Heaven, I'm in heaven

[OnlyAmbrose]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=74204

I AM a poet, and YES I know it. ...hehehe
I am many things, including, an ex-beliver.

Come now, I make your very own thread with your name on it, go through the effort of picking your post apart one line at a time, and begin the process of making a logical argument in favor of my belief, and all you can post is this? And not even in the thread I made just for you? Call me old fashioned, but that just seems rude.

[porkenbeans]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=74204

I AM a poet, and YES I know it. ...hehehe
I am many things, including, an ex-beliver.

Come now, I make your very own thread with your name on it, go through the effort of picking your post apart one line at a time, and begin the process of making a logical argument in favor of my belief, and all you can post is this? And not even in the thread I made just for you? Call me old fashioned, but that just seems rude.

If you were able to carry on a logical discussion, I would be more than happy to oblige, but you aren't, so I'm not.

[OnlyAmbrose]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=74204

I AM a poet, and YES I know it. ...hehehe
I am many things, including, an ex-beliver.

Come now, I make your very own thread with your name on it, go through the effort of picking your post apart one line at a time, and begin the process of making a logical argument in favor of my belief, and all you can post is this? And not even in the thread I made just for you? Call me old fashioned, but that just seems rude.

If you were able to carry on a logical discussion, I would be more than happy to oblige, but you aren't, so I'm not.

.... really? Really? I call you out on TWO logical fallacies in your post (non sequitur and argumentum ad hominem) and you are telling ME that I can't carry on a logical discussion?

You make a completely irrelevant claim and didn't even bother to cite a source or defend it and you're telling me that I can't carry on a logical discussion?

And then I go on to begin my argument by citing a law of logic (Causality) and asking if you will accept it? Tell me, what laws of logic have YOU cited? And you're telling me that I don't know how to carry out a logical argument?

Sad, sad, sad.

[mpjh]

OK, you guys are going over my head, although that is not saying much. I would like to return to the OP for a bit.

That survey by Pew asserted that "70 percent of Americans said that they believed religions other than theirs could lead to eternal life."

Now I am an atheist, and quite confident in my own views, but I was stunned to see such a large number of American being so flexible on this issue. I actually took this survey to mean that the dogmatic rigidity (or brainwashing as Porkenbeans would say) of Americans was not nearly as monolithic nor inflexible as some uber-Christians would have us believe. I was actually encouraged by the survey.

Regardless the quality or intellectual validity of religious belief, I think Americans are willing to give other people's beliefs the benefit of the doubt, so long as no one tries to force feed their view on others.

[porkenbeans]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=74204

I AM a poet, and YES I know it. ...hehehe
I am many things, including, an ex-beliver.

Come now, I make your very own thread with your name on it, go through the effort of picking your post apart one line at a time, and begin the process of making a logical argument in favor of my belief, and all you can post is this? And not even in the thread I made just for you? Call me old fashioned, but that just seems rude.

If you were able to carry on a logical discussion, I would be more than happy to oblige, but you aren't, so I'm not.

.... really? Really? I call you out on TWO logical fallacies in your post (non sequitur and argumentum ad hominem) and you are telling ME that I can't carry on a logical discussion?

You make a completely irrelevant claim and didn't even bother to cite a source or defend it and you're telling me that I can't carry on a logical discussion?

And then I go on to begin my argument by citing a law of logic (Causality) and asking if you will accept it? Tell me, what laws of logic have YOU cited? And you're telling me that I don't know how to carry out a logical argument?

Sad, sad, sad.

Yes that is exactly what I am telling you, I am so glad that you can understand.
Your usage of large words does not change my mind on this matter. I asked you one simple question. You can not, it seems, follow along in a conversation. If you were to ask me a question, I know how to answer, and then ask a question in return. All I get from you is, an endless stream of Juvenalistic arguments.
I realize that I can not change your views or perceptions. So, I will not even try.

