Da Vinci Code Movie

[Prodigal Son]

john hammond,

i am frustrated by how narrow and arrogant some atheists/agnostics can be:

They assume their judgement is superior even in the presence of God-given evidence, and therefore assume a level of infallibility. I think the following quote taken from another thread illustrataes this quite well: "the burden of proof is on the deviant...since christianity is the largest wolrd religion with the most followers...the atheist or skeptic must prove US wrong." ...this effectively states that in the event of a disagreement, a minority of the world's population has the right to demand the rest of the world to prove them wrong; when extended to social isses, this is a sin.

actually, what it means is that the majority can make this demand.

sorry you don't agree with what was said, but it is your own arrogance that is driving you from accepting it.

burden of proof--obligation to prove allegations...

allegation? there is no God.

burder of proof is placed on atheist based on balance of probabilities. why? the likelihood that there is a God is greater than the likelihood that there is not.

for further enlightenment, you might want to read:

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html

and

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/ ... osmos.html

if you continue to do your own research you might just someday crawl out of this hole of ignorance/arrogance you've allowed yourself to fall into.

so, you see, the fact that the burden of proof is on the atheist is not a sin at all...just sucks for them.

also, what God-given evidence are you talking about?

[Mastermind]

What debate is defined as and what debate(especially online debates regarding religious issues) actually turns out to be are two completely different things.

[Anonymous]

Hi colors!

My only point about debate and burden of proof is that in matters of personal beliefs, obligation to prove is a choice: If you feel compelled to prove your beliefs to another, than by definition you bear the burden of proof. If you are comfortable in your beliefs and do not feel compelled to convince others, then you have no obligation to prove your beliefs. There is no moral or logical imperative to justify or prove personal beliefs.

The arrogance I referred to is strictly limited to issues of public well-being, nothing more. And this arrogance is further limited to some Christians (and many others, for that matter) who believe that public policies based on their personal beliefs should be enforced on others, despite evidence which suggests that these policies will bring less benefit to society than other policies. The arrogant act here is to believe that one's internal beliefs are sufficiently superior to others' beliefs that they are willing to make others suffer and die as a result.

However, I will point out that your response appears to be an example of a point I made earlier--that some Christians label anyone with beliefs which do not agree with their own as atheists or agnostics. There are many deeply religious people in this world--myself included--who likely hold some beliefs which differ from yours. To call us atheists who crawl in and out of holes of ignorance and arrogance is, itself, a statement that belies an underlying arrogance.

[Prodigal Son]

to call us atheists who crawl in and out of holes of ignorance and arrogance...

firstly, i recall you calling christians arrogant first, including myself, since you quoted something i stated to you in another thread and used it as an example of "arrogance".

secondly, i never called those who differ from my beliefs atheists. i referred to them as atheists, agnostics, skeptics--that encompasses all beliefs that differ from the belief of christianity. all terms are respectful...if you take offense to any of them, then you should question why you do.

if you feel compelled to prove your beliefs to others...

surely you are speaking about yourself? it is you who have come onto a christian website to voice your differing beliefs.

[Kurieuo]

I am at fault of not taking the time to read your: Discussion Guidelines, Board Purpose, Language, Mannerism, Constructive Discussions and Plagiarism, References, and Misquoting... prior to my posting. I owe you an apology. Your rules are very clearly defined. But you see, while I am at fault for not first reading your rules to post, I honestly didn't think, nor would it have occurred to me, that as Christians there would be limitations on legitimate posting...even by non-Christians. Isn't this piece of scripture in direct opposition to some of your rules?

I guess we disagree on what legitimate posting is, as I think it obvious that any posts that would go against the desired purpose and rules of a board would be "illegitimate." Perhaps you have some other idea of "legitimacy"? Perhaps you desire a debate style board for and against Christianity like this board once was? Did you also read why we changed boards...? It's not like "your approach" has not been tried. Instead it seemed that the previous board served as much a place for those against Christianity to propagate their beliefs and go on the attack, as it did for those sincerely seeking responses to questions, and for Christians to be strengthened in their faith. As such, the previous discussion board did not match up with the desired purpose of the G&S website. So after thoughtful consideration, it was decided to create a new board in order to better fulfill the purpose of the G&S website.

