Strange that somebody of such a mild temper and easy disposition would get so unnerved by that. Eventually everybody gets tired of this place though.
MadMax last post on 1-4 It looks like he left, but I think he has done that before...hopefully he will come back. DD
Hopefully he is just taking a little BBS vacation. I'm still not sure why the Christians feel they are being "bashed" through all of this. Actually, I do I just am a little disappointed that they are either unable or unwilling to step out of their comfort zone and be honest about what a detour from rational thought their beliefs require. Ask any Christian about Scientology and you will probably hear words like "crazy" "cult" "stupid" etc. Then ask them if Scientology is crazier than believing God impregnated a woman (technically his own daughter) from way up in Heaven and then the kid grew up, died, came back to life and then went back to Heaven and merged with God just to save us all from our sins. You might get punched in the face and you will certainly piss that person off. At no point will they honestly step back and say or think "you know, believing in alien spirits trying to possess us might not be any crazier than the supernatural beliefs surrounding Christianity." I've done it about four or five times and have yet to meet a Christian who will even consider that thought. Another example of how ingrained this is in their brains presented itself recently. My girlfriend's thirteen year old son is an atheist. Nobody pushed him in that direction, he just took what he learned in school and from reading on his own and decided it wasn't compatible with what he knew of Christianity . He knows I am an atheist and we discuss the subject as well as how his skepticism will affect his life both socially and professionally when he is older. Anyway, he said something vaguely and benignly "atheistic" around some Christian friends of mine one day and it apparently upset them. The next time I saw them they had to sit me down and talk about it. I got a mini-speech (only because I stopped them before it became a full blown speech) about how I was encouraging this kid to not believe in God and how it was borderline child abuse. The unintended insults they delivered were awesome. Their point basically boiled down to that I am flawed as a person because I am an atheist and I owe it to this kid to at least let Christ in his life. No, make that force Christ into his life and if he decides as an adult Christianity isn't for him then he can walk away. My response was basically that this kid's mind is a blank canvas and what they see as "painting" that slate with Christianity I see as unwelcomed graffiti. I told them the kid made the decision to be an atheist and that's what he will be as long as HE feels that is what is right. The weirdest part about all of this is just a month or so before this happened one of the friends told me he was "basically agnostic" and the other friend (his wife) is someone I've know for years and who once read part of a Sam Harris book and told me afterwards "There is no logical reason to believe in God. I still do but I admit not believing makes so much more sense." So I get a Jesus speech from what I thought was an agnostic and a very open-minded Christian. Just another reason I'm skeptical about the motives and beliefs of these so called "tolerant Christians" and with more frequency people who claim to be agnostic (who obviously never looked up what the word actually means).
^^^ great post Dave. I'm really burnt out on long-winded spiels in this forum, but I have repeatedly in the past here railed against the ideology of "raising your kid $RELIGION". I think it's abusive. A while back I posted this, and it's a brief encapulation of why I think this way:
How is it strange for a person to be unnerved from matters of personal significance? Some people view religion as choosing clothes to wear. For others it can be like another body part or another sense. I see these religion threads that avoid understanding and discussion all the time, so I don't think it's your post in question. Not sure how much RM95 knows why Madmax left. That thread could be the straw that broke the camel's back.
Because MadMax has been through a thousand other, mostly worse, D&D spats before over religion and come out just fine?
Yep, I'm against it, too. I was raised without ever having to go to church or a religious school. My parents did this on purpose in order to raise me to make my own decision. My brother is now Christian. My sister still doesn't go to church (I have no idea what her belief is), and I'm an on-the-fence agnostic type. There is absolutely nothing wrong with your child having a different belief system than you; in fact, it's more right than anything. Let your kid make their own decisions and form their own beliefs.
Thanks for posting that again. I didn't see it the first time and I agree with it 100%. I'm glad at least one person read that book of a post above. :grin: It's weird to me that people look down on how I interact with what will be my step-son eventually. I try my best to encourage him to be an intellectually curious and open-minded kid. Now I'll bet any Christian reading this is saying "no Christians would discourage those things" but in the same breathe many of them want me to force this kid to believe something that directly contradicts those two principles? No thanks.
To the folks who responded to me a few pages back, let me say this: Yes, there are plenty of nut jobs out there and yes, if an entity as large, wealthy, powerful, and influential as the Vatican can allow for life on other worlds within their doctrine, well if that's not evolving, then I don't know what is. My only point was that Christianity has evolved and many, many Christians have allowed for science and their faith to co-exist, learn from each other, and continue to be beneficial to each other. And yes, I'm still very much a card-carrying Agnostic.
Some do, others view certain biblical verses as evidence of dinosaurs coexisting with man. There is heterogeneity among young earth creationists, just as there is among other groups.
I'm curious as to what your definition of "agnostic" is. The reason I ask is because the majority of self-proclaimed agnostics I meet don't know the difference between an agnostic and an atheist and are completely unaware that someone can be both without contradiction.
Not to misquote you, but you've often stated this. I suggest that it's simply not true. I'll reference you to a discussion MacBeth and I had back when I was much younger in this thread...http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=61364&page=6&pp=20&highlight=macbeth+twhy77+Aquinas That's easier to do than to rehash all the arguments again. Essentially logic leads you to a point where it recognizes it is incapable of knowing X (God, what's beyond the horizon, being, truth). Logic is finite. So when you reach the point where logic has come to know all that it can, you must answer the question, either there is something greater (God/truth/etc.) or there is nothing (atheism/nihilism/etc.). I don't think it's illogical to choose one over the other. I chose God because of Love, which I don't fully understand but believe exists.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but what I am reading here is that you are saying it is logical to believe in God but then you go on to say how logic won't lead you to believing in God so you have to realize logic is limited and make a leap of faith. Correct?
I'm curious if this kid had become a devout Christian and told you that only through the love of Jesus you would be saved what would you tell him?
Good post and as I have said repeatedly science and religion need not be in conflict except in the most shallow view of either. Just a tangent but not all of the Old Testament may be allegorical. There is lots of archeological evidence of great flood(s) occurring in the Middle and Near East along with stories from a few other religions in the region of a great flood.
You are misunderstanding, and maybe I can articulate it better. Logic leads you to a point where logic recognizes it's own limits and points towards something "other". The part I would correct in your characterization is that "logic won't lead you to believing in God". By following logic, you have come to the realization that there is something "other". Different philosophers answer the question of "other" in different ways, which are not illogical. It's not really a point that is in contention. I would check out Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles, Aristotle, Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments, or Nietzsche's anything. Maybe a less confusing way of thinking of it is by substituting "human logic" for logic. This distinction really is only made to show that God in himself could not be something illogical, like a square circle or something that violates the principle of non-contradiction.
