T-14 Christian Environment Forum

[Bankhead]

The responses in this thread are a pretty good example of why some Christians feel persecuted in this country...

Certainly, if you completely misdefine the word "persecution." I don't think any Christians have been banned from TLS for their views, nor in the broader American scope have the been silenced politically––quite the opposite.

The first amendment gives private citizens the right to offend the sensibilities of others, and disagreement or even mockery are not persecution. The Christian martyrs who were thrown to the lions (re: my username, though Daniel survived), or who were burned, crucified or slaughtered by gladiators were persecuted.

Ok Mr. 0L quoting the first amendment.

I'm not saying it's illegal asshole, I'm saying it's in bad taste.

Also, I didn't say that I thought Christians were persecuted, I said that they may "feel persecuted".

[09042014]

I can't believe the rudeness -- these are people's religious beliefs.

I'm an atheist myself, but what the fuck guys.

Who the fuck cares. What is special about religious beliefs. I'll make fun idiots who believe in crystal power or homeopathy, why does calling it a religion make beliefs untouchable.

Also these same churches I make fun of, tell their flock that people like us are evil, so fuck them.

[DanInALionsDen]

I can't believe the rudeness -- these are people's religious beliefs.

I'm an atheist myself, but what the fuck guys.

Why do you feel the need to make fun of people's beliefs that are different from your own? You can't prove that you are right, and they are wrong. You're not that smart.

Do you not see the paradox in asking people who are non-religious to view religion as sacrosanct? As many on here have said, from their view religious stupidity is stupidity.

[DanInALionsDen]

The responses in this thread are a pretty good example of why some Christians feel persecuted in this country...

Certainly, if you completely misdefine the word "persecution." I don't think any Christians have been banned from TLS for their views, nor in the broader American scope have the been silenced politically––quite the opposite.

The first amendment gives private citizens the right to offend the sensibilities of others, and disagreement or even mockery are not persecution. The Christian martyrs who were thrown to the lions (re: my username, though Daniel survived), or who were burned, crucified or slaughtered by gladiators were persecuted.

Ok Mr. 0L quoting the first amendment.

I'm not saying it's illegal asshole, I'm saying it's in bad taste.

Also, I didn't say that I thought Christians were persecuted, I said that they may "feel persecuted".

As Christopher Hitchens said: When you get your opponent to go ad hominem, you've won. Also, weren't you the one who was just complaining about rudeness on this thread?

[Bankhead]

I'm just saying it's a dick thing to make fun of people's religious beliefs. Just like it's a dick thing to make fun of race, sexuality, etc. I do it sometimes, whatever.

I'm not saying religious beliefs are sacrosanct. I'm just saying that there is no reason to start acting like assholes just because someone says they are a Christian.

The argument isn't that deep. You don't need to alert me of paradoxes, etc.

[Bankhead]

The responses in this thread are a pretty good example of why some Christians feel persecuted in this country...

Certainly, if you completely misdefine the word "persecution." I don't think any Christians have been banned from TLS for their views, nor in the broader American scope have the been silenced politically––quite the opposite.

The first amendment gives private citizens the right to offend the sensibilities of others, and disagreement or even mockery are not persecution. The Christian martyrs who were thrown to the lions (re: my username, though Daniel survived), or who were burned, crucified or slaughtered by gladiators were persecuted.

Ok Mr. 0L quoting the first amendment.

I'm not saying it's illegal asshole, I'm saying it's in bad taste.

Also, I didn't say that I thought Christians were persecuted, I said that they may "feel persecuted".

As Christopher Hitchens said: When you get your opponent to go ad hominem, you've won. Also, weren't you the one who was just complaining about rudeness on this thread?

There is nothing wrong with including an ad hominem attack, so long as its tied in with an argument grounded in an actual basis.

My argument was that making fun of Christians who ask for help on TLS is in bad taste, and that your 1st amendment discussion was completely out of place.

