A serious question for evangelical christians

[DeletedUser]

The first problem I see here is that you are taking everything very personal. Don't.

This whole discussion is getting very long winded, and most of the points are going in the wrong direction. After this I will continue the discussion on the points highlighted in red, as this was my initial point of discussion.

Again with the fallacious arguments, again you are stating what I would do, without me presenting statement as to what I would do. Putting words in my mouth is false argument, and it's crappy debate.

So you would keep on taking your kid to the church that they want to go to, even if you feel that the information they present is wrong or that they are attempting to play on your child's emotions in order to indoctrinate them?

By what I'm reading, your definition for deem means the same as believe (i.e., belief). I already indicated many times in the past that I don't hold to beliefs, of any kind.

That is an absolute ridiculous statement. Even the rejection of someone else's beliefs creates some belief system of your own.
You either believe in the existence of (a) god, or you don't, or you ponder the possibility. Which ever way, that is a belief you have. The question of living your life according to those beliefs is an entirely different matter, but claiming to not have any beliefs is just ridiculous.

If someone says something, and it is being presented as "truth," but they do not provide supporting evidence, you'll be sure I will indicate such to my child. If I hand you a box and tell you it holds millions of dollars in diamonds, are you going to take my word for it, or would you like see supporting evidence?

This is a topic for a whole other discussion. You are now venturing into the realm of "Is christianity right or wrong" which is not what this discussion is about.
My short answer: The absence of proof to the contrary creates the possibility that something may indeed be true, just as the absence of proof of truth creates the possibility that something may be false.
In the case of your box, there is a conclusive way to prove it either way, so I'd more than likely require some.
If the case was that there was no way to prove it either way, a million other things will be taken into consideration.

Again, fallacious reasoning. If I prevent someone from forcing my child to eat carrots, I am not preventing from eating carrots, I am preventing someone from forcing them to eat.

I did not say the other person was forcing them to eat carrots. I was saying that the other person was giving them carrots to eat.
It is the change in your mind between the 2 bolded words that leads you to claim fallacy, and not my statements.

If my child wants to eat carrots, they can eat the carrots without outside pressures. And ... what makes you think I'm going to force them to eat potatoes?

Because the 2 veggies represent the 2 parts of information, that which you agree with and that which you don't. Your child needs either potatoes or carrots or both, otherwise they will starve.

Nothing but your desperate effort at painting a false picture imposes the circumstances you present above. Give it up man, it's not the case and trying to make the case doesn't make the case, it only weakens your case, because in doing so you are showing how you view things.

Again, you are taking this way too personal. It clouds your judgment and makes you interpret what I say in the extreme.
This is not an attack on your parenting skills, something you seem very touchy about. It is a generalised (unless specified otherwise) discussion on the flow of information parents allow to their kids.

And here is your assumptive error. You think parents should, and do, control the flow of information to their kids. I don't. I don't think they should, nor do I think they do, at least not by default.

Direct question to you: *
So you will allow your young children to watch porno's, violent horror movies, read manuals on how to make backyard bombs or boil a cat for a meal?

There are those, such as the ones we discussed earlier within the Christian community, that try to control what a child learns, even force a child to learn select material, and this is not appropriate.

I will bold and colour this for emphasis:
Those people exist in all walks of life and in all communities. The fact that it does happen in christian communities does not mean that it is the norm in christian communities. Neither does it mean that christianity is wrong.

Whether you choose the assertive action of controlling what a child learns, or the aggressive action of forcing a child to learn select material, it is not appropriate. It does not encourage the child's development, merely the child's indoctrination into preconceptions held by others; a stifling of free will.

See my question above at *

Get it yet? Do you understand the fallacy of your perceptions in these discussions with me?

I get it, do you? Read the bold red part again.

You have a distorted perception of how teachers think. When I teach, I teach with interest and enthusiasm, but I don't push an agenda. Don't confuse my arguments in this community with how I teach, for they are different things altogether.

And you are avoiding my question and twisting it around.
The simple fact that a parent is naturally more excited when discussing (for example) cricket then when discussing baseball has an effect on a child.
If a parent tells a child that they must do something (or not do something) or else they will get punished, will play on the kid's emotions even while teaching them about actions and consequences. You cannot educate or even just communicate with a child (and most other people) without bringing emotion into the equation. Claiming then that you "won't allow others to use emotions to sway my child in one direction or another" either then means that you are withholding access to others from your child, or that you expect a complete emotionless interaction with your child. Hence my question about the presence of emotion when you teach your child.

