[PLUG-TALK] Religion is not bad...

wes plug at the-wes.com
Fri Oct 30 04:46:25 UTC 2009


On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Michael Robinson
<plug_1 at robinson-west.com>wrote:

> What influences us most certainly can be studied scientifically
> even if the influence is God.
>

Good. Show me a study that scientifically demonstrates that no man can do
good for a fellow man without the influence of God.

> I can't prove you're wrong any more than you can prove I'm wrong.
> > Faith is not about proof. In fact, those who teach faith actively
> > encourage their pupils to reject proof. You should know this as well
> > as I do.
> >
> > As per usual, you have only chosen to respond to the bits that are
> > convenient for you. Of course, that is your right, but it illustrates
> > perfectly the fact that you are only interested in serving yourself.
> >
> > I wholly reject your claim that God IS "working on" my heart. Maybe He
> > is, maybe He isn't, but it is not for you to tell me. Nor anyone.
> >
>
> You mean you know for a fact that it absolutely can't be proven that
> God is influencing you?


I don't know this, I didn't say that. All I said is, you can't prove it any
more than I can. Your faith does not give you the right to dictate my faith,
even if my faith is no faith.

You are such an expert on God Wes that you
> know he isn't influencing you and you can prove it?


I did not claim to be an expert on God. I don't claim to be an expert of
anything at all. I let my actions speak for themselves.

I was quite specific when I said "Maybe He is, maybe He isn't."

Maybe your heart
> is as black as coal and God doesn't work on it.
>

If I choose to do good, that's God's work. If I choose to do evil (or
nothing), that's Satan's work. Where's the free will you like to claim God
endowed us with?

Believing something isn't about rejecting proof.


It shouldn't be, but it usually is.

Having faith
> without reasoning is as bad as reasoning without faith.


Picking and choosing the bits of reason that are convenient and support your
faith, while rejecting the rest, is not reason.

The thing
> with faith is someone who has faith doesn't necessarily feel a
> need to prove what they believe, but that doesn't mean that an
> article of faith can't be reasoned about.


This is true of both people of faith and others. You can choose to attempt
to prove your beliefs, or not. I can choose to prove my beliefs, or not.
Chuck Norris is the only man who can divide by zero, Michael.

It can be scientifically
> studied if people of faith verses atheists are more or less likely
> to enter into conflict.  One can scientifically study and
> statistically analyze the marriages of people of faith verses the
> marriages of people without faith to see if one group consistently
> stays married longer than the other.


I'm glad we agree on this. I would enjoy seeing the results of such a study,
if it were truly conducted scientifically. However, I'm not sure what
exactly it would tell us. It is a wholly religious concept that divorce
constitutes "failure" of a marriage.

Faith is a way to see what
> our limited reasoning cannot show us.


Faith doesn't help anyone see anything. It is a crutch that allows people to
feel comfortable with what they cannot see. It provides an easy excuse to
avoid having to admit "I don't know."

Faith and hope are necessary
> for a person to experience love, a giving of oneself for the good
> of another person.  It is dangerous to trust someone, you can
> get hurt.
>

I trust people. That's different from having faith. For me at least, trust
is necessary to experience love. Yes, it is dangerous, but that's what makes
life worth living.

I take issue with your faith is taught statement.  Faith is a gift
> from God.


People are coerced into having faith by those who seek to gain power from
it. Faith is then forced upon the children of those who came before.

 You can not make a person believe something.


If I convince someone of something, did I "make" that person believe that
thing? If I "know" a fact, is that the same as "believing" it? I get a
little fuzzy on the finer points here.

I can not
> make you believe in God and likewise you cannot destroy my faith
> in Him.
>

Agreed. Nor would I want to try.

What is so bad about someone telling you that God may be working on
> your heart?


There is nothing bad about someone telling me that God _MAY_ be working on
my heart. I have a problem when you tell me that God _IS_ working on my
heart. You have faith in such. That doesn't make it fact.

What are you afraid of Wes?


I am afraid of someone who believes as you do gaining too much power and
forcing everyone to pretend to believe as you and he do. This is the only
reason I would ever criticize anyone's beliefs.

Why is your mind closed
> to God?


It isn't. But you have made it very clear that yours is closed to the FSM.

Minds should be open, not closed.
>

Agreed.

Do you ever pray Wes?  Do you ever ask God to open your eyes?


Not that it's any of your business, but I occasionally do things that could
be considered such.

You
> say there's no God


No, I didn't.

