Christian med students: how do you reconcile your religion with your profession?

[Frank22]

And that is why you have faith, and I don't. THIS IS WHY people are objecting to your 'concrete' arguments/evidence: they presuppose faith. That's not to say that anyone who disagrees with you lacks faith...they just recognize that if and argument is dependent on faith, it cannot be satisfactorily factually verified.

You also need faith to believe the theory of evolution, or believe the Earth revolves around the Sun, or believe that there aren't microscopic zombies in your head changing your memory every two seconds. "If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would be generally regarded as beyond all doubt." --F. F. Bruce, New Testament scholar and polymath.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Frank22]

I just try to put very minimal effort into being over your head. So far its been quite easy.

You've done a mighty fine job of making yourself look like an ignorant fool so far.

 

[SpecterGT260]

That was hurtful... and unnecessary.... *sniff*

 

[Frank22]

That was hurtful... and unnecessary.... *sniff*

k

 

[mehc012]

You also need faith to believe the theory of evolution, or believe the Earth revolves around the Sun, or believe that there aren't microscopic zombies in your head changing your memory every two seconds. "If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would be generally regarded as beyond all doubt." --F. F. Bruce, New Testament scholar and polymath.

No, actually, I don't. Perhaps you do. That may explain some of the issues we're seeing here.

 

[Frank22]

No, actually, I don't. Perhaps you do. That may explain some of the issues we're seeing here.

No.

 

[mehc012]

No.

Wow, what an enlightening response.

Seriously, though, it doesn't take an act of faith to determine that unlikely explanations are less likely to be true than explanations following demonstrable, predictable natural laws. That's called science/logic. If "expecting the universe to behave in the manner consistent with our observations of its past behavior" counts as faith, then getting out of bed in the morning is itself an act of extreme religious conviction.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I need faith to believe that I'm not trapped in the matrix. Every time I see a red or blue pill I eyeball the **** out of it and whisper to myself "I am the one....". Then I strike a sweet kung fu pose which freaks out all the old people because of my bitchin' trench coat and shades. But yeah, the moral of the story is that "faith" has a wide spectrum of meaning for people who don't understand the functional definition of the word and maybe we should all (as in all of SDN) just put Frankenweenie on mute before any more brain cells of the future doctors of the world commit suicide. Based on every thread he has participated in, it is clear that he has the personality and god complex of a rabid chihuahua. This thread had some productive elements in it before the pre-dent from Nowheresville Community College decided to come in and drop a knowledge void on us.

 

[Frank22]

Wow, what an enlightening response.

Seriously, though, it doesn't take an act of faith to determine that unlikely explanations are less likely to be true than explanations following demonstrable, predictable natural laws. That's called science/logic. If "expecting the universe to behave in the manner consistent with our observations of its past behavior" counts as faith, then getting out of bed in the morning is itself an act of extreme religious conviction.

It's called lack of absolute truth, and it's been known for the last 300+ years. The point is that we have good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, just as we do for the theory of evolution or any other established scientific theory. The point that you're making, that we need faith to believe in the resurrection is true for all things.

 

[Frank22]

I need faith to believe that I'm not trapped in the matrix. Every time I see a red or blue pill I eyeball the **** out of it and whisper to myself "I am the one....". Then I strike a sweet kung fu pose which freaks out all the old people because of my bitchin' trench coat and shades. But yeah, the moral of the story is that "faith" has a wide spectrum of meaning for people who don't understand the functional definition of the word and maybe we should all (as in all of SDN) just put Frankenweenie on mute before any more brain cells of the future doctors of the world commit suicide. Based on every thread he has participated in, it is clear that he has the personality and god complex of a rabid chihuahua. This thread had some productive elements in it before the pre-dent from Nowheresville Community College decided to come in and drop a knowledge void on us.

You mean before you lied about being a Christian and pretended to know something about something you knew nothing about? Though you never seem to be able to say anything meaningful or worthy of replying to, you do seem to have a knack for writing meaningless strings of paragraphs opulent in lame jokes and false accusations, I will give you that.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You mean before you lied .... false accusations, .

Seriously I can't tell if you're trolling or just very very oblivious to how ironic you're being. I think the answer to that is the only thing that keeps me invested here...

 

[Koalafied]

Concede or refute whilst adhering to the rules below, please.

How To Disagree​

• This is a pre-health professional forum and professional behavior and treatment of other users is expected.
• Users' posts are expected to contribute to the threads and discussions in which they take place.
• There are social threads and even an entire forum for posting random thoughts or unrelated content.
• A consistent pattern of not fulfilling these basic expectations will result in action, up to and including banning from the site in accordance with the Terms of Service which all members agree to at the time of registration.

If you are truly a Christian, I would strongly recommend you learn more about your faith; otherwise, you just discredit your claim of being a Christian and by association those of your ilk.

Given you contradicted yourself between those three sentences alone, I'm going to take it that that's as close as I'm going to get to an admission of defeat.

I provided a source by a reputable scholar to corroborate that statement, and I can cite numerous other meritorious scholars to consummate that that belief is not limited to a single esoteric scholar. The claim that all the evidence is "hearsay" is risible. Honestly, why not just admit you're wrong instead arguing yourself in circles and spewing vitriol? You only hurt your own credibility in doing so.

You need to be learned in the faith to know that Christians believe that Christ rose from the dead? I see what you're saying now, and the ridiculousness of it is laughable; you claim to be "learned" on the faith yet you jejunely questioned the evidence of Christ's existence; that is not an example of someone learned on the faith. It is, however, a mighty fine example of a fool who throws a tantrum when he is proven wrong and argues himself in circles, as you have done numerous times in this thread. When you were proven wrong about Jesus's existence you then tried to change the subject to my claim about the resurrection and claimed that that you didn't mean what you said you did. You are a pretend Christian and a coward. Pathetic

Actually, your butt buddy did question Christ's existence and claimed it was based on tenuous evidence, but you were to busy blabbering away about nothing to notice that. And I never said that Christ's resurrection was authenticated, or that it's historicity is based solely on the words of a meritorious scholar. That's called a "straw-man" argument; nice try though.

Again, I didn't say that Christ's resurrection was authenticated but better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history. Authentication requires full agreement, and that's why Christ's resurrection will never be authenticated. You then proceed with another lie: the reason why you lied is because you gave connotation that the evidence for Jesus's existence is weak, and when it was demonstrated that it was anything but weak you tried and are trying to pretend that that's not what you meant. You are also a liar because you claimed to be a Christian when you obviously are not. It's very common for new atheist cowards to pretend to be Christians and try to hurt the faith in such a manner however, so nothing new. I'm sure you're going to reply as you already have however through smiley faces and lame jokes, as you have through much of the thread.

An ad hominem is a dismissal of a person's argument by attacking his or her character rather than addressing his or her argument. I'm not surprised you aren't aware of that thou given the difficulties you've had understanding simple arguments in this thread. For example, your difficulty understanding the difference between "authenticated" and "better authenticated." You then laughably claim that that historian's comments were based on faith rather than a serious discussion of historical evidence, even though the historian specifically claimed that his belief in the resurrection was based on the copious historical evidence buttressing it. How are you going to do well on the MCAT if you can't complete such rudimentary rationcination

Continued below.....

 

[Koalafied]

If one removed the insults you've made in this thread we would be left with a few sentences . Try admitting your mistakes next time and maybe you won't dig your hole so deep. Hypocrite!

So the credible historian I quoted was lying when he said Christ's resurrection is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history? Do you even know what authenticated means? Authentication requires two elements: historical evidence and agreement. Christ's resurrection has more evidence supporting it than most of the facts of ancient history, and thus it can be regarded as better authenticated. However, because the majority of scholars do not agree that it ocurred it can never be regarded as authenticated. All you can do is claim that I'm misrepresenting you and am making straw-man argument; why not show us how I'm misrepresenting you and making straw-man arguments so we can all see. Or are you too scared to have your lies exposed again .

Try to save yourself through lies and insults because it's all you can do to salvage whatever little credibility you have left. Pathetic; deluded; cowardly; foolish. thumbdown

That's your attempt at an insult? Wow; you're sad.