Reasoning skills are a necessary part of comprehension. Teaching a child to develop their reasoning skills encourages them to evaluate available data, evidence, proof and lack thereof.

True. but it has very little to do with the emotions in context of my original question.

Perhaps you did not have good instructors, or you were subjected to the anvil of false argument as a means to push your belief (by the amount of fallacious reasoning you present, I'm inclined to think the latter),

I think we have established by now that my alleged fallacies are creations of your own mind.

but whatever the case, what you need to understand here is that "how" you think differs substantially from "how" I think. Where I may apply deductive reasoning, you seem to apply abductive reasoning, and thus end up with seemingly valid answers that are, in course of fact, often invalid.

The reasoning that "There exists the practice in christian communities that christian parents subject their kids to christian teachings, therefor people are forced into christianity, which is just another reason why christianity is wrong" that you put forth is then the correct one?
Is that your final answer?

Oh come off it. That's circular reasoning by convenient omission. You presented examples of indoctrination, de facto and imposed, some of which would be wrong in your book.

Please provide examples of these.

Now you're trying to argue that it is not wrong (a poor tactic considering people are able to read back at the posts presented).

Then please point to these posts.

But, more to the point, you're also avoiding altogether what I presented, which is that you argue others forcing their children, indoctrinating them, somehow makes it okay for you to do the same. It does not. This is another fallacious reasoning, in which two wrongs do not make a right. Just because others do it, does not make it okay to do.

I will bold and colour again to try and point out that yours is more like selective reasoning than deductive:
There is a fine line between teaching your kids what you believe is right and indoctrinating them. Every parent imposes their views on their kids, in some way or other. If you believe that you do not do this, or that this is completely wrong, then next time your kids have an argument, give them each a knife and let them make up their own mind whether they should stab their sibling or not, because you should not impose your (or society's) view, that murder is wrong, on them.
Where then do we draw the line of what we should or should not impose on our kids?
Of course kids should be taught to think for themselves. But that thought comes with a set of values and ideas. Values and ideas that are imposed by parents (and others) on to them.
Where do we draw this line then of what should or should not be included with that set of values and ideas?

Do you get it yet?

The fact that you teach your kids not to kill others (and I hope you do) is imposing that idea onto them. It even plays on their emotions, whether it be that they will be sad when that person is dead, or fear of jail time. Along with this comes many many more things that you push down on your child. In christian families this also includes christian teachings. That is not wrong. Just as it is not wrong for you to teach your child not to kill someone.

Dude, trust me, you really don't want me to do that.

No, really, please do.

 

[DeletedUser10480]

Careful, Hellstrom does not generally allow people to disagree with him for long.......

As you mature, you lose your faith in god. I am currently Agnostic, going on Athiest.

Agreed, there is no tenable sanction for this belief 'system'. Atheism is simply the absence of a belief. I do not believe in goblins. I am , "AGoblinist". I am "ALeprechauns".

There are several varieties of atheists. None of them mean that you have an incumbent political or ethical belief. That description only pertains to the mindset of what a certain man does NOT hold. He only does NOT believe something.

There are varieties of atheist. A critical atheist is a variety that claims to have knowledge that a god does NOT exist. He says as a god as described is not possible.

There is such thing as naive atheism which is the type ascribed to infants.

 

[DeletedUser]

Sorry, I accidentally lost this post by ir.ufis

Careful, Hellstrom does not generally allow people to disagree with him for long.......

You are preaching to the choir.

 

[DeletedUser10480]

For a time, it seems there is no room for dissent about various views from any perspective. There was no such thing as open speech.

 

[DeletedUser]

There's always room for dissent, as long as you do it within the rules.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmm, never noticed this post before...

So you would keep on taking your kid to the church that they want to go to, even if you feel that the information they present is wrong or that they are attempting to play on your child's emotions in order to indoctrinate them?

In the former, yes. In the latter, no. If the information they present is wrong, or I feel it is wrong, but my child wishes to attend, I will accompany and discuss it with my child later to ensure he/she is effectively using logic to examine what was presented. If it's wrong, I want my child to realize it on her own.

