Christianity VS White Magic (Only for Spiritualist/WhiteMagicians & Christians)

Babar · Tue 17/10/2006 13:17:57

Heh.It's religion! It's a belief! It wouldn't mean the slightest if you said "Y'know, I'm sure you enjoy rape, pillage and burning*, but y'know, there might be this God guy who....might not like it. Watch out!".

I believe what I believe because it's the truth. You might not agree with me on that point. Too bad.

There is an attitude towards "religiousness" that I find very scary. A person is religious, so he must obviously be close-minded. He's probably stupid as well. If they start quoting scripture, there is obviously something wrong with them. Hey, them religious people are only in it because they fear death.
A person wears a hijab. Oh dear, she's either backward, or being surpressed.
A person is a catholic priest. Oh dear, he's evil because he condemns contraception. He probably enjoys playing with little children too.
A person is very religious muslim. Oh dear, he's obviously a terrorist.

For example, I drew a person's face. It got somewhat messed up, so I covered it with a beard and sunglasses. I thought "Hey, might as well complete this", so I added a skullcap. I showed it to a friend, and what did she say? "Heeheehee, terrorist!".
Yeah.

* I'm going to be accused of saying that all non-religious people enjoy rape, pillage and burning now :

SSH · Tue 17/10/2006 13:24:52

Quote from: Babar on Tue 17/10/2006 13:17:57
all non-religious people enjoy rape, pillage and burning

Why do you think athiesm is so popular these days?

CaptainBinky · Tue 17/10/2006 13:40:31

Quote from: Babar on Tue 17/10/2006 13:17:57
I believe what I believe because it's the truth. You might not agree with me on that point. Too bad.

But this is my point. A truth is a statement that has been verified - a fact. The Earth rotates once every day is the truth. The moon orbits the Earth is truth. Truth is absolute and can't be subject to opinion by definition.

Therefore, you believe what you believe because you believe it to be true. But if it were actually the truth, then it would have had to have been verified, the existence of God undeniable, and there wouldn't be loads of religions and atheists.

As soon as anybody claims anything unverified as the truth, regardless of what it is - religion, evolution, global warming, whatever - then I switch off because it's not the truth. It's an opinion which they believe. Talk to me in these terms and I will listen to your opinion. I'm fairly open-minded.

Nacho · Tue 17/10/2006 13:59:04

Quote from: SSH on Tue 17/10/2006 13:24:52
Quote from: Babar on Tue 17/10/2006 13:17:57
all non-religious people enjoy rape, pillage and burning

Why do you think athiesm is so popular these days?

Yeah, when Christianism was popular things were better, hehe...

Tuomas · Tue 17/10/2006 14:25:43

Yeah, they don't make such good movies anymore

Helm · Tue 17/10/2006 14:26:31

Nice to see our resident apologist avoiding me.

SSH · Tue 17/10/2006 14:46:46

Quote from: CaptainBinky on Tue 17/10/2006 13:40:31
But this is my point. A truth is a statement that has been verified - a fact. The Earth rotates once every day is the truth. The moon orbits the Earth is truth. Truth is absolute and can't be subject to opinion by definition.

Therefore, you believe what you believe because you believe it to be true. But if it were actually the truth, then it would have had to have been verified, the existence of God undeniable, and there wouldn't be loads of religions and atheists.

Ummm, that's a rather strange definition of the truth. Are you saying that the theory of relativity, for example, was not true until it was proved? So presumably relativitsic effects didn't happen ebfore teh early 20th century...?

Anyway, Time Cube theory says that the earth rotates 4 times a day

Helm, you're imposing your demand of there being a dilemma upon the nature of God's omniscience (or omnipotence). Why should there by necessaity be no grey areas?

As for the omnipotence paradox, my favourite answer is to look at the question as "Is the total lack of disability itself a disability?" to which the answer is obviously "No".

CaptainBinky · Tue 17/10/2006 15:33:30

Quote from: SSH on Tue 17/10/2006 14:46:46
Ummm, that's a rather strange definition of the truth.

What, that something which is true is a fact that can be verified? I don't see anything weird about that.

Quote from: SSH on Tue 17/10/2006 14:46:46
Are you saying that the theory of relativity, for example, was not true until it was proved? So presumably relativitsic effects didn't happen before the early 20th century...?

Well, that's why it's a theory. I don't see how what I've said would lead you to that point... It is possible for something to be the case without man knowing that it's the case. Gravity still existed before Newton "discovered" it.

Becky · Tue 17/10/2006 15:45:09

CaptainBinky, the scientific definition of theory is as close as it gets to being the "truth" as it were. Theories explain and interpret "facts" or "truths". Please don't dismiss any scientific theory as "only a theory!!".

Anyway, being a history student - there is no truth! Just a bunch of stuff people disagree about.

