It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fundamentalist Christian: A Checklist.

page: 3
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
You speak no facts and are full of grief because you feel you need to down a certain people.
There is no proof of anything. Even your Charles Darwin believed in God.
You truly have not sought to live spiritually, therefore how can you make assumption about people of a religion you know nothing about.
Everything created has one signature
Love and Embrace your Brothers
Don't Hate




posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Raelsatu
 


You wrote:

["As for the concept of intelligent design itself, putting aside religions as a whole, I find it to be very sound. Atheist tout science and logic from a perspective that labels ALL intelligent design as unreasonable;"]

The CONCEPT 'intelligent design' is sound. The way it is used by christian fundamentalists brimming over with pseudo-science is a disgrace.

As to athiest attitudes, I can mention, that I have a metaphysical position myself and when bringing up the CONCEPT 'intelligent design' in a context with atheists participating, I have always been met courteously and communicatively.

Quote: ["Atheist tout science and logic from a perspective that labels ALL intelligent design as unreasonable; and they defend their position by attacking only Christianity."]

Because it's mainly christians (mis)using the concept. There exist an informed and intelligent debate on the concept elsewhere, but if you come with a pre-determined answer, forcing 'facts' to fit it, no rational person will accept your attitudes.

Quote: ["From my point of view, it's relatively weak to use one or 2 religions as your basis for saying that there is ABSOLUTELY no higher intelligence;"]

Very few atheists say that. Most have a socalled 'agnostic' position.

Quote: ["There are countless ways I could argue that intelligent design doesn't seem so irrational, on the contrary I think it's important for someone to consider all the viewpoints without using bias and logical empiricism as your foundation."]

You can try. Maybe YOU have a rational version. And what kind of 'logical empiricism' are you referring to. Any strict adherence to such went out of 'vogue' 50-100 years ago.

Quote: [" If you really can say that the universe sparked into existence along with all these moments of [quantum] consciousness, without cause, for no reason; and then say this idea is the only rational one because science has yet to discover our origins; that is simply close-minded."]

Please...what kind of 'science' are you actually talking about? I'm familiar with science, and the version I know has very little to do with the one you talk about.

Quote: ["With that said, your thread really won't do much use against Christians."]

In what meaning and on what background do you present this statement?

Quote: ["Nothing about it is supposed to be logical,"]

Some of the claims in OP can be evaluated in objective ways, others are less quantifiable. Which ones will you factually approach?

Quote: ["I realize you're trying to make a point, but all these points have been made 1000x times on ATS alone and it doesn't really get us anywhere."]

What I read in this quote is: Let ATS be used as a pulpit without irritating opposition. There are very few efforts from fundamentalist christians to join a common communication platform. It's overwhelmingly about the chance to preach.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by clearstream
 


You wrote:

["By definition, this does not apply. While some Christians and those you term "fundamentalists" may be guilty of this, it is not in line with the example and instruction that Christ gave and does not characterize what a true Christian should be."]

And as long as christians can't agree on who 'true christians' are, this is just a worthless excuse. You don't expect critics to sort that problem out FOR you?

Quote: ["The problem with your statement is that instead of stating that some within this ideological camp are guilty of this, you created your own definition of fundamental Christianity. And since the behavior you referenced is in conflict with the principles of the ideology, your statement is by definition false."]

As above, with the addition that you are creating a false category you are operating from



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesk8s247
 


You wrote:

["You speak no facts...."]

I'm familiar with the concept 'facts' as it is used in science and logic, and I can recognize much in OP as such. You are probably referring to ANOTHER kind of facts.

Quote: ["....and are full of grief because you feel you need to down a certain people."]

And is pop-psychology a demonstration of 'facts'?

Quote: ["There is no proof of anything."]

What is 'ANYTHING'? There are lots and lots of proofs around, take e.g. just mathematics.

Quote: ["You truly have not sought to live spiritually, therefore how can you make assumption about people of a religion you know nothing about."]

Obviously religionists have tried to live 'spiritually', and they disagree intensily with each other. So exactly what kind of 'specialist knowledge' do you use as a reference-point for qualifying?



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by faithparadigm
 


Ref1; I'll start with the necessary background.

The scientific procedure consists of sets of rigorious demands, which must be followed:

Verifiable observation/information/data.


Ref2: Science does NOT operate with predetermined black/white 'answers', but from a gradual range of ideas, hypotheses, theories and generally accepted theories, where every step is a result of experiments, leading to the formulation of explanations and other experiments testing the explanations.

Along this processing-procedure certain 'tools' are used, a major one being 'logic' (which in this context means deductive logic). In the further development of more complex science, deductive logic is used to start from basic generally accepted scientific theories as a foundation for the later more complex ones.


Ref3: Quote: ["Why do you believes the earth is billions of years old?"]

The scientific answer is based on a combination of atomic theory and astronomical observations. How 'matter' has been formed and how astronomical bodies are composed, are positioned and how they move.




Ref1: Failure already...As far as observable goes; geologically, we've seen NOTHING and astronomically, we've seen less than nothing. All we can do is theorize that if things have always been as they are now, at this moment, than maybe we can determine...this...


Ref2: Here's the rub for creationists now. Science IS operating from a "there is no greater intelligence" paradigm now that forbids the mention of a power higher than chance.