Also shortly after Jesus's death the early Christian church exploded; what happened after his death that so rapidly made so many people to convert to Christianity? The answer is in Corinthians; Jesus appeared to some 500 men and women after his death, most of whom were still alive when that epistle was written. Even Saul of Tarsus, who had Christians put to death, claimed to see Jesus alive after his crucifixion. You really have NO idea what you're talking about; stop being so stubborn, pay attention, and you will learn something.

Yeah good excuse. Sad that you only understand when I give a scientific analogy.

If I were an atheist, I know I wouldn't want a Christian pretending to be an atheist and hurting my beliefs in doing so. I also wouldn't want someone to pretend that he is knowledgeable in my beliefs when he has no idea what he is talking about, and Specter has done both.

Christ did not command Christians to make bad arguments to hurt their faith as you have. You're really a sad human being; you pretend to be a Christian to hurt the faith, continue to argue when you know you're wrong, rely on lies and insults to keep yourself afloat. You don't deserve to be medical school.

I know you're in medical school, and you don't deserve to be; you have no integrity, are a liar and a fraud and a charlatan. And don't worry about me; if someone as dumb as you can get into a "professional degree-granting" program I'm not concerned.

Lying about being a Christian to hurt the faith isn't lacking in integrity? It is one thing to simply be nescient about the historical facts, but it is another entirely to lie about your religious affiliation then make very bad (and factually incorrect) arguments against the faith.

It certainly doesn't mean lying about being a Christian to hurt the faith! Do not make Jesus out to be some sort of over sentimental whimp; he preaches kindness and love for others, but also speaks authoritatively and powerfully. That being said, rebuking is still permissible within the Christian faith, so long as its non-violent. Too many people today make the Christian faith out to be some sort of hippie-like religion preaching finding "love in Christ." Yes, we believe salvation is found in Christ, but that doesn't mean we're mindless zombies who believe what we do on the basis of blind faith.

Calling a liar a liar is not being abrasive. A word to the not so wise: just because someone knows what he or she is talking about doesn't mean he or she is more guilty than the person who doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

How can you write so many paragraphs saying absolutely nothing?

Continued below......

 

[Koalafied]

You also need faith to believe the theory of evolution, or believe the Earth revolves around the Sun, or believe that there aren't microscopic zombies in your head changing your memory every two seconds. "If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would be generally regarded as beyond all doubt." --F. F. Bruce, New Testament scholar and polymath.

You've done a mighty fine job of making yourself look like an ignorant fool so far.

It's called lack of absolute truth, and it's been known for the last 300+ years. The point is that we have good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, just as we do for the theory of evolution or any other established scientific theory. The point that you're making, that we need faith to believe in the resurrection is true for all things.

You mean before you lied about being a Christian and pretended to know something about something you knew nothing about? Though you never seem to be able to say anything meaningful or worthy of replying to, you do seem to have a knack for writing meaningless strings of paragraphs opulent in lame jokes and false accusations, I will give you that.

Regardless of your "devout," do you even know what it means to be a Christian?

It certainly doesn't mean lying about being a Christian to hurt the faith! Do not make Jesus out to be some sort of over sentimental whimp; he preaches kindness and love for others, but also speaks authoritatively and powerfully. That being said, rebuking is still permissible within the Christian faith, so long as its non-violent. Too many people today make the Christian faith out to be some sort of hippie-like religion preaching finding "love in Christ." Yes, we believe salvation is found in Christ, but that doesn't mean we're mindless zombies who believe what we do on the basis of blind faith.

Really?

 

[Frank22]

Really?

And why don't you take the time to quote all of the meaningless paragraphs rampant in insults that the "Spec" has written? Just because he's ignorant doesn't mean he's innocent.

 

[SpecterGT260]

And why don't you take the time to quote all of the meaningless paragraphs rampant in insults that the "Spec" has written? Just because he's ignorant doesn't mean he's innocent.

This is the first think you've said that is correct in awhile. At least as far as the correlation thing goes. But you remain wrong about me in just oh so many ways

 

[Koalafied]

This is the first think you've said that is correct in awhile. At least as far as the correlation thing goes. But you remain wrong about me in just oh so many ways

♡♡♡ I concur. ♡♡♡

Spect,

Well, according to the SDN goddesses, it is now required that you quote me in your sig

P.S. MS Notepad+MULTIQ

 

[mehc012]

It's called lack of absolute truth, and it's been known for the last 300+ years. The point is that we have good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, just as we do for the theory of evolution or any other established scientific theory. The point that you're making, that we need faith to believe in the resurrection is true for all things.

No one ever said that the absolute truth was knowable...just that your evidence only points to resurrection if you start from the premise that resurrection is possible and happened. You do NOT have an equivalent body of evidence for the resurrection as there are for established scientific theories, because there are other explanations available which better fit within the observed probabilities and behaviors of the universe we live in. Scientific theories are explanations which best explain and predict the behavior of the world we live in, based on repeatable and testable observations of how the universe has behaved in the past.

Believing in the resurrection requires trusting that it happened despite being unable to demonstrate it or replicate it. That is faith. It persists even in the presence of evidence that the event was unlikely or improbable given the behavior of the universe we see around us.

Scientific theories require that future behavior can be predicted and modelled by a relationship derived from and supported by observations of past behavior. If a more probable explanation exists, a scientific theory may be updated or revised. It does NOT persist if an alternative is presented, and requires a replicable demonstration of its predictive power. This does not require faith beyond the baseline level of "I can use what I've observed in the past to predict what will happen next", which we use every time we move around, observe anything, or generally interact with the world.

 

[Frank22]

No one ever said that the absolute truth was knowable...just that your evidence only points to resurrection if you start from the premise that resurrection is possible and happened. You do NOT have an equivalent body of evidence for the resurrection as there are for established scientific theories, because there are other explanations available which better fit within the observed probabilities and behaviors of the universe we live in. Scientific theories are explanations which best explain and predict the behavior of the world we live in, based on repeatable and testable observations of how the universe has behaved in the past.

Believing in the resurrection requires trusting that it happened despite being unable to demonstrate it or replicate it. That is faith. It persists even in the presence of evidence that the event was unlikely or improbable given the behavior of the universe we see around us.

Scientific theories require that future behavior can be predicted and modelled by a relationship derived from and supported by observations of past behavior. If a more probable explanation exists, a scientific theory may be updated or revised. It does NOT persist if an alternative is presented, and requires a replicable demonstration of its predictive power. This does not require faith beyond the baseline level of "I can use what I've observed in the past to predict what will happen next", which we use every time we move around, observe anything, or generally interact with the world.

By claiming you need no faith to believe in evolution or other established scientific theories you are making claim to absolute truth. You are beginning with the premise that resurrection is impossible and then concluding that it didn't happen. That is called begging the question, circular reasoning, or et cetera. Moreover, you are trying to apply the scientific method to a historical event that contradicts neo-Darwinian naturalism; the establishment of a historical events relies on historical evidence, and in the case of Christ's resurrection, the historical evidence is robust. Moreover, soi-disant alternative theories do not stay true to the facts; in the case of Jesus's resurrection, we have scores of large groups of differing gender, age, emotion, and overall background claiming to witness what you would have to believe was a delusion over differing periods of time over a short interval; this contradicts all scientific evidence. Not only that but arguing that Christ didn't die on the cross is risible; the process of removing a person from the cross alone would cause Brobdingnagian damage, when coupled with the sanguinary scourging and actual crucifixion, which lasted for hours, makes any claim of survival laughable.

 

[SpecterGT260]

By claiming you need no faith to believe in evolution or other established scientific theories you are making claim to absolute truth. You are beginning with the premise that resurrection is impossible and then concluding that it didn't happen. That is called begging the question, circular reasoning, or et cetera. Moreover, you are trying to apply the scientific method to a historical event that contradicts neo-Darwinian naturalism; the establishment of a historical events relies on historical evidence, and in the case of Christ's resurrection, the historical evidence is robust. Moreover, soi-disant alternative theories do not stay true to the facts; in the case of Jesus's resurrection, we have scores of large groups of differing gender, age, emotion, and overall background claiming to witness what you would have to believe was a delusion over differing periods of time over a short interval; this contradicts all scientific evidence. Not only that but arguing that Christ didn't die on the cross is risible; the process of removing a person from the cross alone would cause Brobdingnagian damage, when coupled with the sanguinary scourging and actual crucifixion, which lasted for hours, makes any claim of survival laughable.