CaptainBinky · Tue 17/10/2006 15:49:53

Quote from: Becky on Tue 17/10/2006 15:45:09
Please don't dismiss any scientific theory as "only a theory!!".

Sorry, I didn't intend to sound like I was belittleing theories. I don't think I actually said *only* a theory, did I? All I meant was that a theory isn't hard and fast. It does the best job with the best available information, but as with any theory it is open to change or abandonment when or if new information becomes available.

Helm · Tue 17/10/2006 15:51:16

QuoteHelm, you're imposing your demand of there being a dilemma upon the nature of God's omniscience (or omnipotence). Why should there by necessaity be no grey areas?

Because there are no gray areas in all-powerfulness.

QuoteAs for the omnipotence paradox, my favourite answer is to look at the question as "Is the total lack of disability itself a disability?" to which the answer is obviously "No".

Take your obviousness to Godel for discussion.

Becky · Tue 17/10/2006 15:54:38

QuoteAll I meant was that a theory isn't hard and fast. It does the best job with the best available information, but as with any theory it is open to change or abandonment when or if new information becomes available.

But then how can we ever be sure that any of what we know is the truth, if it is constantly changing/being updated/refined?

CaptainBinky · Tue 17/10/2006 15:56:21

How indeed! That's a question for the philosophers, I think

And now we're back to beliefs. Believe them to be true.

Nikolas · Tue 17/10/2006 16:02:46

Quote from: Becky on Tue 17/10/2006 15:54:38
But then how can we ever be sure that any of what we know is the truth, if it is constantly changing/being updated/refined?

Anyways, as far as I know a theory cannot be accepted on it's own, unless it is backed up by experimental proof. anything Einstein came up (for example the fact that light has weight), he has also prooven with experiements, and this is why his theories are accepted.

Even the most logical theory cannot be held as...the truth... as long as it cannot be proven further with experimental tools. This is where religious fails for most of us... It's this proof that maybe we're looking for.

There is no universal truth, except the very obvious and clear. Earth is round... We really have no proof, but indeed it does appear to be... unless there is a huge consipracy going on.

But since I've seen my wife grow and grow, and giving birht (in front of my eyse), to my sons, and actualyl touching her and touching my sons 1 minute after birth, has given me enough proof that my sons do exist and that my wife indeed was pregnant and indeed was carying her babies inside her. That's the plain truth here. Can anyone say the above statement isn't true?

Becky · Tue 17/10/2006 16:08:35

QuoteAnyways, as far as I know a theory cannot be accepted on it's own, unless it is backed up by experimental proof. anything Einstein came up (for example the fact that light has weight), he has also prooven with experiements, and this is why his theories are accepted.

Yes yes, that's all part of how a scientific hypothesis becomes a theory. A theory in the scientific sense is a collection of all previous observable eveidence and is predictive, logical and testable.

If there wasn't any evidence for them, they wouldn't -be- theories

Nikolas · Tue 17/10/2006 16:10:55

ooops (I think).

That's what you get when you're not british (plus the awful spelling :S).

Ok we agree then... just failed on the actually word naming... :p

SSH · Tue 17/10/2006 16:21:35

Quote from: Nikolas on Tue 17/10/2006 16:02:46
But since I've seen my wife grow and grow, and giving birht (in front of my eyse), to my sons, and actualyl touching her and touching my sons 1 minute after birth, has given me enough proof that my sons do exist and that my wife indeed was pregnant and indeed was carying her babies inside her. That's the plain truth here. Can anyone say the above statement isn't true?

Yes. Here are other possible explanations:

1. Your children (and wife) are merely your hallucinations
2. You want to beleive you have a wife and children and have decived yourself into thinking they exist
3. You are lying to everyone here about whether you have a wife, or kids, or witnessed any birth
4. They're not your kids
5. A moderator edited the post after you wrote it and turned off the edit notice
6. The whole of AGS and its forum is a figment of my own hallucination
7. We are all characters in a story where the author wants things to seem like you have kids.
etc.

If you really want to get down to it, nothing is provable. So proof of God is as unattainable as proof of your own existence.

CaptainBinky · Tue 17/10/2006 16:24:16

Quote from: SSH on Tue 17/10/2006 16:21:35
If you really want to get down to it, nothing is provable. So proof of God is as unattainable as proof of your own existence.

True, except that I've seen Nikolas, but haven't seen God (except in South Park)

SSH · Tue 17/10/2006 16:25:42

Quote from: CaptainBinky on Tue 17/10/2006 16:24:16
True, except that I've seen Nikolas, but haven't seen God (except in South Park)

That wasn't Nikolas, that was a hallucination.

CaptainBinky · Tue 17/10/2006 16:29:03

Quote from: SSH on Tue 17/10/2006 16:25:42
That wasn't Nikolas, that was a hallucination.

Well he was very tall... so you might be right!