, but then how did the big bang happen?  Who or
> what created the very first whatever if indeed everything sprang
> from it?


I don't know. And I'm ok with that.

Why is there so much order in nature if the natural world
> is merely the product of random mutations over a long period of time?
>

Because the test of time showed that an ordered structure is the strongest
structure. By the way, while there is plenty of order in nature, there is
just as much chaos. Ever seen a 5-leaf clover? What's ordered about that??

Is 65 million years really long enough for an animal to evolve into
> what we are today?  I don't think it is.


I think it is. But doesn't the Bible tell us that the Earth was created 6
thousand years ago? If the Word of God is infallible, how can we have
evidence of 65 million years of evolution if the Earth is only 6 thousand
years old?

I say if you've ever loved
> anyone that God helped you do that.


I say you're wrong to assume that.

Man is fallen and cannot find
> his way without God.


Ugh.

It is possible Wes that you are lost and in
> your desperation you lash out at people who aren't lost.
>

I have to admit that I have a very poor sense of direction. My brother
inherited my dad's navigational skills. I'd never get anywhere without my
iphone. Can you give me the lat/long of heaven

Seeing something is proof of it.  And God said to Thomas, blessed are
> those who have not seen and yet believe.  Thomas put his fingers in the
> nail holes in Jesus' body.  Do you really think if the Apostles didn't
> see Christ resurrected that the bible would have survived intact saying
> they did?


Absolutely. The Bible is a most excellent tool for indoctrinating people
into the church. Indeed, it is useful for many things. A history book is not
one of those things.

How about the burning bush that was not consumed?  How did
> the Israelites survive on manna in a desert if the closest thing to that
> doesn't occur in sufficient quantities unless God did something?


Easy to answer: something else happened. What was it? I don't know. As soon
as we figure out time travel, we'll be able to figure that out.

What
> about non biblical sources about the times the bible is written about
> that add credence to it?


What about non-biblical sources about the times the bible is written about
that reduce the credibility of the Bible? What about conflicting versions of
the Bible itself?

Can you find secular accounts of the
> cruxifictions of people in ancient Rome?  How about the parting of the
> Red Sea?  What are the chances of the wind hitting the water with the
> right amount of force at the right angle for a corridor to open up
> from bank to bank and stay open long enough for thousands of people to
> cross?


I would imagine the chances of that happening are very low.

How about the account of Jesus meeting with fisherman who had
> caught no fish and filling their nets to bursting?  Why would Christ say
> time and time again when someone would touch Him hoping it would heal
> them, your faith has saved you?
>

I don't know why He would say that. I'm not convinced that He did. Or that
if He did, that it means the same thing you think it does.

The early Christians were hunted nearly to extinction by the Romans.
> There are non biblical accounts of this.  Nothing should have survived.
> In fact, the Catholic church has been around since Christ instituted
> it with Peter.  There is a line of succession all the way to the
> present Pope Benedict that is unbroken and yes you can scientifically
> study that.  That would be a genealogical study.
>

I agree that the church has existed. But its form today is very different
from the form in which it was created. The church operates in much the same
way Microsoft does. It sees something that works better or has more members
or users than it does, and it takes steps to eliminate that competition.
Either by squashing it, or by taking control of it and absorbing it into
itself using deception and coercion. I have a hard time believing anything
said by an entity that uses such tactics. I'm not saying that makes it
automatically wrong, but it certainly makes me very, very skeptical.

As far as the "...it is not for you to tell me," why am I not to tell
> you?


to reiterate, your faith does not give you authority over mine.

Is this how you deal with things/people you don't want to believe
> in?


I usually deal with things or people I don't want to believe in by ignoring
them. You seem to deal with them by attacking them. By engaging and
responding to you, I consider myself to have failed to live up to my
expectations of myself. But, now that I've stepped in it, I intend to see it
through to the end to the best of my ability.

I think you are your own worst enemy when it comes to God Wes.
>

... k.

It might be easy, maybe even fun to point a finger at me.


I'm not sure where/how I pointed any fingers at you. All I've done is
complain that you pointed a finger at me.

That pointing
> won't make me the problem Wes.
>

You are correct, pointing a finger at you will not make you the problem.
That's why I wouldn't do that. What makes you "the problem" is that you feel
that you have the right to tell us, or more specifically, me, what to
believe. And further, you feel that it would be desirable for government to
prescribe these beliefs as well. This is a very scary idea, to which I am
strongly opposed.

-wes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/attachments/20091029/a9cafe81/attachment.html>


More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list