Why are you not a Christian

[GePap]

I am not a Christian because I was not raised one by my parents (who themselves were not Christians by the time they had me), and as an adult I have no seen or read anything to convince me that it is a faith worth following, anymore than any other religious faith.

[aneeshm]

Because I strive to live up to the ideal of the Arya man.

[aneeshm]

Jon, you may find this interesting, though completely against most of what you believe. It's a book about the history of Christianity, and how the entire Christ mythos comes tumbling down with the new information the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal about that period.

Link

[Jon Miller]

I and many other Christians are well aware of the dead sea scrolls. They are interesting but not near as 'revolutionary' as many make them out to be.

People who aren't believers often treat them as the death knell for Christianity, while many Christians treat them as additional evidence in favor of Christianity.

JM

[Wezil]

No facts will ever get in the way of a dearly held belief.

[BeBMan]

JM - "evidence in favor of Christianity" - evidence in what sense. I thought the deal with religion is belief, not search for evidence.

[Jon Miller]

Do you know what is in the dead sea scrolls?

JM

[Wezil]

Jon - I presume your remark was aimed at me.

It is irrelevent. Any facts that don't support your faith need to be disregarded. It is how organised religion survives with such bs stories in the modern world. Blind faith.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by BeBro
JM - "evidence in favor of Christianity" - evidence in what sense. I thought the deal with religion is belief, not search for evidence.

Evidence that scriptures (the OT) hasn't changed, for one.

JM

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by BeBro
This has sooo much potential for copycats.

Do it!!

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher

Leave it to a philosopher to express the opinion that original thought means you must never be an opinion others may have.

I think you've mistaken the process of thinking for oneself with having an opinion that other people may have as well. They are very different things.

Absolutely not, especially in your case. Your arguments' structure uses very common paradigms and patterns of truth.

I am an original thinker in that I don't align myself with any theology -- atheist nor theist, etc.

And that's what makes you a fool, thinking that you are the ultimate cause for your "reasons", while in fact they can easily be "genealogized".

While I'm on the subject, the opinions you express here are common. You must have no capacity for original thought.

Not that common, if only because I've done lots of philosophy and few people do. That doesn't make them necessarily better. But unlike you, I do admit that my opinions come from others who thought things through long before I came.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Absolutely not, especially in your case. Your arguments' structure uses very common paradigms and patterns of truth.

And that's what makes you a fool, thinking that you are the ultimate cause for your "reasons", while in fact they can easily be "genealogized".

The irony here is this is great example of spoon-fed bull**** from a philosopher.

Tell me, is my opinion that philosophy is a useless part of universities today common? Seems to me whenever we discuss this I'm the only one of that opinion, though Agathon's presence has been swaying people into my favour -- your posts help, too.

I am the ultimate cause for my reasons. As for "patterns of truth", I think you're confusing that with a much simpler concept of "consistency".

If you think my arguments exhibit very common paradigms and patterns of truth, then break down two arguments for me:
- Philosophy is a useless part of universities (and you know very well all my reasons for this)
- Firefox is better than Internet Explorer

Which patterns do these follow? What's the genealogy? The last one alone easily disproves this bull****.

And the fact that we're wasting time arguing about it -- especially now that you're descending into the territory of pseudointellectual bull**** philosophical terms -- just serves as another salvo for the first point.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Asher


The irony here is this is great example of spoon-fed bull**** from a philosopher.

Tell me, is my opinion that philosophy is a useless part of universities today common? Seems to me whenever we discuss this I'm the only one of that opinion, though Agathon's presence has been swaying people into my favour -- your posts help, too.

I am the ultimate cause for my reasons. As for "patterns of truth", I think you're confusing that with a much simpler concept of "consistency".

If you think my arguments exhibit very common paradigms and patterns of truth, then break down two arguments for me:
- Philosophy is a useless part of universities (and you know very well all my reasons for this)
- Firefox is better than Internet Explorer

Which patterns do these follow? What's the genealogy? The last one alone easily disproves this bull****.

And the fact that we're wasting time arguing about it -- especially now that you're descending into the territory of pseudointellectual bull**** philosophical terms -- just serves as another salvo for the first point.

Oh hell yes...

[Blake]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Plenty of faith is required. A Buddhist path requires faith that all other paths will bring inferior satisfaction and quality of life. Even if a Buddhist feels that every step along the path has improved their life they have not really demonstrated that the path will lead to the ideal lifestyle.

You are absolutely right but there is a difference between not having demonstrated to others and not having demonstrated to oneself. What other people believe about the Buddhist path, and what they believe about what I gain from it, does not effect what I gain from it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Darius871
Oh hell yes...

Oh yes, it's on! I'm just waiting for him to make it clear that his opinion is only students of philosophy can exhibit original thought. I know that's his fundamental cause for most of his arguments on here when he doesn't have a leg to stand on. He starts off tossing in the odd philosophical term, then he starts throwing them in like they're going out of style as he digs a deeper hole, hoping people say "whoa, big words in italics! I'm outta here!". Not me.

Ultimately, though, I just don't think he understands my arguments if they're cookie-cutter and follow-the-flow. By definition, people who are religious do lack those original thoughts.

Tell me, Boris -- are you religious?