Originally posted by AdamLyon:
To 24/7,
Firstly, thank you for the comment! Yup, you make a good point, and i almost thought i had been caught(in my own logic), until i re-read my original post. -->
Not to argue semantics with you, but let me re-cap. I do believe i said that:
~Basically we don't know enough to say "god doesn't exist", AND "god does exist".
Both. What did i base that on?
~Personally i feel that since we haven't even travelled to Mars yet (which is the nearest planet by FAR), or even discovered any TRACE of extraterrestrial life(not to mention actual aliens),
therefore, we cannot yet affirmatively say "There is no god" or "There is a god".--------NOW, i definitely see the point of your disastisfaction with my comment. Your reading of my meaning is basically correct, but perhaps your logic to reach your conclusion is a little too.. absolute. There is not just ONE way to take what i said.
==> Although it may certainly seem like I'm implying that Religion is misguided, I haven't actually gone that far.I'm saying, "nobody can be 100% sure". And that THUS, we should all be tolerant of what others believe in. (I.E: NOBODY CAN/SHOULD SAY THAT THE OTHER IS WRONG, catch my drift?)
And in the first place, i don't think that any religion is about proving to the rest of the world that "Our religion is correct, is absolute, you must believe"...
~~~~~~~~~IN A NUTSHELL,
-Yes, i said we know too little to confirm ANY side.
-However, my saying that (E.G.) "Christians or Non-christians both cannot be 100% sure that christ/god exists or not", IS NOT EQUAL TO saying Christians are "misguided"!-In fact, if you want to take an extreme reading of my words(as you have), you could even say that I'm taking Christianity's side, by telling the Evolutionists: "Hey, you can't be sure either!" (that there is not some supreme being looking over/guiding us.)
To dispute your use of the [Elephant Analogy] in this case,
i believe that i would actually be ANOTHER blind man, telling the other 3 that "Hey guys, we ALL can't see, we ALL can't be 100% sure, so why don't we just leave it at that for now?" :)
Come on, mate, since when is saying "We all don't know enough", equal to implying "Hehe, actually i know everything", or "Hehe, Side B is actually foolish?" Isn't that your own suspicion or defensiveness, showing through?
Again, i hope this makes sense to you and others. I am not arguing for the sake of picking a fight, i simply explain myself more clearly so nobody will misinterpret my words, and think that I am taking sides or belittling any side.
I'M NOT.
hi mate,
don't take me too seriously on this account. It was tongue in cheek as i responded to your original post, any malice detected was totally unintended.
your position is a novel one to me, or at least the name was. But upon further reflection, it seems that you argue for a middle ground, that seeks to remain politically correct as much as possible. Principally speaking, I've no problems with this position but philosophically speaking, it lapses into trivialism (well, eventually anyway). Arguable, but well it seems that's where most middle grounds usually go.
but perhaps your logic to reach your conclusion is a little too.. absolute. There is not just ONE way to take what i said.
no denial about that after all, truth is absolute isn't it? Any denial of truth being absolute ends up refuting itself. Perhaps there's not just one way, but in positing more than one ways, or maybe too many ways, one ends up saying nothing (or again, trivialism).
I'm saying, "nobody can be 100% sure".
hmm ... except you and those who hold your views? (tongue in cheek)
And that THUS, we should all be tolerant of what others believe in
one would hope that this tolerance extends to those who assert that there is / is no God? If i do claim that view A or your view is wrong, will you tolerate me?
And in the first place, i don't think that any religion is about proving to the rest of the world that "Our religion is correct, is absolute, you must believe"...
hmm... truth by definition is exclusive. The logical implication of religion A claiming to be the truth would be implying that other religions (worldviews) are not true, especially when they make no pretensions to mask that claim and on certain tenets that contradict one another.
Secondly, would you not think that your view which advocates tolerance strives to be the absolutist one in promoting tolerance or neutrality as the way to go?
However, my saying that (E.G.) "Christians or Non-christians both cannot be 100% sure that christ/god exists or not", IS NOT EQUAL TO saying Christians are "misguided"!
i know that and i'm not suggesting that. Also doesn't bother me if you do, hence this forum.
In fact, if you want to take an extreme reading of my words(as you have),
how is this not an example of an "absolute form of logic" what ever that is?
if it seems extreme, i do apologize. I try not to obfuscate things here and to reason simply but this is where simple reasoning leads matters to. I try not to argue semantics, but that might be where the key to sussing out the truth lies, not in meaningless semantic debates, but in using language to construct meaning and to reason. The postmodern rejects reasoning but employs his reasoning ability in doing so (self refuting).
i believe that i would actually be ANOTHER blind man, telling the other 3 that "Hey guys, we ALL can't see, we ALL can't be 100% sure, so why don't we just leave it at that for now?" :)
not trying to be funny cuz God knows i can't be funny to save my life but if you were blind (as in the analogy), how would you be sure that the other 3 guys (or 1 of them) are actually blind too? Could they (or one of them) not be duping you by claiming to blind but actually possesses sight?
Even if my point doesn't make sense to you (and i hope it does), the point i hope to make would be NOT to milk an analogy to death because they're mere representations of the real thing (the point / argument) and not the thing itself.
But back to the Elephant analogy itself, the thing is, by claiming to be blind yourself (your view), you have lost all grasp on truth (because you don't see and can't be sure others don't see. In fact, if others see and you can't, you'll be doing yourself a disservice by not choosing to believe them), which is why agnosticism and skepticism (again, arguably) is self refuting.
In trying to be neutral, your view has just shot itself in the foot and can't even lift off the ground to begin with. Am i promoting intolerance? Absolutely not, don't get me wrong. But i suspect the issues go deeper than that.
Come on, mate, since when is saying "We all don't know enough", equal to implying "Hehe, actually i know everything", or "Hehe, Side B is actually foolish?" Isn't that your own suspicion or defensiveness, showing through?
i looked in my reply but i don't think i implied that. As in, you rightly claimed we don't know enough but i don't think i made a sweeping statement such as you know everything.
In any case, i'm not picking a fight. Just exchanging some thoughts is all.
wow, another one is victimised. wow woh woh, cnnah!!!!!! slc!!!!!!!
Originally posted by 24/7:think you might have some problematic elements in your statements - how would you define exceptional? Does Einstein count? Even if these people who are intelligent have trouble believing in the existence of God, does that indicate the presence of a causative relationship between belief and intelligence? Could it not be possible that there are other extraneous reasons that perpetuate the absence of belief? E.g. pride? Moral? Self desire / whim/ fancy? Immense desire for self autonomy? Lack of exposure?
For that matter, i'm not sure what qualifies as intelligent in your case but I would remind one of the modern day examples of Francis Collins (current director of the National Institute of Health in the US and previous head of the Human Genome Project), John Lennox (maths prof at Oxford), John Polkinghorne (Cambridge prof), Richard Swinburne, Alister McGrath, the many creation scientists and who hold PhDs (if those are indicators of intelligence), etc... I mean, there's no lack of intelligent people who also believe in God. So what's your point? Argument from numbers - that there are MORE people who don't believe in God than those who do? Argument from authority - that because these more intelligent individuals don't believe, therefore unlikely to be true?
Christianity has always been counter cultural. Then and now. Maybe some thing is inherently wrong, or maybe you don't understand the "religion" well enough, maybe you weren't taught properly.
Christianity is not egocentric, it's being concerned primarily about God, followed by the welfare of others, e.g. other-centred. You see this teaching peppered throughout Scriptures. Being saved is nothing one should boast about (Ephesians 2:8-9), One of the characteristics of a member of the kingdom of God, a true believer not a cultural Christian, is that found in Matthew 5:3 where he realizes that if not for God, he would remain spiritually bankrupt. Thus the "assuredness" that is derived from this state, does not come from the self but rightfully from God, for being found in Christ, - "if not for the grace of God, I would not be saved at all. Therefore i should not congratulate myself too much but live out the result of my saving faith"
It's also not the comforting words or the companionship that make one truly love God. There are people who do not enjoy such privileges and in fact, suffer much for the cause of Christ - think of the early Christians (thrown into lions' den for not renouncing their faith, where is the comfort in that??), Paul the Apostle, the nameless missionaries who tread into unknown territory away from the comfort of their church, or the countless martyrs who are gunned down for holding onto their profession of the faith in conflict situations, myself, etc... so how? At any rate, your question will only filter out cultural Christians from true believers (1 Corinthians 11:19).
beautiful.