The latter, that of emotional manipulation, I will not allow my child to be subjected to that, no.

That is an absolute ridiculous statement. Even the rejection of someone else's beliefs creates some belief system of your own.
You either believe in the existence of (a) god, or you don't, or you ponder the possibility. Which ever way, that is a belief you have. The question of living your life according to those beliefs is an entirely different matter, but claiming to not have any beliefs is just ridiculous.

It may seem ridiculous to you, but your limited comprehension is not my problem. I examine things largely from a logical perspective. God, Allah, Buddha, etc, have never been demonstrated to me as valid. That is not to say one or the other are not, only that the arguments presented to substantiate their existence is illogical.

See, this is the part you're having a problem with, and it's probably the reason you use so much fallacious reasoning. Fallacious reasoning, false logic, is not right or wrong, it's merely the argument presented that is false. Saying, "Spot is a dog, therefore he is a chihuahua" is logically false. Spot may indeed be a chihuahua, but being a dog doesn't dictate that he is a chihuahua.

I did not say the other person was forcing them to eat carrots. I was saying that the other person was giving them carrots to eat.

Yeah, here it is again. It doesn't matter what you said, it matters what was initially argued. You attempted to change the frame of this particular argument three times now, with your rephrasing of content, and I'm simply not letting you.

Because the 2 veggies represent the 2 parts of information, that which you agree with and that which you don't. Your child needs either potatoes or carrots or both, otherwise they will starve

And this is a false analogy. A belief system is not sustenance, nor is it a necessity for existence. You just now tried to change the potato vs carrot metaphor into a literal comparative. Again, false logic, but you were being sneaky about it this time, so I'm reasonably convinced you're utilization of fallacious reasoning is intentional.

Again, you are taking this way too personal. It clouds your judgment and makes you interpret what I say in the extreme. This is not an attack on your parenting skills, something you seem very touchy about.

This is a presumption fallacy via projection. If you're taking it personal that does not mean that I'm taking it personally. It's also an attempt to infer that my judgment is impaired, which is essentially an ad hominem. This is easily demonstrated by the fact I don't have any kids, nor would I be all that offended if someone said I was a good or bad parent, since I'm not a parent. I.e., I'm not invested in this argument.

So you will allow your young children to watch porno's, violent horror movies, read manuals on how to make backyard bombs or boil a cat for a meal?

It's interesting isn't it? In one sentence you try to drop my guard by saying it's not personal, and then you ask personal questions about my specific parenting. Being that I'm not a parent, I can easily laugh at this ploy, but it does demonstrate just how devious you can be, not only to the readers, but to me as well.

I think we have established by now that my alleged fallacies are creations of your own mind.

No, we've established that you're using fallacious reasoning intentionally. We've also determined that you've opted to stalk me throughout this forum, demonstrating a "need" to win, which is counterproductive and not in the least something I'm interested in participating.

Enjoy your last words on this thread, and others. You've shown your colors and I'm no longer interested in wasting my time with deceptive debate, nor the persons associated.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmm, never noticed this post before...

And it would have served you better had you just ignored it.

Because what followed the above was simply the last remaining ramblings of someone desperately trying to save some face. Baseless accusations, desperately trying to dodge questions, unsuccessfully trying to shift attention from your own fallacies and shortcomings in logic.

But let me not just criticize you, and respond to each of your points:

In the former, yes. In the latter, no. If the information they present is wrong, or I feel it is wrong, but my child wishes to attend, I will accompany and discuss it with my child later to ensure he/she is effectively using logic to examine what was presented. If it's wrong, I want my child to realize it on her own.

The latter, that of emotional manipulation, I will not allow my child to be subjected to that, no.

So in essence you will control or attempt to control the information to your child (like I said earlier and you denied as a fallacious argument. You will basically tell sorry discuss the information they received. What if that child choses to believe the information and disregards your point of view? Would you still take the child to church? Or would this be the time where you claim emotional manipulation (or another reason) and remove the child?

It may seem ridiculous to you, but your limited comprehension is not my problem. I examine things largely from a logical perspective. God, Allah, Buddha, etc, have never been demonstrated to me as valid. That is not to say one or the other are not, only that the arguments presented to substantiate their existence is illogical.