Re: my rudeness can be distinguished from your rudeness because in your case, the OP asked for help. In my case, now we're just having an argument.

[DanInALionsDen]

I'm just saying it's a dick thing to make fun of people's religious beliefs. Just like it's a dick thing to make fun of race, sexuality, etc. I do it sometimes, whatever.

I'm not saying religious beliefs are sacrosanct. I'm just saying that there is no reason to start acting like assholes just because someone says they are a Christian.

The argument isn't that deep. You don't need to alert me of paradoxes, etc.

Religion is a choice, all of the other cited classes are not. People don't choose to believe that they are gay, or that they are black. People choose to believe that the earth is a few thousand years old, a choice which must not only be open to scrutiny, but which requires it.

[Bankhead]

I'm just saying it's a dick thing to make fun of people's religious beliefs. Just like it's a dick thing to make fun of race, sexuality, etc. I do it sometimes, whatever.

I'm not saying religious beliefs are sacrosanct. I'm just saying that there is no reason to start acting like assholes just because someone says they are a Christian.

The argument isn't that deep. You don't need to alert me of paradoxes, etc.

Religion is a choice, all of the other cited classes are not. People don't choose to believe that they are gay, or that they are black. People choose to believe that the earth is a few thousand years old, a choice which must not only be open to scrutiny, but which requires it.

Not sure about the gay part... is that a choice?

[romothesavior]

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."

-Thomas Jefferson (FTW!)

This is so true though... At some point, the ability to debate these issues of religion and science intelligibly falls away. Respect other people for their views? Yes, I can do that. But I refuse to respect viewpoints that are contrary to reason or are an outright rejection of reason.

[Bankhead]

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."

-Thomas Jefferson (FTW!)

This is so true though... At some point, the ability to debate these issues of religion and science intelligibly falls away. Respect other people for their views? Yes, I can do that. But I refuse to respect viewpoints that are contrary to reason or are an outright rejection of reason.

There are many Christians who are much smarter and more accomplished than yourself. Both in intellectual circles and outside of them. You are not enlightened about what viewpoints are correct vs. what viewpoints are not.

[DanInALionsDen]

I'm just saying it's a dick thing to make fun of people's religious beliefs. Just like it's a dick thing to make fun of race, sexuality, etc. I do it sometimes, whatever.

I'm not saying religious beliefs are sacrosanct. I'm just saying that there is no reason to start acting like assholes just because someone says they are a Christian.

The argument isn't that deep. You don't need to alert me of paradoxes, etc.

Religion is a choice, all of the other cited classes are not. People don't choose to believe that they are gay, or that they are black. People choose to believe that the earth is a few thousand years old, a choice which must not only be open to scrutiny, but which requires it.

Not sure about the gay part... is that a choice?

Are we going to move to that debate now? I'll give your question the respect it doesn't deserve and point you toward the American Psychological Association's scholarship on the matter, as well as the scholarship of biologists at large who've stated quite soundly that sexual preference is tied to biological factors such as the balance of testosterone and estrogen in the amniotic fluid of the baby in utero, which affects the development of the brain.

Perhaps you could make the case that the action of homosexual sex is a choice. However, it is homosexual desire, not homosexual action which makes a person gay.

[romothesavior]

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."

-Thomas Jefferson (FTW!)

This is so true though... At some point, the ability to debate these issues of religion and science intelligibly falls away. Respect other people for their views? Yes, I can do that. But I refuse to respect viewpoints that are contrary to reason or are an outright rejection of reason.

There are many Christians who are much smarter and more accomplished than yourself. Both in intellectual circles and outside of them. You are not enlightened about what viewpoints are correct vs. what viewpoints are not.

lol wut? I would never, ever assert that atheists are smarter, more accomplished, "better," etc. But even smart people can be woefully incorrect about all sorts of things. There are plenty of very accomplished, very bright Christians in intellectual circles and powerful positions. But really... what does that prove?