You may disagree, but its not like we own every single board on the Web. You can find many boards that debate such issues as this one—they appear to be a dime a dozen (well actually free! ). So it is just not possible we could "control" everything, nor would we want to. Debate boards serve a good purpose, but this is more a board for Christians and seekers who want to asked questions. GodandScience.org runs this board in a way we see as most conducive to the purpose of the website.

Ezekiel 2: 3-8
3Ezekiel, I am sending you to the people of Israel. They are just like their ancestors who rebelled against me and refused to stop. 4They are stubborn and hardheaded. But I, the LORD God, have chosen you to tell them what I say. 5Those rebels may not even listen, but at least they will know that a prophet has come to them.
6Don't be afraid of them or of anything they say. You may think you're in the middle of a thorn patch or a bunch of scorpions. But be brave 7and preach my message to them, whether they choose to listen or not. 8Ezekiel, don't rebel against me, as they have done. Instead, listen to everything I tell you. CEV

So you are saying at an online home of Christianity, like this board desires to be, that we ought to be in the middle of a thorn patch or a bunch of scorpions here? I'm sorry, I just can't think of any other way to twist the meaning of that passage into something that would really apply to this issue. I don't think you can just read anything you like into a passage. This passage clearly has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Perhaps you're also disagreeable with "churches" being for Christians too? They also would exclude those who have made their minds up against Christianity, and who constantly try to tear into Christianity with hollow statements and questions such as who made God, or if God exists then he is evil...

And believe me, the last thing on my mind is walking into a forum where the outcome of my posts becomes problematic for folks. I was just enjoying the discussion when...things abruptly turned from interesting dialog to asking people to leave.

You did not receive the message in question, which is a standard message a person will receive if it is believed that they may be here for the wrong reasons. In it noone is told to leave, and therefore you are very wrong to speak out about something you have no direct knowledge of. Rather the purpose of this message is to bring their attention to the intended purpose of this board, and they are told to decide for themselves whether this board really is for them in accordance with it. While a few don't take it well, many non-Christians have received this message and fully understood without taking offense or making an issue out of it. They are quite happy to move onto the next board where Christianity vs. Atheism or what-have-you is debated. Again, it is not like we run the whole Internet, or control every board online. There are plenty of others, and I do encourage posters (and many do I'm sure) to debate their faith on other boards. Not all want to however, as they continually run into the same silly arguments which I'm sure they also tire of. And after a while they come to realise the objections really are often vacuous, and so this board would be of more benefit to such people.

But I'm guessing that it would probably be best, under the circumstances, if I read only and not post - for with all due respect -In my heart I believe in spreading the Good News not controlling it. I believe in dealing with the real world, (as flawed as it might be), not becoming cheerleaders for only like-minded individuals.

Usually many Christians have plenty of questions themselves noone has bothered to answer or which stump them. Many have brought questions here from their discussions at other boards where they've been debating their for their Christianity. Yet, in my many years debating online, I find the most challenging questions are those Christians themselves present rather than any non-Christian where the same old questions are usually recycled over and over. Yet, perhaps you think we're controlling the spread of the Gospel? I sincerely doubt this, as this forum is still an open forum that can be read by all, only it serves are particular purpose and has rules. Infact I think such a forum has a greater impact! For is non-Christians really want to check out Christianity, then they have a place to go to where Christians conglomerate. This forum gives such seekers the opportunity to go unhindered with their questions. Anyone who has an agenda to attack Christianity, their hearts would be too hard to receive the Gospel in their present state anyway. And God promises to reveal Himself to all who seek. And as God promises to respond to those who seek, we all hope to repond to all who seek; however, many questions by non-Christians really aren't because they are seeking, but rather they are posed as a smokescreen, or to make their own points against Christianity.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

Colors--many apologies for quoting you out of context. That was not fair.