So when you take away the jab at me, the logic you look for, and the fact that you deem god's existence illogical, do you or do you not believe that there is a god? It is really a simple question. So instead of trying to dodge it, rather just answer it so we can move along.

See, this is the part you're having a problem with, and it's probably the reason you use so much fallacious reasoning. Fallacious reasoning, false logic, is not right or wrong, it's merely the argument presented that is false. Saying, "Spot is a dog, therefore he is a chihuahua" is logically false. Spot may indeed be a chihuahua, but being a dog doesn't dictate that he is a chihuahua.

And I have no idea why spot is being referenced. It has absolutely nothing to do with the simple fact whether you believe there is a god or not.

Yeah, here it is again. It doesn't matter what you said, it matters what was initially argued. You attempted to change the frame of this particular argument three times now, with your rephrasing of content, and I'm simply not letting you.

So here was my initial argument on this:

If you only eat potatoes and prevents your child to eat carrots whenever anyone wants to give it to him, you are essentially forcing your child to eat potatoes.

So how did I attempt to change it? Your initial reply to my comment changed the words I used. Then when I point it out you come with your baseless accusations. Do you actually believe yourself? Everything is right there, yet you claim the complete opposite. Who are you trying to convince with your blatant lies?

And this is a false analogy. A belief system is not sustenance, nor is it a necessity for existence. You just now tried to change the potato vs carrot metaphor into a literal comparative. Again, false logic, but you were being sneaky about it this time, so I'm reasonably convinced you're utilization of fallacious reasoning is intentional.

A belief system is not sustenance. You don't say? That is an excellent observation.
nor is it a necessity for existence. Again, brilliant observation.
But you fail to comprehend (most likely intentionally) that you cannot be without a believe system. You have to believe either way on the god issue. You cannot escape it. Yes or no. Carrots or potatoes.

This is a presumption fallacy via projection. If you're taking it personal that does not mean that I'm taking it personally.

Oh you should really now stop just parroting everything I say back to me. It just shows a lack of originality and independent thought.

It's also an attempt to infer that my judgment is impaired, which is essentially an ad hominem. This is easily demonstrated by the fact I don't have any kids, nor would I be all that offended if someone said I was a good or bad parent, since I'm not a parent. I.e., I'm not invested in this argument.

Wow. I am almost speechless. The crap you are trying to sell.
Your previous string of posts in this thread you go on about what you would do regarding your kids and how you would raise them. This implies kids and parenting skills. Whether that is actual kids, or the idea of how you would do it in future it does not matter. My reference to the kids and your parenting skills (which you brought up and discussed) was just a literal of figurative as what you intended to portray them to be. Claiming now that you do not actually have kids, and therefor do not need to discuss these points further is a pathetic desperate cop-out. A sign that you have exhausted all your avenues and have been shown to be incorrect in all of them and now you are looking for an easy exit.
Stop trying to hustle your way out of this. Give proper replies or leave it. Nobody will care if you do not reply, but keeping up with this type of thing is just making you look silly.

And then you come up with this gem:

We've also determined that you've opted to stalk me throughout this forum

I would ask you to provide some proof of this, but we both know that this will not be possible.

Your desperation to tip the scales and save some face has reached epic proportions. I feel sorry for you. Honestly, I do.

... and not in the least something I'm interested in participating.

Enjoy your last words on this thread, and others. You've shown your colors and I'm no longer interested in wasting my time with deceptive debate, nor the persons associated.

Yes, it must suck for you to be constantly shown to be wrong.

You have a nice day now.

 

[DeletedUser]

No beliefs?

Hellstromm, I'm glad I don't waist my time anymore.

You're (faulty) system of logic leads you to the belief that there is no God. It is a belief.

 

[DeletedUser]

No beliefs?

Hellstromm, I'm glad I don't waist my time anymore.

You're (faulty) system of logic leads you to the belief that there is no God. It is a belief.

(claps hands)
What belief system do you follow, Justin?

 

[DeletedUser10480]

(claps hands)
What belief system do you follow, Justin?

I have an idea in a general sense of various things Hellstrom believes in. I disagree with most of them.

Why do you assert that someone that does not believe in god(s) has no beliefs?

