Christianity is not a Religion

[Jack]

This appears to be nothing more than an attempt to find another way for some Christians to consider themselves special, unique, above everyone else including their fellow religious. It makes plain that religion, including Christianity, appeals to those who feel ordinary and common, and seek a community in which they can feel superior. Humility is as rare among the religious as it is humanity at large.

[Will_00]

This appears to be nothing more than an attempt to find another way for some Christians to consider themselves special, unique, above everyone else including their fellow religious. It makes plain that religion, including Christianity, appeals to those who feel ordinary and common, and seek a community in which they can feel superior. Humility is as rare among the religious as it is humanity at large.

This is incorrect. Noone is "better" then others.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Will_00 The necessity to categorize "Religion" in Christianity is virtually non-existent. It is the categorization of Christianity that defies "Religion."

I don't see how. Christianity defines itself as a relationship with God (chapter and verse would be nice). But unless it says "Christianity is not a religion" I don't see why it can't be both what the Bible defines is Christianity and what the world defines as religion.

[christianmathew]

hey,
I'm back, not that your really care.

I just wanted to say, that I could be swayed either way on this one, since I'm kind of not seriously debating.

Winterwind and Isherwood seem to have a lot of facts to back up what they are saying, though will does seem to be passionate, persuasive, and truly believing in what he is talking about.

I think that winter and Isher have the upper hand... for now.

[christianmathew]

also, this website has some good verses, winterwind, since I do not actually have my bible on hand for once.

[Winter wind]

I think you need to use the hyperlink icon, because I don't see the link

[Will_00]

Winterwind and Isherwood seem to have a lot of facts to back up what they are saying, though will does seem to be passionate, persuasive, and truly believing in what he is talking about. I think that winter and Isher have the upper hand... for now.

Ridiculous. Of course they use "facts" that aren't even facts. They are revised versions of perspective based on sinful freedom. E.g. People use "facts" to prove evolution - which of course is not true.

[Jack]

People use "facts" to prove evolution - which of course is not true.

We actually cite evidence which supports the theory of evolution, we don't make "factual" statements without means of support. Creationists and the ID crowd want to propose the idea of a creator without providing supportive evidence or bothering to explain why the evidence we do have suggests a natural, evolutionary process. If the ID proposition can't account for the evidence, it's not scientific. If there's no evidence to even suggest divine creation, why should we consider that a possibility?

Since the quote includes "of course", I would expect to see evidence that supports such an "obvious" conclusion.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: will_00 People use "facts" to prove evolution - which of course is not true.

evolution is logical

If you just think about the rules of genetics for a second, it really is the only possible answer.

[Will_00]

We actually cite evidence which supports the theory of evolution, we don't make "factual" statements without means of support. Creationists and the ID crowd want to propose the idea of a creator without providing supportive evidence or bothering to explain why the evidence we do have suggests a natural, evolutionary process. If the ID proposition can't account for the evidence, it's not scientific. If there's no evidence to even suggest divine creation, why should we consider that a possibility? Since the quote includes "of course", I would expect to see evidence that supports such an "obvious" conclusion.

evolution is logical If you just think about the rules of genetics for a second, it really is the only possible answer.

Did you not see the sentence preluding?

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Will_00 Did you not see the sentence preluding?

Of course they did.

Unlike you, however, Isherwood (and, though I'm not sure, Winter wind as well) abide my an empirical method of gaining knowledge. They use evidence assimilated and analyzed according to methodology, usually scientific.

So when you say

People use "facts" to prove evolution - which of course is not true.

...they of course find your statement unsupported. You say evolution is not true simply as a matter "of course," but as you do not provide any alternative "course" or methodology for determining evolution to be untrue, they ask you to provide evidence for why you came to that conclusion.

So either provide evidence to substantiate your claim, or show why your particular method of gaining knowledge, as opposed to facts and evidence, is of merit.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Will_00 Ridiculous. Of course they use "facts" that aren't even facts. They are revised versions of perspective based on sinful freedom. E.g. People use "facts" to prove evolution - which of course is not true.

First, physical sciences cannot prove anything, they can just verify theories until they fail, which didn't happen yet with evolution.
Can you do better? Have you got a "fact" proving biblical creationism? No, you just rely on an mythology book written by Middle-East shepherds, and you are proud to tell us that you blindly believe in its primitive interpretation of nature.
Your worthless attempts to disprove evolution cannot in no possible way prove creationism: it would just lead us to produce a stronger, post-evolution theory based on observations of nature and mistakes from the previous theory. Not your fairytale. Why? Because it failed! Get it? It didn't just failed to explain nature and it isn't just looking like a walt disney thing, it is barely going against how nature works, it is going against what it was supposed to create.
Forget it. God is dead said Nietzsche.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: fangrim and, though I'm not sure, Winter wind as well

I feel bathed in your confidence. :)

But we are grossly off topic.

Quote by: Will_00 The necessity to categorize "Religion" in Christianity is virtually non-existent. It is the categorization of Christianity that defies "Religion

I don't see how. Christianity defines itself as a relationship with God (chapter and verse would be nice). But unless it says "Christianity is not a religion" I don't see why it can't be both what the Bible defines is Christianity and what the world defines as religion.

I posted that earlier before we got side tracked. Please continue Will_00.

[Delta One]

Quote by: Isherwood But it does, as it is evidence of the limited scope of that belief. The fact only a limited, well-defined group of people accept it as truth makes it evident that it's not a universal reality. Jews don't agree with Christianity, neither does Islam. What makes Christianity "right" and everyone else "wrong"? Only the determination of Christians.