The first part here is true. But the absolutely Brittany-Spears-circa-2007 insane thing here is that your position all along is that science requires faith and the resurrection does not. Or at least that they require similar amounts. This is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus himself.

 

[mehc012]

The first part here is true. But the absolutely Brittany-Spears-circa-2007 insane thing here is that your position all along is that science requires faith and the resurrection does not. Or at least that they require similar amounts. This is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus himself.

The first part is only true if he ignores the part where I said "require no faith beyond..." and then went on to admit that there is a certain amount of faith inherent in simply interacting in our world and trusting what we see/hear and think. I think the bolded is what I was attempting to get at there (though I phrased it much better on the last page; he simply ignored it and restated himself, though, so I had to repeat it and it came out more awkwardly since he isn't going to listen to it anyway, so why bother being eloquent?)

 

[Frank22]

The first part here is true. But the absolutely Brittany-Spears-circa-2007 insane thing here is that your position all along is that science requires faith and the resurrection does not. Or at least that they require similar amounts. This is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus himself.

I've already acknowledged that the resurrection takes faith.

 

[Shjanzey]

I am sorry to Hijack this fascinating thread, but I am appalled that nobody has taken the opportunity to answer this man's question!

Note for the Lev. 25 comment:
Deuteronomy 12, Deuteronomy 16:13-14, Leviticus 22:10-11, etc. all show to "rejoice as one." These were just some examples of law where slavery was about eliminating base attitude. It wasn't even slavery, or indentured servitude as people in the New World can only come to think of the Hebrew term, "abad." In the New Testament, Jesus teaches to break out of human bondage in Matthew 11:30. Peter and Paul also write to break the bondage. And you don't see the word slave as often in the New Testament since there's an assumed Father-Son or master-servant relationship.

Post more random out-of-context verses that you feel so appropriate...

And as much as you disdain "Christians" for quoting from a "Bible with an unknown author," don't be so presumptuous to cherry pick a verse that's already been dissected in more books and words than this forum's posts put together for contextual meaning of the by scholars who put more hours into reading and understanding Mediterranean languages for a living.

But one thing to think about: if there's only matter and mind, what's love?

Baby don't hurt me...
don't hurt me...
NO MORE

 

[mehc012]

I've already acknowledged that the resurrection takes faith.

It can either require faith OR be proven/authenticated...you can't have it both ways.

 

[Frank22]

It can either require faith OR be proven/authenticated...you can't have it both ways.

You are presenting a false dichotomy; everything requires faith, including simple sensory perception, but how much faith one requires can vary. For example, the theory of general relativity requires some faith to believe, but the amount of faith is negliglbe due to the ample evidence corroborating it.

Let's say you, your little sister, and big brother are home alone, and you put a box of cookies on a shelf and told your siblings not to touch them. You then leave and come back to see that some of the cookies have been eaten. Who ate some of the cookies? At that point, you have to leave it entirely to faith to determine whether your little sister or big brother ate the cookies.

On the other hand, let's say you left the box of cookies on a shelf and came back to see that all of the cookies have been eaten and large shoeprints approaching the box of cookies. Who ate the cookies? You can probably assume that it was your big brother, even though you would have to put some faith to believe that your little sister didn't frame him.

The point being that, the more evidence available, the less faith we ultimately need to have to believe a theory, but we can never completely extricate ourselves from a need for faith due to a lack of absolute truth.

 

[SpecterGT260]

You are presenting a false dichotomy; everything requires faith, including simple sensory perception, but how much faith one requires can vary. For example, the theory of general relativity requires some faith to believe, but the amount of faith is negliglbe due to the ample evidence corroborating it.

Let's say you, your little sister, and big brother are home alone, and you put a box of cookies on a shelf and tell no one to touch them. You than leave, and come back to see some of the cookies are eaten. Who ate some of the cookies? At that point, you have to leave it entirely to faith to believe that it was either your sister, brother, or some unknown person in the house.

On the other hand, let's say you left the box of cookies on a shelf and came back to see large shoeprints approaching the box and all of the cookies eaten. Who ate the cookies? You can probably assume that it was your big brother, even though you would have to put some faith that your little sister didn't frame him.

The point being that, the more evidence available, the less faith we ultimately need to have to believe a theory, but we can never completely extricate ourselves from a need for faith due to a lack of absolute truth.

You're broadening your definitions to the point of meaninglessness. You're using this to fudge one direction in favor of your position and to fudge the other direction against anyone else's position.

 

[Frank22]

You're broadening your definitions to the point of meaninglessness. You're using this to fudge one direction in favor of your position and to fudge the other direction against anyone else's position.

I gave an extreme example because differences become more apparent at extremes and function well for didactic purposes. The central point to my argument, that all beliefs require some faith, is a refutation to "Meh's" argument that one still requires faith to believe in Jesus's resurrection. My point all along, contrary to what you claimed earlier, was that we have good reason to believe in Christ's resurrection, and not that we can know with absolute certainity that the Nazarene rose from the dead.

 

[mehc012]

You are presenting a false dichotomy; everything requires faith, including simple sensory perception, but how much faith one requires can vary. For example, the theory of general relativity requires some faith to believe, but the amount of faith is negliglbe due to the ample evidence corroborating it.

Let's say you, your little sister, and big brother are home alone, and you put a box of cookies on a shelf and told your siblings not to touch them. You then leave and come back to see that some of the cookies have been eaten. Who ate some of the cookies? At that point, you have to leave it entirely to faith to determine whether your little sister or big brother ate the cookies.

On the other hand, let's say you left the box of cookies on a shelf and came back to see that all of the cookies have been eaten and large shoeprints approaching the box of cookies. Who ate the cookies? You can probably assume that it was your big brother, even though you would have to put some faith to believe that your little sister didn't frame him.

The point being that, the more evidence available, the less faith we ultimately need to have to believe a theory, but we can never completely extricate ourselves from a need for faith due to a lack of absolute truth.

I'm sorry, but an assumption is not equivalent to having faith in something.
In that scenario, you might have faith in your own reasoning capabilities, or your observational skills, but you don't have FAITH that your brother ate the cookies. You have evidence which makes it most probable that he ate them, rather than someone else.

Faith implies some sort of loyalty to the idea, even in the case where an alternate explanation seems likely. For example, if I have faith in my brother and he tells me he didn't take them, I will believe his words despite the fact that the evidence is most consistent with a scenario where he ate them.

If I had faith that he ate the cookies, then if I later see a picture of my sister walking around wearing his shoes with a cookie in her mouth, I would continue to think that he ate them and look for an explanation that was consistent with both my faith-held belief (he ate the cookies) and the evidence...maybe "he photoshopped that picture to frame her for eating the cookies."

The extent of the faith required for science is faith that our observations are an accurate reflection of the world around us, and that consistent, repeatable behaviors of the universe will continue to be consistent and repeatable. If something is found which contradicts or advises current theories, these theories are updated to accommodate those new findings. In other words, we do not simply blindly hold to these theories; they are mutable.

 

[Frank22]

I'm sorry, but an assumption is not equivalent to having faith in something.
In that scenario, you might have faith in your own reasoning capabilities, or your observational skills, but you don't have FAITH that your brother ate the cookies. You have evidence which makes it most probable that he ate them, rather than someone else.

Faith implies some sort of loyalty to the idea, even in the case where an alternate explanation seems likely. For example, if I have faith in my brother and he tells me he didn't take them, I will believe his words despite the fact that the evidence is most consistent with a scenario where he ate them.

If I had faith that he ate the cookies, then if I later see a picture of my sister walking around wearing his shoes with a cookie in her mouth, I would continue to think that he ate them and look for an explanation that was consistent with both my faith-held belief (he ate the cookies) and the evidence...maybe "he photoshopped that picture to frame her for eating the cookies."