[OnlyAmbrose]

There is nothing juvenile about causality, it's been a logical argument considered by minds far greater than ours for millenia.

[Backglass]

There is nothing juvenile about causality, it's been a logical argument considered by minds far greater than ours for millenia.

It was also once considered logical by great minds for millennia that the world was flat. Only fools would think otherwise.

[OnlyAmbrose]

There is nothing juvenile about causality, it's been a logical argument considered by minds far greater than ours for millenia.

It was also once considered logical by great minds for millennia that the world was flat. Only fools would think otherwise.

Which great minds would those be?

Do you deny cause and effect logic?

[CrazyAnglican]

In my previous posts, I was trying to put forth the proof that there is no such being. I stated that it is far more likely that all the religions of the world are simply the natural evolution of our primitive superstitions. The untouched tribes that exist today are indeed a window into our primitive past. Science alone has chipped away at those superstitions. We no longer believe that the world is flat, or that the sun revolves around Earth, or that the Earth was created in 7 days. All of these things were once professed as truth, by your Religious leaders.
With each of these advances in science, your religious dogma has had to adjust its stance on what is the "Truth".

Big deal, scientists adjust their stances on what's truth all the time, and you adore them for it. When a new bit of information comes into play, it's merely human nature to add it into the schema of your own experiences. What you see as a chink in the armor of Chritianity, can just as easily be a focusing in on what the scripture means for Christians. If science is so damaging to religion why are their more Christians now (by percentage of world population) than their were at the beginning of the Scientific revolution? More on that later though.

Your unproven beliefs, should not be taught as truth. Unless you can show me some empirical evidence to the contrary.

I fully understand your opinion. I am also 100% in opposition to them. I counter that not teaching my children about my religion would be outright neglect on my part. As a parent, I feel that it's my duty to teach my kids everything within my power to enhance their lives. If I withold something as unnecessary to life, but vital to it's quality, as a basic education I'd be guilty of abuse. I’d certainly consider it neglect to withhold something vital as a spiritual education. Since you asked for empirical data, here is plenty of empirical data to back up the position that those who regularly attend church (of any type) tend to live longer and recover faster from illness, etc than those who do not. http://www.healthsmith.com/IntMed/CAM/G ... dicine.htm
It seems that by introducing my children to any religion I'm opening the door to great health benefits.

Now it may be hard for you to believe that my intention is NOT to make you look the fool,
It is just that, as I put forth my case, It is necessary to show the foolishness of your side when you stand it next to science. It is because of science that this poll says what it does. If you were to run this poll 100 years ago, we would undoubtedly see a much different result. And if this poll were run 100 years from now the results would show even a larger swing to our side.

Hmm, and you have these statistics of the poll from 100 years ago and the poll from 100 years hence? I am basing my stance partly on science (as seen above); you seem to be basing yours partly on science fiction. Christianity is growing throughout the world, not dwindling. The following are figures for membership on the Roman Catholic church alone. Church membership in 2007 was 1.131 billion people;[180] an increase over the 1950 figure of 437 million[181] and the 1970 figure of 654 million.[182] The Catholic population increase of 139% outpaced the world population increase of 117% from 1950-2000.[181]

Science will continue to chip away at our superstitious past. Of this I have no doubt. One day there will only be a pile of dust that remains of that great mountain of ignorance. Those that will live in that time will look back on us in the same manner that we look back on the ignorant idol worshipers of long ago. They will shake there heads and wonder how we ever survived long enough to birth them.

If that’s the way science “chips away” at religion, it sounds great! I hope they keep it up, we’ll have more than 90% of the world’s population at this rate. The churches that you claim are declining are centered in Europe, but the idea that this means that the church itself is declining is absurd. Christianity is showing growth around the world. The third largest Christian church in the world is in Nigeria and it has a membership of 50,000 people alone. Science has had 400 years to “chip away” at religion and religion is stronger than ever.