Then believing anything is useless. What you are implying is that there is no absolute, but there is always an absolute, and that is Christiantiy. The pen thing is certainly analogous to what the subject is. Someone may see the pen as blue in their eyes, as you see Christianity as "just one belief system," but the pen is actually black, according to the manufacturer, just like Christianity is the absolute thing that will get you to heaven. It is not an opinion at all. It is your opinion that you think it is an opinion, the statements that Christianity is not a religion is fact, and that it will get you to heaven is fact. The point is, is that there is always an absolute, and in this case, the absolute is Christianity, not Judaism, or Islam.

[Jack]

What you are implying is that there is no absolute, but there is always an absolute

I disagree, but since you provide no irrefutable evidence to support your opinion I have nothing to challenge. Christians can postulate their god forever, but without some evidence with more substance than their one, dubious book and their word, I'm not likely to be convinced.

There may be universal truths, but they'd originate from physics or mathematics, not religion. Since we're limited to this one planet, we have no means of testing a "universal truth" anyway.

Christians can believe their mythology applies to everyone, but no one outside their group will agree.

[Delta One]

Quote by: Isherwood I disagree, but since you provide no irrefutable evidence to support your opinion I have nothing to challenge. Christians can postulate their god forever, but without some evidence with more substance than their one, dubious book and their word, I'm not likely to be convinced. There may be universal truths, but they'd originate from physics or mathematics, not religion. Since we're limited to this one planet, we have no means of testing a "universal truth" anyway. Christians can believe their mythology applies to everyone, but no one outside their group will agree.

That is precisely what will land you in hell. The use of intellectuality and opinions is utterly unnecessary. It is not mythology at all. You could say that you are a human, and people will think that you aren't, even though there is biological evidence, but people will still not believe you. It is the same with evolution and atheism.

[Jack]

You could say that you are a human, and people will think that you aren't, even though there is biological evidence, but people will still not believe you.

Then they are idiots, plain and simple. If they have knowledge that contradicts their beliefs and choose to ignore the knowledge in favor of unsubstantiated beliefs, I have no respect for their intelligence or ability to distinguish reality from fantasy.

That is precisely what will land you in hell.

No one has ever shown that hell exists. I don't accept fantasy as reality.

The use of intellectuality and opinions is utterly unnecessary.

Within Christianity, I agree. That's another similarity it shares with other religions.

It is not mythology at all.

It's not all mythology, but the vast majority of it is.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Delta one That is precisely what will land you in hell. The use of intellectuality and opinions is utterly unnecessary. It is not mythology at all. You could say that you are a human, and people will think that you aren't, even though there is biological evidence, but people will still not believe you. It is the same with evolution and atheism.

What evidence is there for Christianity?
Other then faith experiences I hope we both share, what evidence is there. How do you convince Isherwood? How do you save him from hell?

Christian Republican

Like the good old debates from the other forums.

[Will_00]

Of course they did. Unlike you, however, Isherwood (and, though I'm not sure, Winter wind as well) abide my an empirical method of gaining knowledge. They use evidence assimilated and analyzed according to methodology, usually scientific. So when you say

...they of course find your statement unsupported. You say evolution is not true simply as a matter "of course," but as you do not provide any alternative "course" or methodology for determining evolution to be untrue, they ask you to provide evidence for why you came to that conclusion. So either provide evidence to substantiate your claim, or show why your particular method of gaining knowledge, as opposed to facts and evidence, is of merit.

[quote]First, physical sciences cannot prove anything, they can just verify theories until they fail, which didn't happen yet with evolution.
Can you do better? Have you got a "fact" proving biblical creationism? No, you just rely on an mythology book written by Middle-East shepherds, and you are proud to tell us that you blindly believe in its primitive interpretation of nature.
Your worthless attempts to disprove evolution cannot in no possible way prove creationism: it would just lead us to produce a stronger, post-evolution theory based on observations of nature and mistakes from the previous theory. Not your fairytale. Why? Because it failed! Get it? It didn't just failed to explain nature and it isn't just looking like a walt disney thing, it is barely going against how nature works, it is going against what it was supposed to create.
Forget it. God is dead said Nietzsche.[/'quote]

Do you have absolute proof for your methods?

I don't see how. Christianity defines itself as a relationship with God (chapter and verse would be nice). But unless it says "Christianity is not a religion" I don't see why it can't be both what the Bible defines is Christianity and what the world defines as religion. I posted that earlier before we got side tracked. Please continue Will_00.

If I was to do that you would simply go back with a ridiculous false testimony.

No one has ever shown that hell exists. I don't accept fantasy as reality.

Who has shown that facts make themselves true?

Within Christianity, I agree. That's another similarity it shares with other religions.

What if I was to say your "proof" only exists in Science?

What evidence is there for Christianity? Other then faith experiences I hope we both share, what evidence is there. How do you convince Isherwood? How do you save him from hell?

What definitve evidence is there for your "proof"? Give me proof that will change my belief - which is impossible.

[Jack]

Quote by: Will_00 Who has shown that facts make themselves true?

When an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Glossary of Scientific Terms, Evolution Teaching Workshop

(A fact is)A statement that is objectively true and can be verified.
ESOMAR - Market Research Glossary F

Information that has been objectively verified.
http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/l...e_Glossary.doc

What if I was to say your "proof" only exists in Science?

Since science comes to conclusions based on the evidence, existing only in science is a positive comment.

What definitve evidence is there for your "proof"? Give me proof that will change my belief - which is impossible.

All the evidence required to disabuse someone of their religious beliefs is available from a number of sources. If you have decided beforehand that it would be impossible to alter your opinions, then you aren't approaching the evidence with an open mind, and by doing that you're assuring the failure of it convincing you. That's not a problem with the evidence but with its reception.