The extent of the faith required for science is faith that our observations are an accurate reflection of the world around us, and that consistent, repeatable behaviors of the universe will continue to be consistent and repeatable. If something is found which contradicts or advises current theories, these theories are updated to accommodate those new findings. In other words, we do not simply blindly hold to these theories; they are mutable.

Well then we are treating faith differently; I am regarding faith (in the context of our discussion) as a belief in something without fully knowing that it is correct (therefore requiring faith in every and any belief due to an aforementioned lack of absolute truth). You are regarding faith as loyalty to a belief because of partiality. Of course, the only difference between the two is that in the latter example the person in question has a subjective reason for wanting the belief to be true and holding onto it as a result, which is entirely irrelevant to the omphalos of our discussion; namely, that the most probable explanation for our historical facts is a resurrection. You can argue that a miracle is always the least probable choice, but you are then treating a miracle as a random event, and no one is arguing that Christ's resurrection was based on stochastic processes.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I gave an extreme example because differences become more apparent at extremes and function well for didactic purposes. The central point to my argument, that all beliefs require some faith, is a refutation to "Meh's" argument that one still requires faith to believe in Jesus's resurrection. My point all along, contrary to what you claimed earlier, was that we have good reason to believe in Christ's resurrection, and not that we can know with absolute certainity that the Nazarene rose from the dead.

Don't ever do research... even the "research" they do in dental school. I don't know if they would let you do any as a hygienist but you never know.

 

[mehc012]

Well then we are treating faith differently; I am regarding faith (in the context of our discussion) as a belief in something without fully knowing that it is correct (therefore requiring faith in every and any belief due to an aforementioned lack of absolute truth). You are regarding faith as loyalty to a belief because of partiality. Of course, the only difference between the two is that in the latter example the person in question has a subjective reason for wanting the belief to be true and holding onto it as a result, which is entirely irrelevant to the omphalos of our discussion; namely, that the most probable explanation for our historical facts is a resurrection. You can argue that a miracle is always the least probable choice, but you are then treating a miracle as a random event, and no one is arguing that Christ's resurrection was based on stochastic processes.

So in other words, we differ because I am using the word 'faith' correctly, while you are making up your own definition to suit your argument and try to avoid having to admit when you are wrong? Yeah, that was kind of my point. Why don't you use that dictionary which you keep pulling random words like "omphalos" (which, btw, you are also using incorrectly here) out of to look up the basic English central to your point.

My point is NOT irrelevant to our discussion, and I am not actually treating a miracle as a random event. I am treating a miracle as an event which requires the universe to behave in a manner which we have never, ever, EVER directly witnessed, recorded, or predicted from established models. Saying that is random is like arguing that it's random to expect a ball to fall downwards after I throw it into the air. It's less a question of probability than one of possibility. Furthermore, you can ONLY argue that the resurrection was a nonrandom event if you believe in god in the first place. Therefore, arguing for god and the resurrection requires faith. Otherwise, all you know is that it is equally likely as any other seemingly impossible event that we can come up with (say, little leprechauns turned him invisible, took him off the cross halfway through, projected an illusion onto the cross to avoid detection, and took him to shelter where it required 3days to recover.)

 

[Frank22]

So in other words, we differ because I am using the word 'faith' correctly, while you are making up your own definition to suit your argument and try to avoid having to admit when you are wrong? Yeah, that was kind of my point. Why don't you use that dictionary which you keep pulling random words like "omphalos" (which, btw, you are also using incorrectly here) out of to look up the basic English central to your point.

My point is NOT irrelevant to our discussion, and I am not actually treating a miracle as a random event. I am treating a miracle as an event which requires the universe to behave in a manner which we have never, ever, EVER directly witnessed, recorded, or predicted from established models. Saying that is random is like arguing that it's random to expect a ball to fall downwards after I throw it into the air. It's less a question of probability than one of possibility. Furthermore, you can ONLY argue that the resurrection was a nonrandom event if you believe in god in the first place. Therefore, arguing for god and the resurrection requires faith. Otherwise, all you know is that it is equally likely as any other seemingly impossible event that we can come up with (say, little leprechauns turned him invisible, took him off the cross halfway through, projected an illusion onto the cross to avoid detection, and took him to shelter where it required 3days to recover.)

Actually we differ in the fact that you're ignorant and are easily confused by simple concepts, and I am not. This is especially embarrassing in the light of the fact that I specifically denounced the sort of blind faith you're mentioning in some of my earliest posts in this thread, which is neither found in the teachings of Christ or the epistles of the apostles, and this is made clear in 1 Peter 3:15 and a superabundance of other verses found in scripture. Moreover your accusation that I'm using a dictionary and misused the term "omphalos" is comical; do not confuse your ignorance with an attempt to put on a facade. Besides that, your claim that you are treating a miracle as an event which has never been observed by an established model is so stupid I hesitate to respond; models are mathematical equations that govern physical theories, and a miracle by definition is God's will to alter such laws locally (in this case, manifest in the man, Jesus of Nazareth). As far as miracles in general are concerned, we have readily available evidence in the miracle of Fatima, the incorruptible corpses of saints, and others. And no, we don't need to begin with the premise that God exists to believe that Christ was resurrected; you are confusing a theological implication with a historical argument, so at best your argument amounts to "You can't argue that Jesus rose from the dead because the evidence would be too cogent for the existence of God [meanwhile many atheists, especially new atheists, have the temerity to argue that God doesn't provide enough evidence for his existence]." Also, your sardonic criticism is getting rather annoying as well; I'm trying to stay polite, and I would advise you to do the same.

 

[mehc012]

Actually we differ in the fact that you're ignorant and are easily confused by simple concepts, and I am not.

This is .

This is especially embarrassing in the light of the fact that I specifically denounced the sort of blind faith you're mentioning in some of my earliest posts in this thread, which is neither found in the teachings of Christ or the epistles of the apostles, and this is made clear in 1 Peter 3:15 and a superabundance of other verses found in scripture.

Sorry, but you can't just denounce the definition of a word.

Moreover your accusation that I'm using a dictionary and misused the term "omphalos" is comical; do not confuse your ignorance with an attempt to put on a facade.

You DID misuse the word omphalos. Your usage was neither consistent witht he definition nor the accepted usage. However, your usage would seem correct to someone who was just skimming through a dictionary without bothering to clarify anything.

Besides that, your claim that you are treating a miracle as an event which has never been observed by an established model is so stupid I hesitate to respond; models are mathematical equations that govern physical theories, and a miracle by definition is God's will to alter such laws locally (in this case, manifest in the man, Jesus of Nazareth).

...you just argued my point for me. Thank you!

As far as miracles in general are concerned, we have readily available evidence in the miracle of Fatima, the incorruptible corpses of saints, and others.

No, those are called anecdotes. Anecdotes ≠ evidence.

And no, we don't need to begin with the premise that God exists to believe that Christ was resurrected; you are confusing a theological implication with a historical argument

No, I'm saying that the conclusion "a resurrection occurred" is the result of starting from a conclusion and looking for evidence to back it up. That's not how science works. If you simply start from the evidence available, you would not be able to arrive at 'resurrection' by following the facts.

so at best your argument amounts to "You can't argue that Jesus rose from the dead because the evidence would be too cogent for the existence of God

...that...that has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying.

meanwhile many atheists, especially new atheists, have the temerity to argue that God doesn't provide enough evidence for his existence.

Cool story bro. I don't really think that qualifies as 'temerity' (how DARE they express their religious beliefs!) but please, continue defining words however suits you.

Also, your sardonic criticism is getting rather annoying as well; I'm trying to stay polite

You are utterly failing to do so. Remember this?

we differ in the fact that you're ignorant and are easily confused by simple concepts, and I am not.

The irony, it burns!

and I would advise you to do the same.

I can't recall asking for your advice, and you can remain assured that I have no intention of EVER doing so.

 

[Frank22]

This is .