And really, I don't think what I'm saying (religion is antithetical to reason) is really that controversial. Christians make this argument all the time when they propose a "faith/science" or "faith/reason" dichotomy. In their worldview, faith is an area that is beyond the scope of reason. I don't see how my point that religion is a rejection of reason (or perhaps "exception to reason") is controversial or inappropriate; religious people concede this point every day.

[PlugInBaby]

--ImageRemoved--

In all seriousness Duke may be the school you are looking for. It is the only T14 school I'd probably never consider applying to...thus it may be a good fit for you.

[Bankhead]

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."

-Thomas Jefferson (FTW!)

This is so true though... At some point, the ability to debate these issues of religion and science intelligibly falls away. Respect other people for their views? Yes, I can do that. But I refuse to respect viewpoints that are contrary to reason or are an outright rejection of reason.

There are many Christians who are much smarter and more accomplished than yourself. Both in intellectual circles and outside of them. You are not enlightened about what viewpoints are correct vs. what viewpoints are not.

lol wut? I would never, ever assert that atheists are smarter, more accomplished, "better," etc. But even smart people can be woefully incorrect about all sorts of things. There are plenty of very accomplished, very bright Christians in intellectual circles and powerful positions. But really... what does that prove?

And really, I don't think what I'm saying (religion is antithetical to reason) is really that controversial. Christians make this argument all the time when they propose a "faith/science" or "faith/reason" divide. In their worldview, faith is an area that is beyond the scope of reason. I don't see how my point that religion is a rejection of reason (or perhaps "exception to reason") is controversial or inappropriate; religious people concede this point every day.

Faith being an area beyond the scope of reason is not the same thing as religion being a "rejection of reason."

[sluguy14]

Here's the thing:

Science does not exclude religion, nor does (most?) religion exclude science. You can make a pretty convincing argument that our best scientific data makes a very strong case for a creator. Likewise, you can make a very strong argument that science has been progressively making God "obsolete." So people on the one side who are quick to label religion as fairytale are, well, idiots. And people on the other who refuse to acknowledge scientific breakthroughs are just as foolish.

So just drop it. I'd be willing to bet serious money that no one (myself included) on this thread has done ample research to make an educated conclusion on such a fundamental, powerful life philosophy. So don't press the issue.

[Bankhead]

I'm just saying it's a dick thing to make fun of people's religious beliefs. Just like it's a dick thing to make fun of race, sexuality, etc. I do it sometimes, whatever.

I'm not saying religious beliefs are sacrosanct. I'm just saying that there is no reason to start acting like assholes just because someone says they are a Christian.

The argument isn't that deep. You don't need to alert me of paradoxes, etc.

Religion is a choice, all of the other cited classes are not. People don't choose to believe that they are gay, or that they are black. People choose to believe that the earth is a few thousand years old, a choice which must not only be open to scrutiny, but which requires it.

Not sure about the gay part... is that a choice?

Are we going to move to that debate now? I'll give your question the respect it doesn't deserve and point you toward the American Psychological Association's scholarship on the matter, as well as the scholarship of biologists at large who've stated quite soundly that sexual preference is tied to biological factors such as the balance of testosterone and estrogen in the amniotic fluid of the baby in utero, which affects the development of the brain.

Perhaps you could make the case that the action of homosexual sex is a choice. However, it is homosexual desire, not homosexual action which makes a person gay.

I don't want to debate that, but giving me your side of a spirited debate does nothing to put a chill on a heated question.

[Bankhead]

Here's the thing:

Science does not exclude religion, nor does (most?) religion exclude science. You can make a pretty convincing argument that our best scientific data makes a very strong case for a creator. Likewise, you can make a very strong argument that science has been progressively making God "obsolete." So people on the one side who are quick to label religion as fairytale are, well, idiots. And people on the other who refuse to acknowledge scientific breakthroughs are just as foolish.

So just drop it. I'd be willing to bet serious money that no one (myself included) on this thread has done ample research to make an educated conclusion on such a fundamental, powerful life philosophy. So don't press the issue.

