The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The same tired old arguments from the unbelievers > Comments

The same tired old arguments from the unbelievers : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 31/7/2007

The scientific critics of Christianity conclude that once it is agreed that the miracles cannot happen then Christianity loses all credibility.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. Page 18
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. 21
  13. 22
  14. 23
  15. 24
  16. All
George,

Thanks for the very thoughtful repsonse. My feelings about the Church are quite ambivalent. I am constantly frustrated by the gap between what it could be and what it is. It could be prophetic, the leaven in the lump as it were. It could be the very presence of Jesus in our midst. In the end it is a very human institution with mixed motives, confused goals, erratic behaviours and so on. But in spite of its quirks and faults I still love it and respect its role in the life of the faithful. I could just as easily hate it for its faults but I dont. Its like having a good friend. You know them so well that you are totally aware of all their weaknesses but you continue to love them.
I firmly believe the whole cosmology debate is a huge distraction and is, overall, a negative in the Church's agenda. Pastorally, I know its difficult for the Church to shift its ground too dramatically. That would hurt lots of fragile people whose beliefs, however crazy they might seem to you and me, are very important to them.
In the end I am inclined to be very critical of those sloppy evangelical churches that serve up theological MILK all the time as if there is no meat to be had. There is a huge problem and they have to shoulder a large part of the blame.
Posted by waterboy, Friday, 17 August 2007 3:03:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George, I try not to ask car dealers anything as I have learned that they never tell you what you really want to know. Dawkins is simply an atheistic reaction to massive aggressiveness from the religious camps.

Personally, I find your defence of your favourite operating system quite irrational, the others perform just as well and have their own advantages, but I do find that macs perform much better for the computer illiterate. I have also never referred to "simple Christians", that's yours. I think that ALL Christians, simple or not haven't the foggiest idea of what a soul or mind or consciousness is. That doesn't stop them from proclaiming loudly that they do and trying to make laws based on their ideas.

As for Star Trek, there is nothing wrong with being a fan. just as long as you remember that it's just a story. You can get moral messages from stories, codes and ways of living your life. Many Star Trek fans do. But just remember that they are just stories. At least the Star Trek fans have the decency not to bother to try and lobby the government for funds or to change laws.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 17 August 2007 11:33:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,

The computer literate know too well that the Mac is technically superior to the other one.... and much more fun.... they also understand that they can only really make a living out of working with the other one. Life can be such a bitch!
Posted by waterboy, Saturday, 18 August 2007 12:21:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
waterboy, thanks for the kind words, though to be frank, I do not understand what you mean by cosmological debate: today cosmology is usually understood as part of physics, bordering on philosophy, but you have also the classical cosmological or ontological “proofs” of the existence of God. Perhaps you have in mind Christian theology (actually, theologies), the rationalised interpretations of the Old and New Testament, in which case I think that it is just a part of human nature, at least within the Western tradition, that you want to have a system in what you (are supposed to) believe (in).

I would say that rather then “shifting its ground”, the (Catholic) Church, is in a desperate need of improving, modernising its methods of serving humanity by proclaiming the message of Jesus, rather than its content, part of which can only be understood on a symbolic level.

Bugsy, well this thread is neither on car dealers, nor on Star Trek, nor on Macintoshes (although I agree 100% with what waterboy writes). I agree, there are aggressive people in any camp and the question of who started is a chicken-or-egg question. Nevertheless, I do not know of an aggressive contemporary Christian of the same academic prominence as Dawkins, though I know of aggressive (fundamentalist) Christians who, like Dawkins, are an obstacle for peaceful coexistence of Christians, other religious, and secular humanists.

“I think that ALL Christians, simple or not haven't the foggiest idea of what a soul or mind or consciousness is. That doesn't stop them from proclaiming loudly that they do and trying to make laws based on their ideas.” Well, it is hard to communicate with a person who starts (and apparently ends) a debate by proclaiming he knows what other people know, even what EVERYBODY he happens to disagree with knows. I certainly do not know what you have or have not a foggy idea about, therefore I tried to explain to you why you should not to make such sweeping statements. Apparently I failed.
Posted by George, Saturday, 18 August 2007 12:59:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

Its not the Catholics who are trying to sell creationism and intelligent design as if they were credible science.
Sells article specifically identifies medieval theology as being in sharp tension with contemporary science and the point is that there are still many in the Church clinging to medieval theology and its accompanying cosmology (the heaven and hell populated by disembodied spirits type theology us not limited to the Catholic Church). The mass exodus of educated people from the Church in the west is in part due to the Church's reluctance to distance itself from medieval theology and cosmology. Of 20mil Australians there are less than 200,000 still attending church regularly and they are mostly elderly. Sadly, the Church is dying and it is its own fault. The 'tired old arguments' of the Church's critics remain powerfully persuasive arguments in the eyes of most people... that is the 19mil++ well-educated Australians who dont attend church (attendance is what matters not nominal adherence). Sells defence against the 'tired old arguments' is to try to discredit them by labelling them but the reality is that they are persistent and effective criticisms of an anachronistic cosmology/theology that is still strongly identified with the Church.
Posted by waterboy, Saturday, 18 August 2007 4:17:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LSH...it has come to my attention....that you need some 'attention':)
(i.e. I read your interesting post)

I do appreciate your own honesty, but in your comments about 'pious' people you were far to general and broad. You also indicated some worrisome presuppositions, which appear to be more a product of a particular educational period, under the influence of identifiable philosophic views, rather than an objective assessment of 'religion'. (specifically the Christian)

You said:

This, (meaningless universe) I couldn’t agree more, is a rather scary thought. For the brave, healthy and honest atheists amongst us, we simply face up to this truth and live by affirming all that life has to offer.

Actually,I doubt very much that you are living true to your beliefs, so please excuse my 'brutal/rubber_meets_the_road/pedal2themetal way of expressing it.

If....you were true to your presuppositions, based on the history of mankind, you would be relentlessly seeking the following:

1/ Power, building a powerbase, attacking perceived enemies, making them your slaves.
2/ Self gratification. Taking their women, enjoying them to the max.

Now.. please don't argue with 'me' on this, but instead, turn the pages of human history and indicate where I am erring here.
Such is the plight of the 'honest' natural man who is affirming his meaningless and very time_limited existence.

When you think about it... in a meaningless universe there is no moral reason 'not' to do the above.

To suggest also, that this kind of thing does not appeal to men, is naivity and historic denial in the extreme.

Now..one last issue, 'anthropomorphic projections' Nope.. sorry. Such things when arising from 'men' relfect 'manlike' desires and wants.
In the case of Gods dealings with Israel, and his manifestation in Christ, it is the opposite. "This is a harrrrd saying, who can bear it" the followers said of Jesus. ."and many did not follow him after this" no, its not anthropomorphic in the way 'natural' religions are.
(i.e. about fertility, riches, abundance, security)

Please look to the real Jesus, rather than the 'mythical' one you are reacting against.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 18 August 2007 5:05:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. Page 18
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. 21
  13. 22
  14. 23
  15. 24
  16. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy