Jump to content

why i'm a christian


Recommended Posts

i've taken abilify to combat some earller bipolarism. i'm currently on some medication to fight any voices which i seem to now sometimes hear since atempting suicide.

the medications im on are ripisadol a divaporeox.

That's quite enlightening, actually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

On another note, why I'm an atheist: a rational desire to no longer lie to myself and continue with unnecessary mental gymnastics and dissonance. Said another way, I'm an atheist for the same reasons

(emphasis mine)  So, you're a Christian for the same reason most are.

So, A Christian, because it's easier than getting a real explanation of those experiences.

It is hypothetical scientifically all religion, but science includes hypothesis no matter how far fetched, the question is can that hypothesis be turned into theory, and that theory to fact?

 

 

You have the process backwards, you start out with facts, you form a hypothesis to explain the facts and if that hypothesis supports the facts then it becomes a theory. A theory, in science, is the end result of facts, laws, observations contributing to a hypothesis that, if supported by the list I gave then becomes a theory. A theory is as good as it gets in science, and like the theory of evolution, they are considered a body of knowledge that is always subject to change if new information comes in.

 

In general religion doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis and lies more in the direction of baseless claims and wishful thinking...

Link to post
Share on other sites

My 5 cents about it: don't believe. Believing things out of faith makes your mind rot. You have to think, and create your own system of thought based on reason and knowledge. Nowadays no one (not even the best scientists) knows 100% the answer of the big questions of the Universe: What is the mind? Is it mortal? What happens when we die? Is there a cosmic mind in some sense? And you can find reasons to support or reject these things. You don't have to believe. Just think, read, inform yourself about religion, science, philosophy, and create the most coherent system of thought you can, you don't need any revealed truth, any prophet or book, all you need is within yourself and your own judgement! And don't be Christian just because you were raised in a Christian environment. As some other guy said, don't let your mind be guided by emotions. Emotions are just an evolutionary tool that had a relevant use in the past, nowadays they're a bad instrument to use when trying to face the truths of existence. Use your reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In general religion doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis and lies more in the direction of baseless claims and wishful thinking...

It lies in the direction of,

"This hypothesis explains anything and predicts nothing."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could there be exceptions to the general situations?

 

 

I would have to say there could be possibilities but none that I am aware of, The parts of religious claims that can be tested are demonstrably wrong, the only ones not demonstrably wrong cannot be tested...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have to say there could be possibilities but none that I am aware of, The parts of religious claims that can be tested are demonstrably wrong, the only ones not demonstrably wrong cannot be tested...

 

OK, imagine we observe that Christians are able to pray for five hours over someone who has suffered an amputation, and the limb grows back. We set up experiments to monitor and measure more limbs as they're regrown, to make sure there is nothing other than prayer going on. We see that the limbs do indeed regenerate fully and consistently in a matter of five hours using prayer alone.

 

Further, we test other religions and find out that Christians are the only ones who can do this. We test people who used to belong to another religion, see that they fail to heal the amputee, then test them again after they convert to Christianity. We observe that now they can heal amputations like other Christians.

 

We'd have repeatable tests from which we could make further predictions. Once we isolated this ability and could find no other natural causes for such behavior, we could put together a hypothesis that uses the Christian religion as a natural explanation for this amputation healing phenomenon.

 

There's just nothing like that out there. You're right, Moon, it's wishful thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, imagine we observe that Christians are able to pray for five hours over someone who has suffered an amputation, and the limb grows back. We set up experiments to monitor and measure more limbs as they're regrown, to make sure there is nothing other than prayer going on. We see that the limbs do indeed regenerate fully and consistently in a matter of five hours using prayer alone.

 

Further, we test other religions and find out that Christians are the only ones who can do this. We test people who used to belong to another religion, see that they fail to heal the amputee, then test them again after they convert to Christianity. We observe that now they can heal amputations like other Christians.

 

We'd have repeatable tests from which we could make further predictions. Once we isolated this ability and could find no other natural causes for such behavior, we could put together a hypothesis that uses the Christian religion as a natural explanation for this amputation healing phenomenon.

 

There's just nothing like that out there. You're right, Moon, it's wishful thinking.

The problem is that you've assumed too much. It's like falsifying evolution by testing it under the assumption that hormones, not DNA, are the basis for heredity. Suppose that all religions have failed to accurately describe the real god. Its effects might be identified as yet unexplained laws, or else go unidentified because of their complexity. Science might eventually discover something like a god, for example the simulation hypothesis, and we shouldn't dismiss it just because 93% of the population has gotten way ahead of itself.

However, I reemphasize the uselessness of a hypothesis that can explain anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, if we collectively have failed to sufficiently describe the god to where it can be predicted, then how does any individual know that their observation was predicted by there being a god? It seems paradoxical.

Edited by MonDie
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You have the process backwards, you start out with facts, you form a hypothesis to explain the facts and if that hypothesis supports the facts then it becomes a theory. A theory, in science, is the end result of facts, laws, observations contributing to a hypothesis that, if supported by the list I gave then becomes a theory. A theory is as good as it gets in science, and like the theory of evolution, they are considered a body of knowledge that is always subject to change if new information comes in.

 

In general religion doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis and lies more in the direction of baseless claims and wishful thinking...

But science also includes thinking in the form of speculation, no matter how wishful. >:D

Edited by TJ McCaustland
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I would have to say there could be possibilities but none that I am aware of, The parts of religious claims that can be tested are demonstrably wrong, the only ones not demonstrably wrong cannot be tested...

What were examples of tests applied that you know of? Years ago I was looking to see if tests could be applied, but life has become busy along other lines of late.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What were examples of tests applied that you know of? Years ago I was looking to see if tests could be applied, but life has become busy along other lines of late.