"how would you define exceptional? Does Einstein count? "
I intentionally left out demarcations because there is no indubitable measure for intelligence. In this case, i'm using personalities commonly acknowledged as being exceptional in their respective fields. Surely, discounting the need for discursive nitpicking, the brilliance of einstein, kant or aristotle need not be questioned.
"Even if these people who are intelligent have trouble believing in the existence of God, does that indicate the presence of a causative relationship between belief and intelligence? Could it not be possible that there are other extraneous reasons that perpetuate the absence of belief? E.g. pride? Moral? Self desire / whim/ fancy? Immense desire for self autonomy? Lack of exposure? "
Doesnt "intelligence" remain as the common denominator?
" I would remind one of the modern day examples of Francis Collins (current director of the National Institute of Health in the US and previous head of the Human Genome Project), John Lennox (maths prof at Oxford), John Polkinghorne (Cambridge prof), Richard Swinburne, Alister McGrath, the many creation scientists and who hold PhDs (if those are indicators of intelligence), etc... I mean, there's no lack of intelligent people who also believe in God. "
While it is clear that Einstein and Copernicus were certainly not true believers, how would you know that the above mentioned names are not victims of your "extraneous reasons" for believing? Is it impossible that they could be 'cultural christians' for personal preferences? And before Mother Teresa's personal notes were brought to light, would anyone have guessed?
"Maybe some thing is inherently wrong, or maybe you don't understand the "religion" well enough, maybe you weren't taught properly. "
So who was 'taught properly'? And who is able to 'teach properly'?
"One of the characteristics of a member of the kingdom of God, a true believer not a cultural Christian, is that found in Matthew 5:3 where he realizes that if not for God, he would remain spiritually bankrupt. Thus the "assuredness" that is derived from this state, does not come from the self but rightfully from God, for being found in Christ"
Is it really impossible that 'true believers' are simply cultural christians who have become indoctrinated to the point of delusion? Consider this, ALL christians start off as cultural christians. Unless you're claiming that "where he realizes that if not for God, he would remain spiritually bankrupt." comes as apriori knowldge? I'd really like to see some elucidation there.
"There are people who do not enjoy such privileges and in fact, suffer much for the cause of Christ - think of the early Christians (thrown into lions' den for not renouncing their faith, where is the comfort in that??), Paul the Apostle, the nameless missionaries who tread into unknown territory away from the comfort of their church, or the countless martyrs who are gunned down for holding onto their profession of the faith in conflict situations, myself, etc... so how?"
Its not difficult to see how people who are sufficiently fearful of Christianity's famous threat of eternal hell to the point of hysteria would martyr themselves. Think of all the cases of people committing suicide for the most seemingly trivial reasons, and it is amazing what mind can do to body.
Originally posted by hasene:wow, another one is victimised. wow woh woh, cnnah!!!!!! slc!!!!!!!
i don't presume that most of the people on the forum are sociopaths like you. Blame it on my occasionally misplaced faith in people's goodness.
But just in case you need glasses, or are just in the habit of misreading people's intentions because they contradict you, here's what i wrote to AL at the end:
In any case, i'm not picking a fight. Just exchanging some thoughts is all
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:beautiful.
"how would you define exceptional? Does Einstein count? "
I intentionally left out demarcations because there is no indubitable measure for intelligence. In this case, i'm using personalities commonly acknowledged as being exceptional in their respective fields. Surely, discounting the need for discursive nitpicking, the brilliance of einstein, kant or aristotle need not be questioned.
"Even if these people who are intelligent have trouble believing in the existence of God, does that indicate the presence of a causative relationship between belief and intelligence? Could it not be possible that there are other extraneous reasons that perpetuate the absence of belief? E.g. pride? Moral? Self desire / whim/ fancy? Immense desire for self autonomy? Lack of exposure? "
Doesnt "intelligence" remain as the common denominator?