Some people just think that because they got into a T14 or something that they are the shit and have everything all figured out. I'm sure some on this thread will turn to religion at some point in their lives.

You might also be shocked to learn that Christianity has a place in (and not aside from) intellectualism, and even law itself. We're all going into a profession where much of the doctrine stems from Judeo-Christian ideology.

[romothesavior]

Here's the thing:

Science does not exclude religion, nor does (most?) religion exclude science. You can make a pretty convincing argument that our best scientific data makes a very strong case for a creator. Likewise, you can make a very strong argument that science has been progressively making God "obsolete." So people on the one side who are quick to label religion as fairytale are, well, idiots. And people on the other who refuse to acknowledge scientific breakthroughs are just as foolish.

So just drop it. I'd be willing to bet serious money that no one (myself included) on this thread has done ample research to make an educated conclusion on such a fundamental, powerful life philosophy. So don't press the issue.

With all due respect, the bolded is just false. The VAST majority of the top biologists, astronomers, and other scientists who have studied the issues of life and creation are not religious. Something like 90%+ of the members of the National Academy of Science do not believe in a deity, while the number of people in the general American public who believe in a deity is around 90%. Clearly, science tends to undermine religious beliefs, not support them.

I'm not saying one HAS to be an atheist if they're a scientist, but most are. The evidence for "intelligent design" is weak at best, and anytime a school system tries to implement it, the general scientific community comes running with arguments against it.

[PlugInBaby]

Here's the thing:

Science does not exclude religion, nor does (most?) religion exclude science. You can make a pretty convincing argument that our best scientific data makes a very strong case for a creator. Likewise, you can make a very strong argument that science has been progressively making God "obsolete." So people on the one side who are quick to label religion as fairytale are, well, idiots. And people on the other who refuse to acknowledge scientific breakthroughs are just as foolish.

So just drop it. I'd be willing to bet serious money that no one (myself included) on this thread has done ample research to make an educated conclusion on such a fundamental, powerful life philosophy. So don't press the issue.

Some people just think that because they got into a T14 or something that they are the shit and have everything all figured out. I'm sure some on this thread will turn to religion at some point in their lives.

You might also be shocked to learn that Christianity has a place in (and not aside from) intellectualism, and even law itself. We're all going into a profession where much of the doctrine stems from Judeo-Christian ideology.

In my opinion the objective is to minesweep all the laws on the record where Judeo-Christian ideology is their sole raison d'etre. (derailing thread again)

[Mickey Quicknumbers]

Here's the thing:

Science does not exclude religion, nor does (most?) religion exclude science. You can make a pretty convincing argument that our best scientific data makes a very strong case for a creator. Likewise, you can make a very strong argument that science has been progressively making God "obsolete." So people on the one side who are quick to label religion as fairytale are, well, idiots. And people on the other who refuse to acknowledge scientific breakthroughs are just as foolish.

So just drop it. I'd be willing to bet serious money that no one (myself included) on this thread has done ample research to make an educated conclusion on such a fundamental, powerful life philosophy. So don't press the issue.

No, but we're old enough to access sufficient research to make educated decisions for ourselves. Lets not act like we're not knowledgeable enough for intelligent discourse on the matter.

[A'nold]

Well, you guys finally went there. Look, I can tell you that you are 100% ignorant of Christianity if you liken it to a fairytell or call it void of reason. Actually, after studying this subject quite objectively for many, MANY years, I can tell you that it is far more of a reach to say that existence was not "created," however you want to describe that. Something has to exist "out of space and time" in order for what we know to be what it is. All knowledgable atheists even concede this, but may not conclude that this was an actual design. It is all unknown. As for why those that believe in a creator that exists out of space and time believe in Christ, there is no other religion on earth that even comes close to matching Christianity. From the odds of prophecy coming true in the form of Christ to being the dates being supported by extrinsic evidence down to unbelievable accuracy, there is no other "religion" that has more intellectual followers.