Sorry, but you can't just denounce the definition of a word.
You DID misuse the word omphalos. Your usage was neither consistent witht he definition nor the accepted usage. However, your usage would seem correct to someone who was just skimming through a dictionary without bothering to clarify anything.
...you just argued my point for me. Thank you!
No, those are called anecdotes. Anecdotes ≠ evidence.
No, I'm saying that the conclusion "a resurrection occurred" is the result of starting from a conclusion and looking for evidence to back it up. That's not how science works. If you simply start from the evidence available, you would not be able to arrive at 'resurrection' by following the facts.
...that...that has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying.
Cool story bro. I don't really think that qualifies as 'temerity' (how DARE they express their religious beliefs!) but please, continue defining words however suits you.
You are utterly failing to do so. Remember this?
The irony, it burns!
I can't recall asking for your advice, and you can remain assured that I have no intention of EVER doing so.

I never denounced the definition of a term, but I denounced that type of faith, specifically when it's applied to the Christian faith. Had you bothered to read what I wrote rather than scan for superficial inconsistencies so as to acheive a petty win, you wouldn't have made such a jejune error. Secondly, my use of the term omphalos coincides perfectly with its definition, that is as a central point, whether of an idea, discussion, or object. I am not surprised that you would invest your energy in debating such petty matters as malapropos terminology; however, your pettifogging could at least be tolerated if you weren't in error all (or at least, seemingly all) of the time. One does not need to begin with the premise that Christ rose from the dead to come to that conclusion, as that is what is most consistent with the historical evidence. One does, however, have to begin with the premise that supernaturalism is false to conclude an alternative conclusion. Although you claim that I often don't understand what you're saying, much more frequently you yourself don't understand what you're saying, and I am putting what you're saying into context; the historical question of "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" is different from the theological implication that "God rose Jesus from the dead." Although you claim that one does not necessarily conclude that God was responsible for Christ's resurrection, you ignore that Jesus was a devoutly religious first century rabbi who claimed to be Jehovah incarnate, and was therefore most likely responsible for his own resurrection. My use of the word temerity is correct; their audacity does not emerge from questioning the religious faith, but dismissing the evidence than asking for it. As far as the difference between anecdotes and evidence is concerned; you are, yet again, confusing scientific evidence with historical evidence; both the miracle at Fatima and the incorruptible corpses of the saints are evidence that miracles occur and have occurred. As far as being polite and asking for advice is concerned... I said that I was trying to be polite, not that i was being polite, and it shows in the the fact that I didn't insult you at all in my post prior to my last one, but it is no surprise that you made such an elementary error given the deficiency in verbal comprehension you've shown throughout this thread; I guess I will have to continue to educate you on rudimentary matters.

 

[Sephiroth]

This is .

...you just argued my point for me. Thank you!

lol, that was good. though I doubt he's picking up on what happened there

One does not need to begin with the premise that Christ rose from the dead to come to that conclusion, as that is what is most consistent with the historical evidence. One does, however, have to begin with the premise that supernaturalism is false to conclude an alternative conclusion.

...

Although you claim that one does not necessarily conclude that God was responsible for Christ's resurrection, you ignore that Jesus was a devoutly religious first century rabbi who claimed to be Jehovah incarnate, and was therefore most likely responsible for his own resurrection.

are you seriously not seeing how you are treating this all as a given and that there's a problem there?

 

[mehc012]

I never denounced the definition of a term, but I denounced that type of faith, specifically when it's applied to the Christian faith.

It's not a "type of faith", it's the definition of the word faith.

Had you bothered to read what I wrote rather than scan for superficial inconsistencies so as to acheive petty win, you wouldn't have made such a jejune error.

I did read what you wrote, and it's not superficial. We were debating about whether 'faith' is required for something. The definition of faith is very central to the point. It is not, however, an omphalos, as if you actually had more than a superficial understanding of the terms you keep throwing around, you'd know that 'omphalos' is almost exclusively (and I say almost only because absolute statements are dangerous territory) used for actual, physical hubs and central points. It is not generally used in the context you were trying to force it into, though I can totally understand mistaking that if you only read the first sentence of the dictionary definition without encountering it in real writing or bothering to read the rest of the dictionary entry where the vague wording is clarified.

Secondly, my use of the term omphalos coincides perfectly with its definition, that is as a central point, whether of an idea, discussion, or object.

I am not surprised that would invest your energy in debating such petty matters as malapropos terminology; however, your pettifogging could at least be tolerated if you weren't in error all (or at least, seemingly all) of the time.

Of course, the only evidence we have of my error thus far are your frequent, rudely phrased accusations.
I will admit that I do jump on your inaccurate diction whenever it comes up...but that is because the problem extends far beyond the instances where you are technically incorrect...and because I think you are too stubborn and egotistic to comprehend my biggest criticism. After all, you are not even capable of admitting when you are using a clearly incorrect definition, so I hardly expect you to be receptive when I say that, in ALL of your uses of more obscure terminology, you demonstrate a complete and utter lack of understanding of the purpose and technique associated with using these words. You seem to have no grasp whatsoever on the appropriate way to select a word which a) conveys your point b) fits with your sentence c) is consistent with the nuances and context inherent to that term. There is a LOT more to having an expansive vocabulary than simply memorizing the gross definitions of a lot of words. The benefit of using those terms is that each one brings in nuances and context; if you have a diverse vocabulary you can select the word which most closely matches the attitude and meaning you are attempting to convey. While most of your usages are technically correct, they are ill-fit for the sentences you have crammed them into, and end up obfuscating your point rather than clarifying it. You not only divorce them from meaning and context; you select obscure words which barely fit your meaning when there are common ones which would work perfectly (or at least far better). You clearly have come by your vocabulary through research rather than actual reading, which is fine...but you need to start researching the terms more thoroughly if you want to stop sounding like a high school student trying to condescendingly impress someone after studying for the SAT (which is apparently something people do nowadays...there are even classes).

The rest of your post is simply a reiteration of the point you have been trying to make for a page or so now. My unwillingness to accept your responses on this come not from a lack of comprehension or having read them; they come from the fact that I responded to these arguments at least a page ago and yet you have not moved on, addressed my concerns, or really done anything other than repeat yourself while claiming that our disagreement is due to my stupidity. At this point, I can either repeat my position yet AGAIN, or ignore your endless broken record until you finally decide to either rephrase or address the actual arguments that multiple people have leveled against your position. Someone's gotta break the cycle. So I think I'll just stick to laughing at your endless litany of insults (and the irony of combining them with condescending advice for me to stop being so insulting).

One does need to begin with the premise that Christ rose from the dead to come to that conclusion, as that is what is most consistent with the historical evidence. One does, however, have to begin with the premise that supernaturalism is false to come up with an ulterior conclusion. Although you claim that I often don't understand what you're saying, much more frequently you yourself don't understand what you're saying, and I am putting what you're saying into context, the historical question of "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" is different from the theological implication that "God rose Jesus from the dead." Although you claim that one does not necessarily conclude that God was responsible for Christ's resurrection, you ignore that Jesus was a devoutly religious first century rabbi who claimed to be Jehovah incarnate, and was therefore responsible for his own resurrection. My use of the word temerity is correct; their audacity does not emerge from questioning the religious faith, but dismissing the evidence than asking for it. As far as the difference between anecdotes and evidence is concerned; you are, yet again, confusing scientific evidence with historical evidence; both the miracle at Fatima and the incorruptible corpses of the saints are evidence that miracles occur and have occurred.

As far as being polite and asking for advice is concerned... I said that I was trying to be polite, not that i was being polite, and it shows in the the fact that I didn't insult you at all in my post prior to my last one

You mother must be proud...you managed to NOT act like a tool in one post!!

but it is no surprise that you made given the deficiency in verbal comprehension you've shown throughout this thread

Aww, to fall so far after being so not-that-bad once in a row. That must hurt. It's OK; I bet your mother is still proud of you no matter what.

I guess I will have to continue to educate you on rudimentary matters.

Please do...though I thank you for giving up on the completely hypocritical tactic of condescendingly telling me to stop making snide remarks while you blatantly and unapologetically insult me to my face. I almost gave myself a hernia laughing at that one, and I would really prefer to avoid unnecessary surgery.

 

[mehc012]

lol, that was good. though I doubt he's picking up on what happened there


are you seriously not seeing how you are treating this all as a given and that there's a problem there?

