Evidence for God from Science

Typical conservative use of alternative facts...

edwardmurphy wrote:Typical conservative use of alternative facts...

Kurieuo wrote:Equally, I'd expect Atheists (who represents these poor souls?) to scoff and ridicule those who believe in something.

Do you know any atheists? And I don't mean Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. I'm talking about normal people. If you wanted to could you call an atheist acquaintance and discuss your respective views over a cup of coffee?

edwardmurphy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Equally, I'd expect Atheists (who represents these poor souls?) to scoff and ridicule those who believe in something.

Do you know any atheists? And I don't mean Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. I'm talking about normal people. If you wanted to could you call an atheist acquaintance and discuss your respective views over a cup of coffee?

I'm unsure how to take that, that is, what you must perceive of me.

They don't make a thing of their Atheism, I don't make a thing of my Christian beliefs. When a person first realises I'm Christian, they often take a few stabs either at the Bible being untrue, creationism or something such.

I've had many talks over drinks, which is where people generally like talking about beliefs. For example, one guy came to Australia from Singapore, and then some Evangelical Christians took him in and to their church. He became a Christian, received lots of apologetic books (which he then handed onto me, and I must say I threw half out ), he even taught YEC to groups.

Eventually, he saw the foolishness of such beliefs and left that group, and ultimately wrote off Christianity as complete bunk. He challenged me on some of my beliefs, I'm not sure he was acquainted with the varied positions. Then I challenged him on his Atheism, which I think left some stones in his shoe he'd not thought of.

So then, I'm not sure how you perceive me, but neither do I care. I will say your perception is probably most completely off the mark.

RickD wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:I don't recall calling him Brian, but yes, my impression that he was an army chaplain is clearly wrong. Not sure where I got that. Oh well. A chaplain will still probably have an interesting perspective. I imagine that he finds himself working with a non Christian patient on occasion.

Also, thank you for giving me a chance to illustrate the difference between making a factual error and ignoring the facts.

In regards to calling Jac "Brian", it was audacity not you, that called him Brian. I apologize. I got my leftists mixed up!

Kurieuo wrote:I'm unsure how to take that, that is, what you must perceive of me.

I haven't tried to develop a psychological profile - we're all more complex than our forum personas. Not that you care what I think, of course. Thanks for that, by the way. It really takes the pressure off.

Anyway, I was responding to the apparent implications of this statement:

I'd expect them to influence people towards Islam, as I would a Christian, Buddhist or what-have-you. Equally, I'd expect Atheists (who represents these poor souls?) to scoff and ridicule those who believe in something.

You seem to take a pretty dim view of the idea that a person could hold tight to their own values while simultaneously being professional and not trying to undermine the values of the people they're supposed to be helping. You also appear to think that atheists are especially poor in that regard.

Personally, if I were tasked with counseling the men of that division I'd take them all as individuals, look to figure out what aspects of their lives were the healthiest, most beneficial, and most adaptive, and encourage them to use them as sources of strength. If a soldier is a depressed, strung-out mess and I happen to know that he's a Christian who used to draw strength from his faith and his relationships with his church community I wouldn't use it as an opportunity to weaken his faith, I'd encourage him to get his ass back to church, join the choir and the basketball league, show up for the work days and the bean suppers, attend the Bible studies, and get to know his pastor. I'd do that because what I happen to believe about religion has nothing to do with keeping that soldier safe, productive, and happy.

You appear to think that the average Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist would put their own beliefs ahead of the needs of the people they're supposed to be helping. I've personally seen devout Christians at a local charity offer people all the help that they could with no judgement and no attempts to proselytize, simple because they're there to help, not to convert. If a person expresses an interest in joining the church or learning more about the Bible they're all over it, but only if they're asked. I imagine that there are plenty of Muslims, Buddhists, and even atheists who would behave the same way.

With regard to the Muslim chaplain, I'm assume that if he was unable to behave professionally he wouldn't have lasted 18 years in his position, much less been selected as division chaplain from a pool of highly qualified applicants by a panel high ranking officers. I also assume that that panel of high ranking officers considered most of the arguments made in this thread and decided that none of them added up to much.

edwardmurphy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I'm unsure how to take that, that is, what you must perceive of me.