South Korea is doing pretty well by the looks of things:

World's Largest Church Set to Hold Huge Prayer Conference in Seoul, Korea
Over 100,000 Christians from all over the world are expected to attend a massive prayer conference next month in Seoul, Korea, organised by the world’s largest church.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/w ... a/4014.htm

The congregation size of that church is 750,000. That's a church in Seoul, not a denomination. They have satellite shrine throughout Seoul, but the size of the congregation is for the main church from what I can gather. They are recognized as the largest Christian Church in the World by Guiness.

Nigeria seems to be doing well despite the history of Islam there: The Nigerian Baptist Convention has over 5,000 churches with over a million congregants.

http://adherents.com/Na/Na_471.html#2837

What you see as the decline of the churches really seems to be a trend whereby Christianity is becoming a world religion rather than a western one. Don’t worry though, the Africans are already setting their sites on Europe as the next mission field. My own congregation in the USA is an African mission out of Rwanda.

[porkenbeans]

In my previous posts, I was trying to put forth the proof that there is no such being. I stated that it is far more likely that all the religions of the world are simply the natural evolution of our primitive superstitions. The untouched tribes that exist today are indeed a window into our primitive past. Science alone has chipped away at those superstitions. We no longer believe that the world is flat, or that the sun revolves around Earth, or that the Earth was created in 7 days. All of these things were once professed as truth, by your Religious leaders.
With each of these advances in science, your religious dogma has had to adjust its stance on what is the "Truth".

Big deal, scientists adjust their stances on what's truth all the time, and you adore them for it. When a new bit of information comes into play, it's merely human nature to add it into the schema of your own experiences. What you see as a chink in the armor of Chritianity, can just as easily be a focusing in on what the scripture means for Christians. If science is so damaging to religion why are their more Christians now (by percentage of world population) than their were at the beginning of the Scientific revolution? More on that later though.

Your unproven beliefs, should not be taught as truth. Unless you can show me some empirical evidence to the contrary.

I fully understand your opinion. I am also 100% in opposition to them. I counter that not teaching my children about my religion would be outright neglect on my part. As a parent, I feel that it's my duty to teach my kids everything within my power to enhance their lives. If I withold something as unnecessary to life, but vital to it's quality, as a basic education I'd be guilty of abuse. I’d certainly consider it neglect to withhold something vital as a spiritual education. Since you asked for empirical data, here is plenty of empirical data to back up the position that those who regularly attend church (of any type) tend to live longer and recover faster from illness, etc than those who do not. http://www.healthsmith.com/IntMed/CAM/G ... dicine.htm
It seems that by introducing my children to any religion I'm opening the door to great health benefits.

Now it may be hard for you to believe that my intention is NOT to make you look the fool,
It is just that, as I put forth my case, It is necessary to show the foolishness of your side when you stand it next to science. It is because of science that this poll says what it does. If you were to run this poll 100 years ago, we would undoubtedly see a much different result. And if this poll were run 100 years from now the results would show even a larger swing to our side.

Hmm, and you have these statistics of the poll from 100 years ago and the poll from 100 years hence? I am basing my stance partly on science (as seen above); you seem to be basing yours partly on science fiction. Christianity is growing throughout the world, not dwindling. The following are figures for membership on the Roman Catholic church alone. Church membership in 2007 was 1.131 billion people;[180] an increase over the 1950 figure of 437 million[181] and the 1970 figure of 654 million.[182] The Catholic population increase of 139% outpaced the world population increase of 117% from 1950-2000.[181]

Science will continue to chip away at our superstitious past. Of this I have no doubt. One day there will only be a pile of dust that remains of that great mountain of ignorance. Those that will live in that time will look back on us in the same manner that we look back on the ignorant idol worshipers of long ago. They will shake there heads and wonder how we ever survived long enough to birth them.

If that’s the way science “chips away” at religion, it sounds great! I hope they keep it up, we’ll have more than 90% of the world’s population at this rate. The churches that you claim are declining are centered in Europe, but the idea that this means that the church itself is declining is absurd. Christianity is showing growth around the world. The third largest Christian church in the world is in Nigeria and it has a membership of 50,000 people alone. Science has had 400 years to “chip away” at religion and religion is stronger than ever.