" I would remind one of the modern day examples of Francis Collins (current director of the National Institute of Health in the US and previous head of the Human Genome Project), John Lennox (maths prof at Oxford), John Polkinghorne (Cambridge prof), Richard Swinburne, Alister McGrath, the many creation scientists and who hold PhDs (if those are indicators of intelligence), etc... I mean, there's no lack of intelligent people who also believe in God. "
While it is clear that Einstein and Copernicus were certainly not true believers, how would you know that the above mentioned names are not victims of your "extraneous reasons" for believing? Is it impossible that they could be 'cultural christians' for personal preferences? And before Mother Teresa's personal notes were brought to light, would anyone have guessed?
"Maybe some thing is inherently wrong, or maybe you don't understand the "religion" well enough, maybe you weren't taught properly. "
So who was 'taught properly'? And who is able to 'teach properly'?
"One of the characteristics of a member of the kingdom of God, a true believer not a cultural Christian, is that found in Matthew 5:3 where he realizes that if not for God, he would remain spiritually bankrupt. Thus the "assuredness" that is derived from this state, does not come from the self but rightfully from God, for being found in Christ"
Is it really impossible that 'true believers' are simply cultural christians who have become indoctrinated to the point of delusion? Consider this, ALL christians start off as cultural christians. Unless you're claiming that "where he realizes that if not for God, he would remain spiritually bankrupt." comes as apriori knowldge? I'd really like to see some elucidation there.
"There are people who do not enjoy such privileges and in fact, suffer much for the cause of Christ - think of the early Christians (thrown into lions' den for not renouncing their faith, where is the comfort in that??), Paul the Apostle, the nameless missionaries who tread into unknown territory away from the comfort of their church, or the countless martyrs who are gunned down for holding onto their profession of the faith in conflict situations, myself, etc... so how?"
Its not difficult to see how people who are sufficiently fearful of Christianity's famous threat of eternal hell to the point of hysteria would martyr themselves. Think of all the cases of people committing suicide for the most seemingly trivial reasons, and it is amazing what mind can do to body.
I intentionally left out demarcations because there is no indubitable measure for intelligence. In this case, i'm using personalities commonly acknowledged as being exceptional in their respective fields. Surely, discounting the need for discursive nitpicking, the brilliance of einstein, kant or aristotle need not be questioned
Brilliance not questioned. But what's your point? forgive my denseness, but a wealth of things can also be inferred...
Doesnt "intelligence" remain as the common denominator?
Yeah well, other common denominators that could emerge are their skin color, gender and their heritage, among many other commonalities. So what else would you like to propose as your hypothesis?
So, first of all, it hasnt been conclusively proven or argued validly by your kind self that intelligence is the primary factor, as suggested in the thesis statement of your thread title.
second, i've also demonstrated contrary to your argument that there are people who are sufficiently educated (intelligent?) and have no problem believing in God.
third, intelligence has been also found to co exist with pride. Thus my hypothesis isn't demonstrably misguided as well.
fourth, IF (and it's a huge one) intelligence is observed in non believers, does that indicate the presence of a causative relationship for non belief? For sure, it wouldn't contradict the Christian worldview that God dispenses talents and abilities freely for everyone, including those who don't believe.
While it is clear that Einstein and Copernicus were certainly not true believers, how would you know that the above mentioned names are not victims of your "extraneous reasons" for believing? Is it impossible that they could be 'cultural christians' for personal preferences? And before Mother Teresa's personal notes were brought to light, would anyone have guessed?
Because all the abovementioned names i've chosen are all prolific published authors who have written on their personal beliefs and opened them up for scholastic and ecclesiastical scrutiny.
So who was 'taught properly'? And who is able to 'teach properly'?
so who (or what) is the final arbiter of truth?
on this point, it remains to be seen, but how is this question not applicable to whichever worldview you profess?
my take is that as far as i can tell, i find the Christianity i profess to be sound and rational and able to be understood, thus I would argue I've been taught properly (which is not entirely accurate too cuz i haven't been taught in the commonly understood didactic sense).
Is it really impossible that 'true believers' are simply cultural christians who have become indoctrinated to the point of delusion? Consider this, ALL christians start off as cultural christians. Unless you're claiming that "where he realizes that if not for God, he would remain spiritually bankrupt." comes as apriori knowldge? I'd really like to see some elucidation there.
1st qn - impossible by definition, true believers don't hold to any delusion and the God who begins their salvation will see it right thru to the end.
2nd statement - your assertion to prove.
3rd qn - you might be reading too much. my simple answer to you here is both a priori and a posteriori - in that before one can truly bank the whole thrust of their faith in the atoning work of Christ on the cross, one has to come to assent that he is spiritually and morally bankrupt and this can only happen through a revelation from the Holy Spirit.
In continuing from my point earlier in my reply, it is from this reservoir of gratefulness for the work of Christ that the true believer lives out the result of his saving faith as demonstrated by the good works for which he had been prepared to do (Ephesians).
Its not difficult to see how people who are sufficiently fearful of Christianity's famous threat of eternal hell to the point of hysteria would martyr themselves. Think of all the cases of people committing suicide for the most seemingly trivial reasons, and it is amazing what mind can do to bod
yes, mental instability is a problem that is not specific to any religion type or the lack of it ... consider Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.
"Its not difficult to see how people who are sufficiently fearful of Christianity's famous threat of eternal hell to the point of hysteria would martyr themselves."
Contrary to this statement, i don't think there's any teaching in Christianity that encourages martyrdom (short of misquotes e.g. out of context).
Secondly, as a Christian, i don't see the link between the "threat" of eternal hell and martyrdom. Maybe you should expound on this a bit more.
Thirdly, short of belittling and insensitively making light of the deaths of the early Christians and some modern missionaries, i don't see how their noble work could be irreverently construed as their personal responses to threats of eternal damnation.
nonetheless, your assertions and your burden of proof to bear.
Originally posted by 24/7:i don't presume that most of the people on the forum are sociopaths like you. Blame it on my occasionally misplaced faith in people's goodness.
But just in case you need glasses, or are just in the habit of misreading people's intentions because they contradict you, here's what i wrote to AL at the end:
In any case, i'm not picking a fight. Just exchanging some thoughts is all
However subtle you are in victimization, it still cannot escape my eyes, too bad for you! hahahhahahahahhahahahhahaha . . ....................................
I am being kind to say it is subtle.
Originally posted by 24/7:Brilliance not questioned. But what's your point? forgive my denseness, but a wealth of things can also be inferred...
Yeah well, other common denominators that could emerge are their skin color, gender and their heritage, among many other commonalities. So what else would you like to propose as your hypothesis?
So, first of all, it hasnt been conclusively proven or argued validly by your kind self that intelligence is the primary factor, as suggested in the thesis statement of your thread title.
second, i've also demonstrated contrary to your argument that there are people who are sufficiently educated (intelligent?) and have no problem believing in God.
third, intelligence has been also found to co exist with pride. Thus my hypothesis isn't demonstrably misguided as well.
fourth, IF (and it's a huge one) intelligence is observed in non believers, does that indicate the presence of a causative relationship for non belief? For sure, it wouldn't contradict the Christian worldview that God dispenses talents and abilities freely for everyone, including those who don't believe.
Because all the abovementioned names i've chosen are all prolific published authors who have written on their personal beliefs and opened them up for scholastic and ecclesiastical scrutiny.
so who (or what) is the final arbiter of truth?
on this point, it remains to be seen, but how is this question not applicable to whichever worldview you profess?
my take is that as far as i can tell, i find the Christianity i profess to be sound and rational and able to be understood, thus I would argue I've been taught properly (which is not entirely accurate too cuz i haven't been taught in the commonly understood didactic sense).
1st qn - impossible by definition, true believers don't hold to any delusion and the God who begins their salvation will see it right thru to the end.
2nd statement - your assertion to prove.
3rd qn - you might be reading too much. my simple answer to you here is both a priori and a posteriori - in that before one can truly bank the whole thrust of their faith in the atoning work of Christ on the cross, one has to come to assent that he is spiritually and morally bankrupt and this can only happen through a revelation from the Holy Spirit.