I haven't tried to develop a psychological profile - we're all more complex than our forum personas. Not that you care what I think, of course. Thanks for that, by the way. It really takes the pressure off.

Anyway, I was responding to the apparent implications of this statement:

I'd expect them to influence people towards Islam, as I would a Christian, Buddhist or what-have-you. Equally, I'd expect Atheists (who represents these poor souls?) to scoff and ridicule those who believe in something.

You seem to take a pretty dim view of the idea that a person could hold tight to their own values while simultaneously being professional and not trying to undermine the values of the people they're supposed to be helping. You also appear to think that atheists are especially poor in that regard.

Personally, if I were tasked with counseling the men of that division I'd take them all as individuals, look to figure out what aspects of their lives were the healthiest, most beneficial, and most adaptive, and encourage them to use them as sources of strength. If a soldier is a depressed, strung-out mess and I happen to know that he's a Christian who used to draw strength from his faith and his relationships with his church community I wouldn't use it as an opportunity to weaken his faith, I'd encourage him to get his *** back to church, join the choir and the basketball league, show up for the work days and the bean suppers, attend the Bible studies, and get to know his pastor. I'd do that because what I happen to believe about religion has nothing to do with keeping that soldier safe, productive, and happy.

You appear to think that the average Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist would put their own beliefs ahead of the needs of the people they're supposed to be helping. I've personally seen devout Christians at a local charity offer people all the help that they could with no judgement and no attempts to proselytize, simple because they're there to help, not to convert. If a person expresses an interest in joining the church or learning more about the Bible they're all over it, but only if they're asked. I imagine that there are plenty of Muslims, Buddhists, and even atheists who would behave the same way.

With regard to the Muslim chaplain, I'm assume that if he was unable to behave professionally he wouldn't have lasted 18 years in his position, much less been selected as division chaplain from a pool of highly qualified applicants by a panel high ranking officers. I also assume that that panel of high ranking officers considered most of the arguments made in this thread and decided that none of them added up to much.

There are atheist groups that actively work to remove any Christianity from government because of their false belief in separation of church and state.These groups actively complain and fight against any type of faith being practiced at Government institutions,yet these groups turn a blind eye to Islam. They are just focused on removing Christianity from government. So these atheists would not be as understanding about the person's faith as you make it out to be.As a matter of fact,this muslim chaplain shows the bias against Christians in America from the left while they turn a blind eye to muslims and them practicing their faith. Whether atheists like it or not our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and Christianity is the dominant religion here and always has been,not Islam.If it was not for Christianity alot of America's past wrongs would not have been corrected and yet there are atheists that fight to remove Christianity from government and even Christian symbols that are apart of America's heritage.They have a right to try to,but we have a right to see that they do not succeed in their efforts.

How does one explain the colour red to a blind person?

It is important to have some point of reference, some true understanding of what another believes to understand how to deal with faith.

Without it you can show empathy and even support BUT, while better than nothing, it is not really enough.

PaulSacramento wrote:How does one explain the colour red to a blind person?

It is important to have some point of reference, some true understanding of what another believes to understand how to deal with faith.

Without it you can show empathy and even support BUT, while better than nothing, it is not really enough.

That's probably why there aren't a lot of atheist chaplains out there. Shouldn't be a problem for a person of faith, though.

edwardmurphy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:How does one explain the colour red to a blind person?

It is important to have some point of reference, some true understanding of what another believes to understand how to deal with faith.

Without it you can show empathy and even support BUT, while better than nothing, it is not really enough.

That's probably why there aren't a lot of atheist chaplains out there. Shouldn't be a problem for a person of faith, though.

There aren't a lot of atheist chaplains for the same reason there aren't a lot of married bachelors.

edwardmurphy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I'm unsure how to take that, that is, what you must perceive of me.

I haven't tried to develop a psychological profile - we're all more complex than our forum personas. Not that you care what I think, of course. Thanks for that, by the way. It really takes the pressure off.

I think we all do develop psychological profiles of people, can't help doing so. Like I have you pinned as a left-wing liberal nut who'd happily join in the protests wrecking cars and looting while taking a pay check from Soros.