I am just a Christian here is discuss many issues. I find it healthy to re-consider my issues of faith, and as a scientist I would like to do this with like-minded people. That's what brought me here. I did not mean to cause trouble.

[Anonymous]

You know, I had a few days off and sought answers to a question brought up within a small group of which I'm a part. The question was about when The Da Vinci Code movie would hit theatres and who would be starring in it. I found that info easily enough, but came across this board, too, and felt it might be a good idea to check out thoughts and concerns of other Christians. Seemed a simple enough task, but it very quickly became complicated.

Kurieuo, you say messages are sent to some that state they should "decide for themselves whether this board really is for them in accordance with it." I just hope that those Christians that were verbally stoning Atheist, or maybe others like him, for merely answering questions in a respectful manner...might also be sent that same message. If not, then that means you condone bad behavior from Christians, but not from non-Christians? I do have a wee bit of a problem with that...

I do believe Ezekiel 2 is fitting in this instance.

And while John might be guilty of being highly intelligent, and educated...he's not arrogant. A deviant is merely someone that deviates from the norm, the moral majority...the majority at large. It's also the deviant that changes policy, social norms, even the idea that the world is round, not flat...but because he or she is of the minority...they do have the burden of convincing others in the majority why change should occur. Throughout history...change occurred because a brave deviant was persuasive enough, through word or action, to convince others change needed to occur.

I sincerely wish you all the best with this board and may peace prevail...[/list]

[atheist]

against

Yep. That pretty resumes up the whole thing. "He that is not with me is against me". Very Christian, indeed. I never managed to reconcile that idea with the "love thy enemies" issue.

However, "anyone who has an agenda to attack Christianity" surely do not apply to the whole non-Christian world. Paranoias aside, I neither attacked anybody here nor have something "against" Christians. You advise me to move to other forums, and i've been around many forums already: agnostic, buddhist, ecumenical, philosophic, scientific... None of these ever invited me to leave because of my beliefs, neither knew I that any guest was ever rejected for his beliefs in any of them. But unfortunately, it's not the first time that this happens to me on a Christian forum.

And God promises to reveal Himself to all who seek. And as God promises to respond to those who seek, we all hope to repond to all who seek

This is exactly the point. Everyone in this world who aims to seek the truth should be ready to question his own beliefs at any time, because that's how knowledge grows and expands; everyone's quest for the truth will carry him through different paths, and many of them are worth the trial. I duly accept that the search of truth leads some people to Christianity. However, if my legitimate search for the truth leads me away from Christianity, why is so difficult for some Christians to accept it?

You know which is the frustrating part of the whole matter? It is not to be ignored; after all, I surely might not have many brilliant ideas to offer, my intelligence is very limited and the fruits of my searching are perhaps quite modest or just inexistent. The real frustration comes from people that claim to be in the right path and will refuse to give you any answers without even listening your questions. Or just get angry when you don't accept their answer immediately and without objections, which is basically the same thing.

Didn't want to leave without thanking Wendy for her intellectual integrity and John for his wide quality of vision. I'm sure there are plenty of pals like you in here that I didn't have the opportunity to meet. I'll try to read without participating in the future to avoid disturbing the tranquillity of the forum.

Happy and richful Easter to believers
And to the rest, just enjoy life.

[Mastermind]

I love the way neither atheist or wendy actually read anything K said.

[Kurieuo]

I'm sorry you guys can't see the reasonableness behind the approach taken by this board. Not every board has to be the same, and we (G&S) wouldn't want them to be. Yet, this decision has also been carefully thought out, and so this is the approach we adopt. Whether posters agree to it or not, that is their decision to make and then stay or leave.

Yet, at the same time we also encourage sincere questions. We only discourage postings by those who are not really seeking Christian responses. When frivolous questions are asked with a motivation against Christianity, generally the questions aren't sincere or serious but rather serve instead as objections. Questions are good for fruitful dialogue and can be answered. Objections can be cloaked as questions and always remain unanswered as they're not intended to be answered, and they generally waste everyone's time.