South Korea is doing pretty well by the looks of things:

World's Largest Church Set to Hold Huge Prayer Conference in Seoul, Korea
Over 100,000 Christians from all over the world are expected to attend a massive prayer conference next month in Seoul, Korea, organised by the world’s largest church.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/w ... a/4014.htm

The congregation size of that church is 750,000. That's a church in Seoul, not a denomination. They have satellite shrine throughout Seoul, but the size of the congregation is for the main church from what I can gather. They are recognized as the largest Christian Church in the World by Guiness.

Nigeria seems to be doing well despite the history of Islam there: The Nigerian Baptist Convention has over 5,000 churches with over a million congregants.

http://adherents.com/Na/Na_471.html#2837

What you see as the decline of the churches really seems to be a trend whereby Christianity is becoming a world religion rather than a western one. Don’t worry though, the Africans are already setting their sites on Europe as the next mission field. My own congregation in the USA is an African mission out of Rwanda.

I did not say anything about what you teach your own children. I was clearly talking about Public schools.
The size or power of the church is also not what I was referring to. I was clearly reffering to peoples beliefs. This poll backs me up on that.
You have not addressed my contention that all religions are evolved from primitive superstitions.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I did not say anything about what you teach your own children. I was clearly talking about Public schools.

Really? Well given the following two quotes, I think you can forgive us for misunderstanding what you were so "clearly" talking about:

Are you trying to tell me that people are not brainwashed from birth in religious families ?

When I said that the children must be taught the truth, I was referring to this truth. The things that can be proven. Leave the superstitions for the church to teach. Stop "brainwashing" them with fantasy.

[porkenbeans]

I did not say anything about what you teach your own children. I was clearly talking about Public schools.

Really? Well given the following two quotes, I think you can forgive us for misunderstanding what you were so "clearly" talking about:

Are you trying to tell me that people are not brainwashed from birth in religious families ?

When I said that the children must be taught the truth, I was referring to this truth. The things that can be proven. Leave the superstitions for the church to teach. Stop "brainwashing" them with fantasy.

Go back and read a bit more carefully.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I just did, and by golly I don't see any mention of the public school system by you anywhere!

[CrazyAnglican]

I did not say anything about what you teach your own children. I was clearly talking about Public schools.

Then you have quite successfully argued a point that is on the order of "The roads would be a lot safer if we had traffic laws" Religion is not legally taught in public schools in the USA. Thanks though, I will teach my kids what I choose.

The size or power of the church is also not what I was referring to. I was clearly reffering to peoples beliefs. This poll backs me up on that.

Here's where you stepped out on a limb. It says nothing about declining religious belief. It only states that some people think it's concieveable that somebody other than a Christian can get to Heaven. That's not a particularly big shock to me given that most Christians would probably tell you that Abraham, Moses, and Elijah at least went to heaven. It's not only mentioned in the Old TEstament, but the New Testament as well (The transfiguration). You're making the leap, based apparently on nothing more than wishful thinking. My stance, based on evidence from the scripture that these people profess to believe and world statistics kept about religious adherents, is that it just might say that people hold firmly to their faith without begrudging others their own beliefs. In this case I'm not using my faith to prove anything, but one can't ignore the teachings of a religion when examining it's adherents' opinions about those very same doctrines.

You have not addressed my contention that all religions are evolved from primitive superstitions.

Why should I? Can you really say anything different about science, art, literature, music, history, or even medicine? Specialists of all sorts have emerged in the past few millenia. That does nothing to invalidate the advancing thoughts about religion that culminated in the Lord's appearance through Christ, than the 18th Century's trial and error approach to medicine does to invalidate today's medical profession.