 

 

The earth was created in six days come to mind, the earth was deluged by a world wide flood comes to mind, bats are birds comes to mind, there are more examples...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK, imagine we observe that Christians are able to pray for five hours over someone who has suffered an amputation, and the limb grows back. We set up experiments to monitor and measure more limbs as they're regrown, to make sure there is nothing other than prayer going on. We see that the limbs do indeed regenerate fully and consistently in a matter of five hours using prayer alone.

 

Further, we test other religions and find out that Christians are the only ones who can do this. We test people who used to belong to another religion, see that they fail to heal the amputee, then test them again after they convert to Christianity. We observe that now they can heal amputations like other Christians.

 

We'd have repeatable tests from which we could make further predictions. Once we isolated this ability and could find no other natural causes for such behavior, we could put together a hypothesis that uses the Christian religion as a natural explanation for this amputation healing phenomenon.

 

There's just nothing like that out there. You're right, Moon, it's wishful thinking.

Is this part of the Christian teaching in the first place?

 

 

The earth was created in six days come to mind, the earth was deluged by a world wide flood comes to mind, bats are birds comes to mind, there are more examples...

I wasn't aware Christians claimed bats were birds. What was the background to that, do you recall?

 

PS: The Jews had rules about what they were allowed to eat but these rules don't seem to affect Christians so we don't care whether we are eating a bat or a bird.

Edited by Robittybob1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ phillip1882, one of the cognitive abilities we have is imagining how something feels physically or emotionally. I have never broken a bone but I can imagine how it might feel. I do not have children but can imagine what loving one might feel like. Our minds can even imagine what isn't real. I have had vivid dreams where I was able to fly. I could clearly feel myself fying. It doesn't mean I was flying. I have had vivid romantic relations in dreams that led to real life physical reactions which cause me to wake up and need to shower and put on a fresh set clean underwear. It doesn't mean beautiful women had climbed into my bed while I slept.

You desrcibed feeling your body fill with light and your head melt away as if being eaten away by acid. We can all imagine what that may be like on some level. It doesn't mean it is real. Just as feeling pain watching someone else hurt themselves or feeling myself walk threw a wall in a dream doesn't mean either sensation is real. It seems you are practicing comformation bias. Considering the emotional state you were in perhaps that isn't a bad. You provided yourself with a reason to continue or feel uplifted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this part of the Christian teaching in the first place?

 

Faith healing wasn't part of the original doctrine, afaik, but has been introduced in some sects. Regardless, I was trying to give an example of the kind of event science could measure that might provide actual supportive evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

one of the cognitive abilities we have is imagining how something feels physically or emotionally. I have never broken a bone but I can imagine how it might feel. I do not have children but can imagine what loving one might feel like. Our minds can even imagine what isn't real. I have had vivid dreams where I was able to fly. I could clearly feel myself fying. It doesn't mean I was flying. I have had vivid romantic relations in dreams that led to real life physical reactions which cause me to wake up and need to shower and put on a fresh set clean underwear. It doesn't mean beautiful women had climbed into my bed while I slept.

Off-topic, but it's likely that these cortical mechanisms you cite are a large part of the reason we have religion and belief in god(s) in the first place.

 

Had a thread on it a while back (though the YouTube video IDs no longer properly render due to a forum software upgrade a few years ago).

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/37248-how-religion-hijacks-neurocortical-mechanisms-and-why-so-many-believe-in-a-deity/

He argues how our complex social interactions with unseen others (think visualization and mental rehearsal) are just one step away from communicating with a dead ancestor and one step further to communicating to a god or gods. He also illuminates our susceptibility to optical and other illusions, and how these same "gap filling" tendencies in the brain lend a giant opening for supernatural figures. It's called intuitive reasoning, and it underlines the essence of religious ideas, which are minimally counterintuitive worlds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Faith healing wasn't part of the original doctrine, afaik, but has been introduced in some sects. Regardless, I was trying to give an example of the kind of event science could measure that might provide actual supportive evidence.

Jesus healed people, and there were Christian miracle workers very early on. Take Gregory "the wonderworker" Thaumaturgus (213-270 AD).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Thaumaturgus

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to repeat (for you may not have seen my late edit) the Jews had rules about what they were allowed to eat but these rules don't seem to affect Christians so we don't care whether we are eating a bat or a bird.

So you are going to throw out the old testament completely?

Just to repeat (for you may not have seen my late edit) the Jews had rules about what they were allowed to eat but these rules don't seem to affect Christians so we don't care whether we are eating a bat or a bird.

 

 

What about the flood or a six day creation? A flat earth covered by a crystal dome with the sun and the moon fixed to the dome? How about stars being blown around by winds or coming down to fight with a man?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Faith healing wasn't part of the original doctrine, afaik, but has been introduced in some sects. Regardless, I was trying to give an example of the kind of event science could measure that might provide actual supportive evidence.

I would love to see the results of such a study.

So you are going to throw out the old testament completely?

 

 

What about the flood or a six day creation? A flat earth covered by a crystal dome with the sun and the moon fixed to the dome? How about stars being blown around by winds or coming down to fight with a man?

It would be interesting to throw away the Old Testament, at least in parts. The situations you quote seem rather poetical so I wouldn't propose they relate to any scientific reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is wrong. Science does a lot to minimize anything wishful in the process.

But it doesn't minimize the things that are wishful but hypothetically possible, it looks into them, such is the case of SOME of Christianity.

Edited by TJ McCaustland
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see the results of such a study.

It would be interesting to throw away the Old Testament, at least in parts. The situations you quote seem rather poetical so I wouldn't propose they relate to any scientific reality.

 

 

If you throw away the old testament you lose original sin and any need for a savior, the world wide flood is poetical? A flat Earth under a crystal dome surrounded by water both above and below is poetical?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.