Notably, the moderating of such things lies on a knifes edge, and we do our best to judge between sincerity or alternate motivations behind questions. This is why we do not simply tell posters outrightly to leave, but we like to leave it up to posters to decide. The fact that atheist was able to judge for himself that he was out of line with the board purpose, reveals that his questions weren't asked because he was seeking out Christian responses, but rather he intended them to serve as objections against Christianity that he would argue for. There is a difference, and we are all for sincere questions which are fruitful, and not objections non-Christians have which appear to cause fruitless debate between two entrenched sides.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

Kurieuo--I think your approach is very reasonable, and you have a hard job. It would be easy for this site to be over-run with fruitless and incendiary volleys.

I think what Atheist might be referring to in part were the responses to his posts by others here. Unlike the usual canned arguments against Christianity, Athiest's objections are based in scripture. I for one would be interested in pursuing this. And earlier in this thread I was called an atheist/agnostic for my criticism of anyone who would rely solely on their religious beliefs when called upon to take a stand on public policies--especially on matters of public health. There is a very clear relationship between religion and science here, and I think any morally honest person must face these types of debates head-on and constructively.

In any case, I came here as a Christian to discuss science and religion, and ended up for the most part debating what a debate is, and receiving lobs of vitriol in response to pointing out that Christians do not make up a majority of the world's population.

As I said early on--though not in so many words-- I think a discussion of science and Christianity together is just not possible.

W & A--thanks for the kind words!
[/b]

[Kurieuo]

Although I try, I don't get the opportunity to read every message thoroughly. So I'm not quite sure to what you are referring to, but I can understand that newcomers would be under the eye of regular posters to see what side they take and so forth. So people may have simply miscontrued your position.

I never intended to put a halt to this discussion, but as the moderating at this board was being challenged, I saw a need to set things straight. However, I'd encourage participants to feel free to finish the discussion revolving around the Scriptures in question. I would however disagree with you that the passages in question aren't commonly brought up by non-Christians. Much Scripture is often misrepresented by non-Christians, and often places like the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (e.g., see http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/sword.html) are used to make their cases from.

As for Christianity and Science, I personally don't see any problems between the two being compatible with each other. The only issues I see are peoples' misconceived perceptions about the two. Yet, I've noticed a desire by Christians and non-Christians alike, to want to separate the two. We both would perhaps agree that this is silly? Sadly we are against a tide, but I think a tide that is changing as it becomes realised that Naturalism doesn't own Science.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

Kurieuo--Very much in agreement with your statement regarding religion and science; as I said previously, most scientists are very religious people, albeit not always subscribing to orthodoxy.

I think the problem lies in two areas. First, science has a different standard of proof than religion, and as a result there are many things that simply lie outside the realm of science because they cannot be subjected to this standard. Second, there is in our culture a prevailing opinion that beliefs which cannot be proven scientifically have no validity. The combination of these two pressures science to try to answer questions which it is incapable of answering; and pressures many beliefs into a standard of proof for which they are inappropriate.

One of my favorite examples is the probabilistic proof that God exists. Here's a case where an algebraic argument leads to a hard number which appears to show how improbable our observable universe is. The problem with the argument--regardless of what side one comes down on--is two-fold: One, highly unlikely events happen all the time (such as the exceedingly small probability that the air molecules in your room will have the exact coordinates that they do right now), and probability has no meaning unless it is normalised against a reasonable denominator. (Example: the probability that a given event will happen must be normalised to some duration of time; given infinite time, any event which can happen, will happen.) Since no one knows the time denominator, it is not possible to conclude, one way or the other, what the true probability is that our observable universe just happened by accident.

Anyway, I think it is difficult to achieve a truly peaceful and constructive discussion when people are constantly trying to force their intellects to do things which are not really possible.

[Mastermind]

Sadly we are against a tide, but I think a tide that is changing as it becomes realised that Naturalism doesn't own Science.

Kurieuo.

And I'm glad you don't use Evolution and Naturalism as interchangeable terms anymore.

[Prodigal Son]

john hammond:

no hard feelings.