Haha, thanks...and no, I really don't think he is seeing it.

 

[Frank22]

lol, that was good. though I doubt he's picking up on what happened there


are you seriously not seeing how you are treating this all as a given and that there's a problem there?

 

[Frank22]

It's not a "type of faith", it's the definition of the word faith.
I did read what you wrote, and it's not superficial. We were debating about whether 'faith' is required for something. The definition of faith is very central to the point. It is not, however, an omphalos, as if you actually had more than a superficial understanding of the terms you keep throwing around, you'd know that 'omphalos' is almost exclusively (and I say almost only because absolute statements are dangerous territory) used for actual, physical hubs and central points. It is not generally used in the context you were trying to force it into, though I can totally understand mistaking that if you only read the first sentence of the dictionary definition without encountering it in real writing or bothering to read the rest of the dictionary entry where the vague wording is clarified.
Of course, the only evidence we have of my error thus far are your frequent, rudely phrased accusations.
I will admit that I do jump on your inaccurate diction whenever it comes up...but that is because the problem extends far beyond the instances where you are technically incorrect...and because I think you are too stubborn and egotistic to comprehend my biggest criticism. After all, you are not even capable of admitting when you are using a clearly incorrect definition, so I hardly expect you to be receptive when I say that, in ALL of your uses of more obscure terminology, you demonstrate a complete and utter lack of understanding of the purpose and technique associated with using these words. You seem to have no grasp whatsoever on the appropriate way to select a word which a) conveys your point b) fits with your sentence c) is consistent with the nuances and context inherent to that term. There is a LOT more to having an expansive vocabulary than simply memorizing the gross definitions of a lot of words. The benefit of using those terms is that each one brings in nuances and context; if you have a diverse vocabulary you can select the word which most closely matches the attitude and meaning you are attempting to convey. While most of your usages are technically correct, they are ill-fit for the sentences you have crammed them into, and end up obfuscating your point rather than clarifying it. You not only divorce them from meaning and context; you select obscure words which barely fit your meaning when there are common ones which would work perfectly (or at least far better). You clearly have come by your vocabulary through research rather than actual reading, which is fine...but you need to start researching the terms more thoroughly if you want to stop sounding like a high school student trying to condescendingly impress someone after studying for the SAT (which is apparently something people do nowadays...there are even classes).

The rest of your post is simply a reiteration of the point you have been trying to make for a page or so now. My unwillingness to accept your responses on this come not from a lack of comprehension or having read them; they come from the fact that I responded to these arguments at least a page ago and yet you have not moved on, addressed my concerns, or really done anything other than repeat yourself while claiming that our disagreement is due to my stupidity. At this point, I can either repeat my position yet AGAIN, or ignore your endless broken record until you finally decide to either rephrase or address the actual arguments that multiple people have leveled against your position. Someone's gotta break the cycle. So I think I'll just stick to laughing at your endless litany of insults (and the irony of combining them with condescending advice for me to stop being so insulting).



You mother must be proud...you managed to NOT act like a tool in one post!!



Aww, to fall so far after being so not-that-bad once in a row. That must hurt. It's OK; I bet your mother is still proud of you no matter what.


Please do...though I thank you for giving up on the completely hypocritical tactic of condescendingly telling me to stop making snide remarks while you blatantly and unapologetically insult me to my face. I almost gave myself a hernia laughing at that one, and I would really prefer to avoid unnecessary surgery.

It is really difficult to correct all of the errors in your post when you generate them faster than you type. First of all, the concept of a "blind faith" is common knowledge among the general population, and that alone signifies a type of faith exists. The Christian faith is not a blind faith, and that is what I was signifying long before the foofaraw over semantics began. You were, as you well know, in error, and as usual, you proceed to dance around the issue. The major issue concerned the application of faith to Christ's resurrection, than evolved into a discussion over the meaning of the word faith. If you really did read what I read, why did you not know I denounced the specific type of faith you were referring to? Back to the vocabulary issue; at first you claimed that I used the term incorrectly, but are now arguing that the usage of the term is not generally applied in the manner that I applied it (while, contradictorily enough, arguing that the term is obscure, immediately raising the question of how a general application is to exist). After all of the puerile errors you've made in this thread, you refuse to admit to that were at fault all the while having the temerity to spew sardonic criticism, most of the time not understanding it yourself, than have the temerity to argue that I'm egotistical (clearly focusing too much on the spec in your neighbor's eye and missing the log in your own). Let us also note that you initially claimed that I was using a dictionary, but now are arguing that I achieved an expansive vocabulary through research rather than reading. Of course, if you were truly interested you would have asked rather than proceed with your egotistical assertion, which is a combination of reading and writing down any obscure terminology, than proceeding to define it later. Of course, while you claim that there is nothing wrong in improving ones vocabulary through research alone (which I have not), you accentuate the matter in an attempt to discredit it me or give the impression that I'm a charlatan. Of course, if that I was the case I wouldn't refute you time and time again, as I clearly have. Finally, my "hypocritical tactic" was not hypocritical because I only insulted you when you proceeded to insult me after I wrote politely; had you not insulted me, I would have never replied in that way. Oh, but don't worry about apologizing for making a false accusation and having it refuted yet again; you haven't for the last 100 times or so.

 

[JGimpel]

I used to believe that the tooth fairy and Santa Claus actually existed; until I grew out of it and got more information.

The existance of fairies and Santa Claus is well documented in print and in many movies. That doesn't mean they actually exist, but many people stand to gain a great deal in money and power when they control the people that do.

Faith, religion or other myths have been used to bilk, kill and destroy others' homes for decades. Write a book and use it to control people or kill them if they can't be controlled seems like a pretty good gig to me.

This faith is then passed down from parent to child until they too outgrow it. It would be interesting to see the diaries of people as they realize that all of these myths aren't true.

Since SpecterGT260 has the most posts, I say that we declare him a God. MedPR was also a God, that fell in battle; we're still waiting on him to be resurrected. My attending gave me the weekend off; a true God of kindness and compassion. Please try and prove me wrong without quoting any of the made up literature or people of your faith.

While you actually think through a response to this, I'm going to unwrap my latest L. Ron Hubbard book and pull some Engrams out of my aura.

 

[mehc012]

It is really difficult to correct all of the errors in your post when you generate them faster than you type. First of all, the concept of a "blind faith" is common knowledge among the general population, and that alone signifies a type of faith exists. The Christian faith is not a blind faith, and that is what I was signifying long before the foofaraw over semantics began. You were, as you well know, in error, and as usual, you proceed to dance around the issue. The major issue concerned the application of faith to Christ's resurrection, than evolved into a discussion over the meaning of the word faith. If you really did read what I read, why did you not know I denounced the specific type of faith you were referring to? Back to the vocabulary issue; at first you claimed that I used the term incorrectly, but are now arguing that the usage of the term is not generally applied in the manner that I applied it (while, contradictorily enough, arguing that the term is obscure, immediately raising the question of how a general application is to exist). After all of the puerile errors you've made in this thread, you refuse to admit to that were at fault all the while having the temerity to spew sardonic criticism, most of the time not understanding it yourself, than have the temerity to argue that I'm egotistical (clearly focusing too much on the spec in your neighbor's eye and missing the log in your own). Let us also note that you initially claimed that I was using a dictionary, but now are arguing that I achieved an expansive vocabulary through research rather than reading. Of course, if you were truly interested you would have asked rather than proceed with your egotistical assertion, which is a combination of reading and writing down any obscure terminology, than proceeding to define it later. Of course, while you claim that there is nothing wrong in improving ones vocabulary through research alone (which I have not), you accentuate the matter in an attempt to discredit it me or give the impression that I'm a charlatan. Of course, if that I was the case I wouldn't refute you time and time again, as I clearly have. Finally, my "hypocritical tactic" was not hypocritical because I only insulted you when you proceeded to insult me after I wrote politely; had you not insulted me, I would have never replied in that way. Oh, but don't worry about apologizing for making a false accusation and having it refuted yet again; you haven't for the last 100 times or so.