The history of medicine has never been a particularly attractive subject in medical education and one reason for this is that it is so unbelievably deplorable … bleeding, purging, cupping and the administration of infusions of every known plant, solutions of every known metal, every conceivable diet including total fasting, most of them based on the weirdest imaginings about the cause of disease, concocted out of nothing but thin air--this was the heritage of medicine until a little over a century ago.

--Lewis Thomas
American physician
1913-1993

The problem is that you suppose that while the world "evolves" religious people apparently do not in your estimation. We apparently have been on the very verge of oblivion for many centuries now and we always seem to come out stronger as a group because of it. Fear not for our faith; all indicators seem to suggest we're doing pretty well. We're even growing, unless you would like to ignore the empirical evidence as well.

[porkenbeans]

I did not say anything about what you teach your own children. I was clearly talking about Public schools.

Then you have quite successfully argued a point that is on the order of "The roads would be a lot safer if we had traffic laws" Religion is not legally taught in public schools in the USA. Thanks though, I will teach my kids what I choose.

The size or power of the church is also not what I was referring to. I was clearly reffering to peoples beliefs. This poll backs me up on that.

Here's where you stepped out on a limb. It says nothing about declining religious belief. It only states that some people think it's concieveable that somebody other than a Christian can get to Heaven. That's not a particularly big shock to me given that most Christians would probably tell you that Abraham, Moses, and Elijah at least went to heaven. It's not only mentioned in the Old TEstament, but the New Testament as well (The transfiguration). You're making the leap, based apparently on nothing more than wishful thinking. My stance, based on evidence from the scripture that these people profess to believe and world statistics kept about religious adherents, is that it just might say that people hold firmly to their faith without begrudging others their own beliefs. In this case I'm not using my faith to prove anything, but one can't ignore the teachings of a religion when examining it's adherents' opinions about those very same doctrines.

You have not addressed my contention that all religions are evolved from primitive superstitions.

Why should I? Can you really say anything different about science, art, literature, music, history, or even medicine? Specialists of all sorts have emerged in the past few millenia. That does nothing to invalidate the advancing thoughts about religion that culminated in the Lord's appearance through Christ, than the 18th Century's trial and error approach to medicine does to invalidate today's medical profession.

The history of medicine has never been a particularly attractive subject in medical education and one reason for this is that it is so unbelievably deplorable … bleeding, purging, cupping and the administration of infusions of every known plant, solutions of every known metal, every conceivable diet including total fasting, most of them based on the weirdest imaginings about the cause of disease, concocted out of nothing but thin air--this was the heritage of medicine until a little over a century ago.

--Lewis Thomas
American physician
1913-1993

The problem is that you suppose that while the world "evolves" religious people apparently do not in your estimation. We apparently have been on the very verge of oblivion for many centuries now and we always seem to come out stronger as a group because of it. Fear not for our faith; all indicators seem to suggest we're doing pretty well. We're even growing, unless you would like to ignore the empirical evidence as well.

You are forgetting that I was brought up in the church. all Christians are taught that the bible is THE word of god. No man comith onto the father but by me. How do you rationalize this contradiction. Are you saying that you do not believe Jesus ? Your side is constantly trying to get into the public schools. Who are you trying to kid ?

[CrazyAnglican]

I absolutely believe in Jesus. You, however, are forgetting that the last judgement hasn't come yet. Christ also says nothing about being a Christian in that verse does he, as there weren't any when it was stated? No, there is no contradiction. On the last day Christ can bring anyone unto the father whom he wishes now can't he?

Your side is constantly trying to get into the public schools. Who are you trying to kid ?

What are you talking about? I am in the public schools; haven't attempted a single conversion. In my first year teaching I had a girl actually cutting herself and making sigils with the blood. Freaked the other kids out. I calmly took her to the hallway and said "Look, I can't make a show of praticing my religion in the room, and neither can you". She looked at me incredulously, said "Okay"; and I never had a minutes problem with her after that.

