few times I've used the sky example before, people have started getting off into the history of philosophy, which has nothing to do with the subject. Kind of wanted to avoid seeing people getting into the merits and downfalls of using hemlock over arsenic.

My point here is to say that Numbers Do Not A Smart Organization Make. The original poster seems to be under the impression that because so many people believe in something, it has to have a solid foundation and is probably full of scholars. I was only taking the time to jab at that argument, not at anything else. Don't have a fit. I could as easily have said "Were the world to wake up tomorrow and believe as a whole that the sky had suddenly turned pink, and made all sorts of studies saying it was, does that make it true?"

My point was that the vast number of people who adhear to it means that there is a vast number of intellegences applied to it. A vast number of peers for a peer review if you will. Its increadably unlikely that every single person who adhears to the Christian faith is an ididiot. Thus calling them so for being one is wrong, and unfounded.

Its increadably unlikely that every single person who adhears to the Christian faith is an ididiot. Thus calling them so for being one is wrong, and unfounded.

I should hope so. Then I'd be calling myself names and I simply won't stand for that.

I should hope so. Then I'd be calling myself names and I simply won't stand for that.
I do it all the time. Stress relief and travelling tips.....they're what make the world go 'round. Nothing tops off a situation like a good bout of self-loathing.

Well, I'd rather call myself names in the face of facts, like "clumsy idiot" when I fall down the stairs after trying to walk on them with rollerblades on. But I suppose I see your point.

Mental retardation is not caused by believing in something science can niether prove nor disprove. Science is never 100% certain. Just because the chance of every scientific test being severely flawed is just above impossible doesn't mean that it is impossible. Maybe half-life is a flawed principle. Maybe dinosaurs died out 50 million years ago instead of 65 million years ago. Science involves faith too. Scientists rely on tests, which were created by PEOPLE!!! PEOPLE ARE FLAWED. Therefore, it is likely that scientists could be wrong about something. Observations can lead to flawed concepts. People saw that flies are being born in rotting meat, so they came up with the spontaneous generation concept. Yes, sg was a concept created by the very core of science-observation. Scientists have faith in scientific concepts. They may have been tested over and over, but maybe the tests are horribly flawed. Everything is flawed, including science. That's why science changes once in a while. Theories are proven correct or false. Don't make fun of those who put faith in something when you do the same. Science is imperfect.