I didn't say there weren't types of faith; I said that faith implies loyalty. And EVEN IF you hadn't insulted me until after I insulted you (which is blatantly false, but perhaps you didn't mean anything by "butt buddy" or any of the other crap you spewed), that still wouldn't make you not a hypocrite. It would just make you vengeful.

I wasn't trying to discredit you; you do that well enough on your own without any help. I was merely explaining why I jump on the technical inaccuracies in your speech...to me, they are simply examples of the larger underlying problem. I will admit that my conclusion that you obtained your vocabulary through research rather than reading was an assumption; I should have left it at "you sound as if you obtained your vocabulary from research rather than reading." Either way, I stand by the overall thrust of my statement there: you write as if you have no clue what the hell the words you are using are supposed to sound like, or how they are intended to be used. If you got there through reading, then I am truly sorry and would be more than happy to recommend you some less pompous, poorly-written literature...unless it's really your comprehension which is at fault. I don't think I can help you with that. It's all academic anyway, as you are clearly incapable of admitting you are wrong on any point, no matter how small, and are therefore going to struggle with learning or improving your comprehension of anything until you figure out how to adjust your ideas as you encounter new information or perspectives.

 

[Frank22]

I didn't say there weren't types of faith; I said that faith implies loyalty. And EVEN IF you hadn't insulted me until after I insulted you (which is blatantly false, but perhaps you didn't mean anything by "butt buddy" or any of the other crap you spewed), that still wouldn't make you not a hypocrite. It would just make you vengeful.

I wasn't trying to discredit you; you do that well enough on your own without any help. I was merely explaining why I jump on the technical inaccuracies in your speech...to me, they are simply examples of the larger underlying problem. I will admit that my conclusion that you obtained your vocabulary through research rather than reading was an assumption; I should have left it at "you sound as if you obtained your vocabulary from research rather than reading." Either way, I stand by the overall thrust of my statement there: you write as if you have no clue what the hell the words you are using are supposed to sound like, or how they are intended to be used. If you got there through reading, then I am truly sorry and would be more than happy to recommend you some less pompous, poorly-written literature...unless it's really your comprehension which is at fault. I don't think I can help you with that. It's all academic anyway, as you are clearly incapable of admitting you are wrong on any point, no matter how small, and are therefore going to struggle with learning or improving your comprehension of anything until you figure out how to adjust your ideas as you encounter new information or perspectives.

Despite your attempt to give the connotation of having some profound level of perspicacity of my background and tutelage, your contention amounts to little more than hackneyed argumentation disguised behind empty rhetoric, and very nicely done at that. A sober look at what you've written, that is the claim that my wordage is eldritch is really unsupported by any close analysis of what I've written. Claiming that my wordplay is unconventional and awkward is really only a step above the claim that I'm using a dictionary; unproven assertions that are equally fallacious. For example, the use of the term "foofaraw" is most commonly applied to a fuss over trivial matters, and the context that I've used it, and I have several times, is how it is used by the common run of wordsmiths. Other terminology, such as "milieu," and "pettifogging" are equally appropriate. Perhaps you found the word "Brobdinagian" as being out of context, but I used it on that occasion for a rhetorical effect; that is, specifically to emphasize the extremely large amount of damage imposed upon the body of Christ upon his removal from the cross. That is a far cry from the gawky phraseology implicated by your post. Moving on to our faith argument... Even if you didn't explicitly state that there aren't types of faith, you dismissed my argument claiming that we are discussing types of faith and that we were discussing definitions, implying that differing types of faith don't exist (otherwise, why couldn't we be thinking of different types of faith)? I really do not know what world you are living in; you have been dead wrong on seemingly every point you've presented in this thread, the vast majority of them trifling, but somehow try to give the impression that you've added something valuable or insightful to the discussion. And I can assure you, as someone who reads as many as two chapter books a day at times, I do not need to add to my reading list.

 

[Frank22]

I used to believe that the tooth fairy and Santa Claus actually existed; until I grew out of it and got more information.

The existance of fairies and Santa Claus is well documented in print and in many movies. That doesn't mean they actually exist, but many people stand to gain a great deal in money and power when they control the people that do.

Faith, religion or other myths have been used to bilk, kill and destroy others' homes for decades. Write a book and use it to control people or kill them if they can't be controlled seems like a pretty good gig to me.

This faith is then passed down from parent to child until they too outgrow it. It would be interesting to see the diaries of people as they realize that all of these myths aren't true.

Since SpecterGT260 has the most posts, I say that we declare him a God. MedPR was also a God, that fell in battle; we're still waiting on him to be resurrected. My attending gave me the weekend off; a true God of kindness and compassion. Please try and prove me wrong without quoting any of the made up literature or people of your faith.

While you actually think through a response to this, I'm going to unwrap my latest L. Ron Hubbard book and pull some Engrams out of my aura.

My my, why don't you just change your username to Richard Dawkins, add a flying spaghetti monster to your avatar and change your signature to an image of Charles Darwin standing next to a monkey.

 

[SpecterGT260]

My my, why don't you just change your username to Richard Dawkins, add a flying spaghetti monster to your avatar and change your signature to an image of Charles Darwin standing next to a monkey.

I bet you're one of those that thinks the earth is ~10k years old and that dinosaur bones were put here to test us...

 

[JGimpel]

My my, why don't you just change your username to Richard Dawkins, add a flying spaghetti monster to your avatar and change your signature to an image of Charles Darwin standing next to a monkey.

I think we can all tell where your level of reasoning is; what is your current level of training? Did you actually make it into medical school or are you still making it through undergrad? Either way, to hang out on a board this much means that your curriculum in the former won't be viewed as challenging enough to prepare you for medical school or the latter meaning that you've given up study time for classes and licensing exams and may not be able to make it to your clinical years. Natural selection does make it through to medical training and you might be more apt to believe in it when it's too late and you've been "selected" to leave for good.

 

[Frank22]

I think we can all tell where your level of reasoning is; what is your current level of training? Did you actually make it into medical school or are you still making it through undergrad? Either way, to hang out on a board this much means that your curriculum in the former won't be viewed as challenging enough to prepare you for medical school or the latter meaning that you've given up study time for classes and licensing exams and may not be able to make it to your clinical years. Natural selection does make it through to medical training and you might be more apt to believe in it when it's too late and you've been "selected" to leave for good.

Actually, it means that my first day of Fall classes began yesterday, but maybe next time.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I think we can all tell where your level of reasoning is; what is your current level of training? Did you actually make it into medical school or are you still making it through undergrad? Either way, to hang out on a board this much means that your curriculum in the former won't be viewed as challenging enough to prepare you for medical school or the latter meaning that you've given up study time for classes and licensing exams and may not be able to make it to your clinical years. Natural selection does make it through to medical training and you might be more apt to believe in it when it's too late and you've been "selected" to leave for good.

hes pre dental.

 

[mehc012]

Despite your attempt to give the connotation of having some profound level of perspicacity of my background and tutelage, your contention amounts to little more than hackneyed argumentation disguised behind empty rhetoric, and very nicely done at that. A sober look at what you've written, that is the claim that my wordage is eldritch is really unsupported by any close analysis of what I've written. Claiming that my wordplay is unconventional and awkward is really only a step above the claim that I'm using a dictionary; unproven assertions that are equally fallacious. For example, the use of the term "foofaraw" is most commonly applied to a fuss over trivial matters, and the context that I've used it, and I have several times, is how it is used by the common run of wordsmiths. Other terminology, such as "milieu," and "pettifogging" are equally appropriate. Perhaps you found the word "Brobdinagian" as being out of context, but I used it on that occasion for a rhetorical effect; that is, specifically to emphasize the extremely large amount of damage imposed upon the body of Christ upon his removal from the cross.

My first claim was unsupported (see how I'm able to admit that, and have now done so twice?) My second - that you sound awkward and as if you have a poor understanding of the words you use - is called an opinion, which is not the same as an assertion and does not require support. So allow me to reiterate: you sound like a pretentious high school kid who thinks he's impressing people when really he's demonstrating how shallow his knowledge really is.

That is a far cry from the gawky phraseology implicated by your post.