[porkenbeans]

I absolutely believe in Jesus. You, however, are forgetting that the last judgement hasn't come yet. Christ also says nothing about being a Christian in that verse does he, as there weren't any when it was stated? No, there is no contradiction. On the last day Christ can bring anyone unto the father whom he wishes now can't he?

Your side is constantly trying to get into the public schools. Who are you trying to kid ?

What are you talking about? I am in the public schools; haven't attempted a single conversion.

You are trying to twist the poll. The poll suggests that Jesus is NOT necessary to get to heaven.

[porkenbeans]

I absolutely believe in Jesus. You, however, are forgetting that the last judgement hasn't come yet. Christ also says nothing about being a Christian in that verse does he, as there weren't any when it was stated? No, there is no contradiction. On the last day Christ can bring anyone unto the father whom he wishes now can't he?

Your side is constantly trying to get into the public schools. Who are you trying to kid ?

What are you talking about? I am in the public schools; haven't attempted a single conversion.

Oh, then all of these law suits by the Christian Coalition are just a figment of my imagination ?

[CrazyAnglican]

You are trying to twist the poll. The poll suggests that Jesus is NOT necessary to get to heaven.

I'm doing no such thing. You, with your love of science, should realize that the data is what it is, and the interpretation is open for debate. Show me where the data says what you think it says.

Oh, then all of these law suits by the Christian Coalition are just a figment of my imagination ?

As I recall, your side has had a fair share of them too, but wait they weren't really lawsuits because they were trying to force us to see the truth, right?

[Backglass]

You have not addressed my contention that all religions are evolved from primitive superstitions.

Why should I? Can you really say anything different about science, art, literature, music, history, or even medicine?

The difference is none of the those require a supernatural, invisible magician in order to exist.

[mpjh]

You have not addressed my contention that all religions are evolved from primitive superstitions.

Why should I? Can you really say anything different about science, art, literature, music, history, or even medicine?

The difference is none of the those require a supernatural, invisible magician in order to exist.

I take you point on religion, backglass. However art, music, and literature (maybe even history) still can lean on the illusion of an invisible magician. In fact probably history more than the others. Have you ever read the neocon version of Saddam's WMD?

[Backglass]

I take you point on religion, backglass. However art, music, and literature (maybe even history) still can lean on the illusion of an invisible magician.

While Medicine certainly once was once founded in superstition (and perhaps the other to a smaller degree) you have to agree that all but Religion have moved beyond these ancient ways.

Nobody today would seriously believe that your influenza is the work of evil demons or your musical talents are due to fairy's singing to you in your sleep.

Well...very few anyway.

In fact probably history more than the others. Have you ever read the neocon version of Saddam's WMD?

Brilliant.

[FabledIntegral]

I take you point on religion, backglass. However art, music, and literature (maybe even history) still can lean on the illusion of an invisible magician.

While Medicine certainly once was once founded in superstition (and perhaps the other to a smaller degree) you have to agree that all but Religion have moved beyond these ancient ways.

Nobody today would seriously believe that your influenza is the work of evil demons or your musical talents are due to fairy's singing to you in your sleep.

Well...very few anyway.

In fact probably history more than the others. Have you ever read the neocon version of Saddam's WMD?

Brilliant.

So because we haven't figured out how it works yet - although having discovered how the others "work," that disproves God? Hardly. The argument that religion evolved from cavemen had a perfectly logical argument that... everything evolved from cavemen. Whatever else comes what has been proven since is irrelevant to that argument involving cavemen themselves.

[mpjh]

Huh?

[Backglass]

So because we haven't figured out how it works yet - although having discovered how the others "work," that disproves God? Hardly. The argument that religion evolved from cavemen had a perfectly logical argument that... everything evolved from cavemen. Whatever else comes what has been proven since is irrelevant to that argument involving cavemen themselves.

Ok. So are you saying that Religion will eventually evolve like the others did to the point that you WILL be able to prove your gods exist ("figure out how it works") and not have to rely on myth, legend & lore?