I'd better get another set of beliefs! After all if this guy is being disagreed with and I am the disagreer and he has no basis for his knowledge (epistemology) then, buddy! I have been wasting my time!

I'll end this note before I confuse myself and require one of Hellstrom's left wing government bailouts to get me going again!
h34r:

 

[DeletedUser10480]

No comments?

 

[DeletedUser]

I've personally found it useless to comment on such threads, im only posting now so that dirty laundry will get a comment.

however, since im already posting, ill end on this note, those who believe in God, must give some mercy on agnostic/atheist/non christian/ or what have you.

those who are the above, mustn't classify those who believe in God or the Bible, as ignorant, gullible, idiotic, etc.

In my belief, how could a being such as a human come to be by simple chance? the odds are astronomical.

How could the Bible simply be a fallible book if it is historically accurate, and scientifically as well?

If science can't give me a straight answer like the Bible does, then why would follow the belief that leaves me with questions? I respect all of your beliefs, no matter what you may believe, all i ask is that you respect mine.

 

[DeletedUser]

I've personally found it useless to comment on such threads, im only posting now so that dirty laundry will get a comment.

however, since im already posting, ill end on this note, those who believe in God, must give some mercy on agnostic/atheist/non christian/ or what have you.

those who are the above, mustn't classify those who believe in God or the Bible, as ignorant, gullible, idiotic, etc.

In my belief, how could a being such as a human come to be by simple chance? the odds are astronomical.

How could the Bible simply be a fallible book if it is historically accurate, and scientifically as well?

If science can't give me a straight answer like the Bible does, then why would follow the belief that leaves me with questions? I respect all of your beliefs, no matter what you may believe, all i ask is that you respect mine.

Mmm... Now get rid of your signature as clearly you do not fit the description you made up on it.

 

[DeletedUser]

In my belief, how could a being such as a human come to be by simple chance? the odds are astronomical.

Find out for yourself rather than listen to a brain-washer, would you?

How could the Bible simply be a fallible book if it is historically accurate, and scientifically as well?

What is scientifically accurate here? :unsure:

If science can't give me a straight answer like the Bible does, then why would follow the belief that leaves me with questions?

Find out for yourself, could you? And, heck, science is not a belief for goodness' sake.

If you stop bashing science and worship your religion in this forum then no one would bother touching you. Stop roaming around to attract attention in such a childish way.

Apart from the evolution, the origin of the Earth and some universal issues, science have explained a lot and have helped you a lot throughout your life. If you don't believe/want/accept science why don't you and your religion leave the city and go live in nature, in caves and practice what you believe is truly life, truly justice, blah blah etc. I bet it would be fun.

Hell, the more your mouth keeps rubbishing in here, the more your inner weaknesses are shown. If you want the truth, find out for yourself. Believing in that brain-washer doesn't help you with anything but makes you worse (as everyone in here could clearly see).

Tell me, have anything better happened to you since you believed in that brain-washer?

 

[DeletedUser]

yes it has, but i doubt it for you. And it wasn't a brain-washer, it's the Bible.

 

[DeletedUser]

yes it has, but i doubt it for you. And it wasn't a brain-washer, it's the Bible.

So, you're saying Bible is another name for a brainwasher?

 

[DeletedUser]

Back On Topic:

There is a subset of people out there trying to spread their faith that I just don't get. These are the folks who hang out in the subway (I live in NYC and make a fair portion of my living at the moment busking in the subways) declaiming at the top of their lungs about how the folks passing by are bound for hell and should accept Jesus as their savior. Seriously, people in the subway are already grouchy, harried and in a hurry. If they ain't already Christian do you think that they are going to be particularly open to the overtures of someone who is telling them they are evil while assaulting their ears and impeding their forward movement while pressing unwanted literature into their hands? It hardly seems the most effective way to gain converts or even open a dialogue.

I completely agree with you, David. I have no problem with people evangelizing, but the scene you described is wrong. The reason preachers hit the subway is because they're trying to "reach the multitudes," and there in nothing wrong with that in and of itself, however it's the other things you described that are uncalled for and wrong. No one should ever yell hateful spew like that, especially while claiming to represent God. Furthermore, shoving unwanted religion at them will probably do more harm than good. Religion is something a person should embrace out of their free will, and never through force or compulsion. Good post, David.