Ref3: Your answer is akin to the typical darwinian's answer to why they believe in evolution. They throw their hands into the air and say "There's mountains of evidence!" but when pressed to nail down any one thing, that hasn't been debunked (miller/yuri for instance), they have nothing but their faith in evolution to explain their position.

My apologies for my low skill level with ATS's posting, quoting and such.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by faithparadigm
 


You wrote:

["Ref1: Failure already...As far as observable goes; geologically, we've seen NOTHING and astronomically, we've seen less than nothing. All we can do is theorize that if things have always been as they are now, at this moment, than maybe we can determine...this... "]

You are confusing my presentation of scientific procedure with a specific application of it.

Quote: ["Ref2: Here's the rub for creationists now. Science IS operating from a "there is no greater intelligence" paradigm now that forbids the mention of a power higher than chance."]

Ofcourse (though you have presented the position imprecisely). Science is a self-contained and self-defined system. Its epistemological value is a philosophical question. Is that where you want to go?

Quote: ["Ref3: Your answer is akin to the typical darwinian's answer to why they believe in evolution. They throw their hands into the air and say "There's mountains of evidence!" but when pressed to nail down any one thing, that hasn't been debunked (miller/yuri for instance), they have nothing but their faith in evolution to explain their position."]

I have already mentioned atomic theory and astronomy for a starter. You want to be detailed? No worries, we can do that also.

Quote: ["My apologies for my low skill level with ATS's posting, quoting and such."]

I'm an imbecile with such. So no complaints from me.



edit on 8-8-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I don't know too much about atomic theory but I imagine it's pretty broad in range. Astronomy can cover a multitude of disciplines as well. All I'm asking for is, what about astronomy or atomic theory gives you an indicator of the age of the universe. Also, I was originally asking about age of the earth, but no matter.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by faithparadigm
reply to post by bogomil
 


I don't know too much about atomic theory but I imagine it's pretty broad in range. Astronomy can cover a multitude of disciplines as well. All I'm asking for is, what about astronomy or atomic theory gives you an indicator of the age of the universe. Also, I was originally asking about age of the earth, but no matter.


I'm NOT an intellectual snob, people have egalitarian value, and some play violin, other repair cars, and some have knowledge of science, all inside the area of their competence. And none of them have any final 'authority' on the big existential questions.

But implying logic, objectivity, science, philosophy etc. in a situation, necessitates SOME understanding of the use of them. And you DID implicate science in your initial post:

Quote: ["P.S. I do understand the scientific reasoning but I want to know if you do. I also believe the reasoning is flawed obviously."]

There are several other optional directions in OP. So if your claim of scientific understanding maybe isn't so big as you believed, no worries, choose a facet of the debate, where you are more on safe ground.

More specifically: Yes, science as used in atomic theory and astronomy gives us fair information about cosmos and its age.

But remember that science isn't operating with 'absolutes' concerning truth. Some science (and logic) is universally considered 99,99% certain. Other is cutting edge, still open for re-interpretation.

It can even be calculated when one of the basic 'forces' (the strong nuclear force) breaks down (that was just an example).



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 



Quote: ["$20 if you can name a single thing you do apart from thinking and moving your body."]

Geez. And who will be the referee?

Quote: ["If you look closely, you see that we are on autopilot. Do you make your hair grow? Do you activate the cones and rods in your eyes for sight? Do you digest your food? Do you make the sun shine or the earth warm? Look close. All functions of the human and his reality are produced by God."]

Intelligent design once more, and "it's 'god' what did it" filling knowledge-gaps.



Come on. This is an easy request for such an intelligent mind as yours. Give me one thing. Just one. Give me one thing you do apart from thinking and moving to support your life processes or the nature of the environment you live in. ONE! Come one. $20 is yours. I'll send it to you today.

This is such an obvious point in a day and age where we know what a moving image is. Mankind, given 1000 more years of development, we will step into their virtual worlds by moving the consciousness into the machine. It is obvious that billions of years of existence for another entity in a separate reality could do the same. We are an artificial reality to a perfected being who created us in love.

This is the problem for the rational mind. God does it all, but chooses to remain invisible to our reality. This gives us the room to develop on our own. Apart from admitting that your consciousness is on loan from God, you are dead in the water on the point above. Denying the Holy Spirit (Consciousness) is blasphemy against God. If you remain in this sin, it is unforgivable. As soon as this state of mind is changed, belief comes by humility and the sin is no longer present. This is the entire point of faith. Belief results in faith, hope and then finally love. Salvation follows.

Romans 1

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.


edit on 8-8-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


Whatever one search for in science, philosophy, religion and other truth/reality-seeking systems, it isn't found by applying twisted semantics and silly 'bets'.

Quote: ["It is obvious that billions of years of existence for another entity in a separate reality could do the same."]

"Could do" is far away from "has done". Rhetorics.

Quote: ["We are an artificial reality to a perfected being who created us in love."]

A faith-based assumption.

Quote: ["This is the problem for the rational mind."]

A rational mind doesn't try to fill knowledge-gaps with mythological guesses.

Quote: ["God does it all, but chooses to remain invisible to our reality."]

Yes, it's " 'god' what done it, and his non-visibility demonstrates his existence, because it's doctrinally postulated to be so".

I'm leaving your blind alley of circle-argumentated faith and preaching, but will ofcourse respond to you, if you should choose to relate somewhat factually to OP.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Closing

Please contribute to your first posting of this topic. A second isn't really needed is it A&A.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join