[Bankhead]

Good post, A'nold.

I think some people are missing the point. I think Christianity is a bunch of bologna -- I just can't go there. Hell (no pun intended), I wish I were a Christian. They seem a hell (ok maybe pun intended this time) of a lot happier than I am. I think religion is colorable though.

It just pisses me off that a bunch of snot nose 22 year olds who think they have it all figured out can come on here and anonymously berate a Christian girl who asks a productive question.

[romothesavior]

Good post, A'nold.

I think some people are missing the point. I think Christianity is a bunch of bologna -- I just can't go there. Hell (no pun intended), I wish I were a Christian. They seem a hell (ok maybe pun intended this time) of a lot happier than I am. I think religion is colorable though.

It just pisses me off that a bunch of snot nose 22 year olds who think they have it all figured out can come on here and anonymously berate a Christian girl who asks a productive question.

I'm sorry to hear you're unhappy. But your anecdotal tale of unhappiness is not conclusive on this issue. Most atheists are very, very happy, and I personally feel like losing religious meant I didn't have to ask questions like, "Why did this happen to me?" or "How could god let that happen?" I'm a lot happier and more confident as a result. I hope you reach this point in the future too.

And I wish the OP the best of luck. I'm not trying to "berate" anyone, I just think it is odd to pick a school based on finding a good church (as some posters noted above).

[CX1329]

I also don't think religion and science have to be mutually exclusive. I may be in the minority, but I'm a Christian and I fully believe in evolution and the scientific theories for the advent of the Universe. I don't take the Bible literally at all, and I very much doubt it's supposed to be taken literally, especially when you account for questionable translations and the fact that metaphors are all over biblical texts. For instance, I refuse to believe that the story of Adam and Eve really did take place at some point in time. To me, it's more of a metaphor that describes the nature of man, and what man brings upon himself as a result of his own faults.

Interpreting the Bible literally is just as silly as construing statutes literally. Except that in the case of the latter, you can actually make a solid case for it.

[sluguy14]

Here's the thing:

Science does not exclude religion, nor does (most?) religion exclude science. You can make a pretty convincing argument that our best scientific data makes a very strong case for a creator. Likewise, you can make a very strong argument that science has been progressively making God "obsolete." So people on the one side who are quick to label religion as fairytale are, well, idiots. And people on the other who refuse to acknowledge scientific breakthroughs are just as foolish.

So just drop it. I'd be willing to bet serious money that no one (myself included) on this thread has done ample research to make an educated conclusion on such a fundamental, powerful life philosophy. So don't press the issue.

With all due respect, the bolded is just false. The VAST majority of the top biologists, astronomers, and other scientists who have studied the issues of life and creation are not religious. Something like 90%+ of the members of the National Academy of Science do not believe in a deity, while the number of people in the general American public who believe in a deity is around 90%. Clearly, science tends to undermine religious beliefs, not support them.

I'm not saying one HAS to be an atheist if they're a scientist, but most are. The evidence for "intelligent design" is weak at best, and anytime a school system tries to implement it, the general scientific community comes running with arguments against it.

Or perhaps this widespread atheism in the scientific community is due to the inability to objectively prove the existence of a creator- sort of like the opposite of Pascal's wager? (I.e. If you can't prove it through the scientific method, better to side against it). One might also say that human psychology contributes to the popularity of atheism. Religion played a very large role in past societies; we like to believe that we are more advanced, superior in our knowledge and understanding. Thus, we like to make obsolete those unproven systems which have colored our past.

But if one were so inclined, one could put together a convincing argument for the existence of a creator using some of the most current research in physics, cosmology, and biology. And while one cannot prove that "God" exists, one can put together the data that might lead one to the natural assumption of intelligent design.

In the end, I think one of the better arguments concerning the exclusivity (or lack thereof) of science and religion is this: Science explains how. Religion explains why.