I said that you were generally technically correct, but had no sense of style, appropriateness, context, or how to use your words. You listed a bunch of them and insisted that you were technically correct...which was never in dispute.

Moving on to our faith argument... Even if you didn't explicitly state that there aren't types of faith, you dismissed my argument claiming that we are discussing types of faith and that we were discussing definitions

No, I dismissed your made-up definition of 'faith', and then truthfully denied stating that there was only one type of faith.

implying that differing types of faith don't exist (otherwise, why couldn't we be thinking of different types of faith)?

You are setting up a false dichotomy here. Just because I don't accept your stated definition as legitimate, or a different type of faith doesn't mean I am denying the existence of all types of faith. In order to be a 'type' of something, you have to fit the base criteria of that thing...you can then be categorized further into types. This is a really basic point, yet it seems to have been a sticking point for you several times so far (it closely parallels your difficulties with 'more authenticated', though is admittedly not exactly the same), so let me point out a few common examples:

There are many shades of red. However, blue is not a shade of red, and denying that blue is a shade of red does not imply that there is only one shade of red.

All rectangles have 4 sides and 90° angles. There are many types of rectangles, but all must have these basic characteristics. If I say "calling something a rectangle implies that it has 4 sides", it is incorrect for you to say "well, I was thinking of the three-sided type of rectangle, you know, a triangle". Rejecting a triangle as a type of rectangle (it does not meet the basic criteria) does not prevent me from accepting other types of rectangles, such as squares.

I really do not know what world you are living in; you have been dead wrong on seemingly every point you've presented in this thread, the vast majority of them trifling, but somehow try to give the impression that you've added something valuable or insightful to the discussion.

I have only been 'wrong' in the sense that I have disagreed with you...which is apparently sufficient because you are never wrong and everything you say counts as 'proof'. Oh, and you can make up new definitions...maybe you're just using a different definition of 'wrong' as everyone else, then...

And I can assure you, as someone who reads as many as two chapter books a day at times, I do not need to add to my reading list.

Oh my goodness! A whole TWO?!? That's astounding and amazing! Or, wait...no, that's just called normal. No one past the first grade is going to be impressed with that. Only, see how no one else is trying to regurgitate their reading list into the forum posts?

 

[physiologist]

What I gather from the happenings of this thread is as follows:

Frank is desperately trying to hold onto the beliefs he was indoctrinated with as a kid, perhaps to guard his sense of community and family ties that probably depend so deeply on such a faith.

My theory on the resurrection is as follows:

I have studied history a great deal. I remember that in many cases scratch marks were found in coffins. This was because the advanced medical technology that lets people know if someone is alive or dead didn't exist - no heart monitors, no EEGs, etc. I assume thus that mistakes were sometimes made as to whether someone was actually dead or not, and the evidence seems to corroborate with that (e.g. nail marks on coffins).

It is therefore my belief that maybe Jesus was presumed dead but actually wasn't. Perhaps he was just unconscious, came to 3 days later, and somehow got himself out of his tomb. This would have appeared to an untrained, uneducated eye as having been resurrected.

Another possibility would be that Jesus played dead so that they would take him off the cross, and then when he was buried he just escaped from his tomb.

There are so many possibilities that are somewhat plausible. The belief that the laws of nature could be put on hold or circumvented at random seems to be utterly nonsensical. In fact, having faith in general is a key indicator of the lack of critical thinking skills, the favouring of comfort over truth. Again, I cannot believe in God without feeling concurrently aware that I am deliberately fooling myself. The belief in something that 1) Goes against the laws of nature and 2) Does not have any concrete evidence to it is something I will never understand.

Nevertheless, those who have been responding to this post with irrelevant ad hominems are doing nothing to help bolster your point of view - in fact, it doesn't appear to me that they even have any purpose as they do not argue any point, rather vaguely say things like "This is why she didn't get into x school!" I'm not a person who likes hints all that much - this is not helping me understand whatsoever, rather, I think the purpose is to bully me above all else.

Moreover, nowhere in this thread have I EVER said that I would not be friends with someone because of differences in faith. These differences can be easily put aside and are by no means insurmountable. All I ever asked in this thread was HOW people reconcile their belief in the concept of faith with their scientific training and background. I NEVER said ANYTHING about having my nose stuck too high in the air to ever attempt to befriend those people. In fact, I have totally succeeded at befriending those people. A very small number of them know I am an agnostic and I told them only when they asked me directly. Also, to their credit, none of them have tried to convert me. My choice of friends has nothing to do with religious affiliation, and my friendships do not involve religious affiliation at all. It seems like people on this thread are looking for something about me to pick apart without any evidence that my lack of understanding of the concept of faith as shared on this board only is affecting how I am treating them in real life. In fact, my classmates who are lurking here (as I know at least one has done in the past) could probably confirm this.

I am therefore not posting these comments as a snob, rather as someone who is curious about learning about another world view that I can't seem to wrap my brain around. Is there anything wrong with that, and the fact that I see faith as inherently unscientific?

A final quote: "He who is wise is he who admits he knows nothing." - Socrates. I never once claimed to "know" anything. Everything I write are simply conjectures and possibilities. As a human being I feel I cannot and will not ever uncover the metaphysical truth if it exists, because I feel that it is by definition a realm beyond our grasp.

 

[Frank22]

My first claim was unsupported (see how I'm able to admit that, and have now done so twice?) My second - that you sound awkward and as if you have a poor understanding of the words you use - is called an opinion, which is not the same as an assertion and does not require support. So allow me to reiterate: you sound like a pretentious high school kid who thinks he's impressing people when really he's demonstrating how shallow his knowledge really is.

I said that you were generally technically correct, but had no sense of style, appropriateness, context, or how to use your words. You listed a bunch of them and insisted that you were technically correct...which was never in dispute.

I did not say that the terms were technically correct, but stated that the context in which I used them was the general context in which they're applied. You may hold a differing view, but your view does not coincide with what is reality, and the fact that you would posit such a bromidic argument indicates you yourself do not know how the words are applied.

No, I dismissed your made-up definition of 'faith', and then truthfully denied stating that there was only one type of faith.
You are setting up a false dichotomy here. Just because I don't accept your stated definition as legitimate, or a different type of faith doesn't mean I am denying the existence of all types of faith. In order to be a 'type' of something, you have to fit the base criteria of that thing...you can then be categorized further into types. This is a really basic point, yet it seems to have been a sticking point for you several times so far (it closely parallels your difficulties with 'more authenticated', though is admittedly not exactly the same), so let me point out a few common examples:

How could you dismiss my definition of faith when I was never speaking of a definition of faith? Throughout the entirety of my post I spoke of a certain type of Christian faith that is very dissimilar to the sort of blind faith you had in mind long before the issue came up; when I reminded you how I was treating the Christian faith, you very prentiously replied that your usage was correct and mine was incorrect.

All rectangles have 4 sides and 90° angles. There are many types of rectangles, but all must have these basic characteristics. If I say "calling something a rectangle implies that it has 4 sides", it is incorrect for you to say "well, I was thinking of the three-sided type of rectangle, you know, a triangle". Rejecting a triangle as a type of rectangle (it does not meet the basic criteria) does not prevent me from accepting other types of rectangles, such as squares.

Apparently you're saying that the type of faith I have in mind isn't faith at all; on the contrary, as Christians we have faith that Christ will return again but we also have evidence of his divinity via his well-documented thaumaturgy.

I have only been 'wrong' in the sense that I have disagreed with you...which is apparently sufficient because you are never wrong and everything you say counts as 'proof'. Oh, and you can make up new definitions...maybe you're just using a different definition of 'wrong' as everyone else, then...
Oh my goodness! A whole TWO?!? That's astounding and amazing! Or, wait...no, that's just called normal. No one past the first grade is going to be impressed with that. Only, see how no one else is trying to regurgitate their reading list into the forum posts?

I never said that I am never wrong; I just keep my mouth shut about topics of which I haven't the slightest iota of understanding, which apparently is too much for you to resist. As far as amount of reading is concerned... Yes, I consider two chapter books a day quite a lot; the sort of books I have in mind include Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl and All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque . If that's not impressive than so be it.