In continuing from my point earlier in my reply, it is from this reservoir of gratefulness for the work of Christ that the true believer lives out the result of his saving faith as demonstrated by the good works for which he had been prepared to do (Ephesians).
yes, mental instability is a problem that is not specific to any religion type or the lack of it ... consider Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.
"Its not difficult to see how people who are sufficiently fearful of Christianity's famous threat of eternal hell to the point of hysteria would martyr themselves."
Contrary to this statement, i don't think there's any teaching in Christianity that encourages martyrdom (short of misquotes e.g. out of context).
Secondly, as a Christian, i don't see the link between the "threat" of eternal hell and martyrdom. Maybe you should expound on this a bit more.
Thirdly, short of belittling and insensitively making light of the deaths of the early Christians and some modern missionaries, i don't see how their noble work could be irreverently construed as their personal responses to threats of eternal damnation.
nonetheless, your assertions and your burden of proof to bear.
"forgive my denseness, but a wealth of things can also be inferred..."
my point was stated, ambiguity is no retort.
"skin color, gender and their heritage"
Its foolhardy to posit skin color and heritage as bases for rejection of christianity. Religion is after all a major tenet of culture. The Tibetans would certainly find it harder to believe than say, Singaporeans. Lets not digress, the hypothesis after all was the relationship between intelligence and faith.
"So, first of all, it hasnt been conclusively proven or argued validly by your kind self that intelligence is the primary factor, as suggested in the thesis statement of your thread title"
Do not confuse the title of the thread with my thesis statement. I never gave a thesis statement. What I had, in my opening entry, was the hypothesis that intelligence cannot coexist with faith derived from the extraordinary propensity for exceptional personalities to renounce their beliefs. Did i make any truth claims? certainly not.
"second, i've also demonstrated contrary to your argument that there are people who are sufficiently educated (intelligent?) and have no problem believing in God. "
You have given possibilities, not demonstrations. Like what i said about mother teresa, who knew? The shortfall on your side is that belief can never be proven, whereas doubt is unquestionable.
"fourth, IF (and it's a huge one) intelligence is observed in non believers, does that indicate the presence of a causative relationship for non belief?"
If there is an extraordinary trend, which seems to be the case based on countless thinkers throughout history, then yes.
"Because all the abovementioned names i've chosen are all prolific published authors who have written on their personal beliefs and opened them up for scholastic and ecclesiastical scrutiny."
And has all the scrutiny sympathised with their views? I'm sure richard dawkins would have much to say. Do not appeal to the authority of mere academic writing.
"my take is that as far as i can tell, i find the Christianity i profess to be sound and rational and able to be understood, thus I would argue I've been taught properly "
Sound and rational only to you perhaps? Surely you wont make the ridiculous mistake of argument from something as subjective as personal rationalism on a topic such as religion?
" true believers don't hold to any delusion and the God who begins their salvation will see it right thru to the end."
I'm sorry my friend, but have you ever tried asking an inebriated man if he is drunk? Listen to yourself.
"2nd statement - your assertion to prove."
Save for a massive axiomatic shift, "All christians start off cultural" is simple logic.
"3rd qn - you might be reading too much. my simple answer to you here is both a priori and a posteriori - in that before one can truly bank the whole thrust of their faith in the atoning work of Christ on the cross, one has to come to assent that he is spiritually and morally bankrupt and this can only happen through a revelation from the Holy Spirit. "
Doesnt answer my question. I reiterate, very simply, can someone become a true believer without having ever heard anything about christianity? (its rhetorical really)
"Contrary to this statement, i don't think there's any teaching in Christianity that encourages martyrdom (short of misquotes e.g. out of context).
I never said there was. Im afraid you've failed to comprehend my point.
i don't see the link between the "threat" of eternal hell and martyrdom. Maybe you should expound on this a bit more.
The answer "personal responses to threats of eternal damnation."
why bother replying to truck loads of thrash and garbage? I dun even bother reading
Originally posted by hasene:I know of a scientist who accepted christ as lord and saviour and is teaching in Sunday School.
Praise the lord. My youth group gt NUS science graduate too. Accepted christ too.
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:...Now do you still TRULY love your God?
Yes :)