 

[DeletedUser9470]

Hi all,
I was brought up in france where religion has been banned from school since 1789 and educated to believe the factual truth of science.

I have devellopped a hatred towards all religions for many reasons.
one main reason is because not one can base anything they say on any factual truths.
The answer to any issu raised is fundamentally flawed by the lack of any concrete evidence.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
​

- Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]

the second reason is that when you speak to someone who claims they know best and ask them a simple question, a load of nonesense comes back in the form of a reply:

"You get somebody to explain the trinity to you, they'll say "Well God, he's God, and Jesus is God as well, and the Holy Spirit is...(mumbles indistinctly)". "What?" "He's the fecund spirit of the Lord who impregnates Mary, then gets a bit up himself and is reduced to light clerical duties?"
and that sums up any religious thought."

- Bill Bailey - Part troll 2004

many more reasons down the line...
Last but not least.
Why do religious people feel the need to preech, convince, convert, impose themselves on others?
This gets to me big time!
We have this going on on a daily basis and we have forgotten about it!
Why do we have the church bell ringing noon sundays?
I dont want to listen to that! Why impose it on me?
You go to a muslim country and you have a bloke screaming at the top of his voice from a mosk tower.
I dont want to hear that! Why impose it on me?

There arent many places where you can get away from this, even if you go and live in a field or a desert you still have to put up with it.

For me grass is green because of how it refracts light, not because god made it green.

Fair enough if you want to believe some guy because he sounds intelligent and his saings make sense and gets you to believe hes telling the truth, but as far as im concerned I dont want to hear about it. its your choice, dont try and impose it on others.
Warring and killing and entire population "cos my imaginary friend is better than theirs but they dont want to abide" is BANG OUT OF ORDER.

This pretty much sums up religious thinking IMO.



Religion is a secte, it is a way for rich noobs to make money off poor noobs, and I think that the less people believe any of this rubbish and start learning about facts, then we might start making this planet a better place and maybe even get to move on to something else.

 

[DeletedUser14029]

Funny. You blame Christians for spreading their faiths, yet you are spreading your belief of atheism to convert them lol as the saying goes in the Bible, You can notice a pine in someone's eye but not the pillar in yours . . . or something along that line =.=

sounds like double-think to me, if you ask me >.<

it surprises me how people say existence of God is impossible, but choose to believe a theory of Big Bang that would make the existence of God sound real... really, do you seriously believe that following the great Explosion and trillions of years, a planet with just the perfect Eco-system (until we came by to blow it up), with a Sun at the excellent distance, a moon to cause tidal waves (now about the moon thing is what I heard from my dad. not sure if its right. . . not really a Physics pro here ^^), and some monkeys happened to learn how to behave like humans do now? ah, lol

According to Christianity God gave humans the right to choose. We can choose to do evil, or do good. We will be judged accordingly at the End of Days. Satan exists to tempt us and if we resist the temptations, strengthen our faiths in God. and the person you asked about Trinity - as I do not understand clearly too, I am not a Priest >.< - probably haven't studied about that. You can't pick an individual then blame the whole lot of 'em . . . just like I can't pick, say, a Chinese, an American, an Indian, a Russian, out of the billions of people, all 4 murderers and conclude that over 50% of the population of Earth are murderers since they come from countries that got over half the population of the Earth when compounded >.<


about your last line of comment - that religion is used by the rich to oppress & cheat the poor - that sounds quite like Communists propaganda to me, first-off (I appreciate TRUE Communist beliefs save for atheistic ideas) - and I admit from what people see starting from the 13th to 19th Century the Roman Catholic Church was corrupted and all, and waht you say is true. but again, you can't pick out a portion of the bad ones then claim the whole of 'em are bad, can you?!

 

[DeletedUser]

Neo, and i hate to comment on this kind of thread again, but you have only heard the false teachings of the sciptures, im sure you've heard the insufficient answer "you've just got to have faith" but that is bullcrap, the Bible does back up its credibility. But you have to be willing to at least listen, most aren't they just contradict without even thinking, but given you're an intelligent person, perhaps to will open your ear to what the Bible really says, and although you'll probably not change your views, you might change a few opinions.