But... otherwise, different mediums people respond different. I found it interesting about a year ago, realising my discussion posts here, often seem like a different person than chat (like in the mini-chat/Skype), often seem different from PMs/emails, often seem different from phone/voice, and than different again in person. Even our outer person can conflict with the inner person we think we are, and we even disappoint ourselves.

Nonetheless, it's all still me. Perhaps different communication mediums just highlight more certain parts of our self. So you only ever get the partial person. Anyway...

Ed wrote:Anyway, I was responding to the apparent implications of this statement:

K wrote:I'd expect them to influence people towards Islam, as I would a Christian, Buddhist or what-have-you. Equally, I'd expect Atheists (who represents these poor souls?) to scoff and ridicule those who believe in something.

You seem to take a pretty dim view of the idea that a person could hold tight to their own values while simultaneously being professional and not trying to undermine the values of the people they're supposed to be helping. You also appear to think that atheists are especially poor in that regard.

I don't mean this as an insult, but more as an eye-opener to us Christians: Don't be naive within your humanistic values that religious folk would accept your view of what is right. Consider that, unlike a Humanist who frowns upon people trying to convert another person to their beliefs, Christians see leading someone to Christ as the most loving thing possible.

For the humanist, one should just be good for goodness sake, but otherwise enjoy life and do as one pleases. Life is short, so enjoy it while you can, even find meaning in the moment and time that you have. There's no greater meaning than this, even if it'll all come to an end and be forgotten, but such meaning many find to still be meaning enough.

So there are some base values I see within humanism. You may/may not self-identify with humanism, but I don't think it matters because it seems apparent from your words that you would share with much of this philosophy anyhow. Even many Christians today do, because it is actually as I see it, the reigning philosophy today, and anything that goes against assuming such as the de facto most neutral philosophy everyone can come to the table on -- is seen as fundamentalist or right-wing.

So then, let's look over and unpack your words above. You say I "seem to take a pretty dim view of the idea that a person could hold tight to their own values while simultaneously being professional and not trying to undermine the value of people they're supposed to be helping." This is a very humanist statement.

Rather, I see that I take a less naive view that the values a person holds to them, including their passionate beliefs, are often very important to them. These beliefs even shape and define who a person is. A Muslim who believes Allah is God, if they want someone else to have a chance of receiving their virgins or what-have-you in the afterlife, will see that the best thing for a person is to help them see the truth of Islam. Similarly, a Christian sees the most important thing in life as coming to Christ, for in Christ we find atonement for our sins and so will pass from God's righteous judgement which would otherwise result in us being cast out of God's Kingdom forever. DO NOT discount that while you disregard such things as nothing and meaningless oddities people believe in, WE as Christians actually DO believe what we do. And so we see it as the most important that anyone we'd care about or love, to try help that person find Christ. It's not that we're being trying to be undermining (though I get you see it in those terms), but rather we see there is nothing higher we can do for another person we love than to lead them to Christ. Indeed, those we don't try to lead to Christ, we mustn't love very much if we ourselves do believe in Christ.

Being "professional" I don't think has anything to do with the matter, and I don't think "being professional" means one needs to take on humanist or neutral values in not wanting to bring another person over to what they see as the most important thing in life. Nor would I see a Muslim chaplain or Christian one, their desire to convert, as an undermining of the values of people they're trying to help. From a humanist point-of-view, sure perhaps so, but rather, I see such as simply an act of love in trying to help others see the truth in what they believe is most important and meaningful thing in life.

You do not accept such things, but to the Muslim and the Christian, they are deeply held to and believed. Therefore, a Christian chaplain will never not have at the back of his/her mind, an opportunity to help a person see the truth of Christ. It might merely be through their words and actions (one of the best examples imo), chit-chat here and there about God and Christ, rather than an overt prostheltising. Nonetheless, whether overly or covertly, a Christian chaplain would want that soldier to come to a point of repentance and come to believe in Jesus. There is nothing more important than this, certainly not some humanistic ideal of the world coming together and just getting along, everyone living happy lives until the day they die. It doesn't mean there aren't mutual values commonly shared between philosophies, it does mean the ultimate purpose and meaning we see in life is drastically different.

Now, it's not that Christians can't or won't treat non-Christians aside from having any motivation to save such. But, if asked or at the very back of their minds, they most certainly would hope through their actions that they are ministering to non-Christians. There is always a motivation there, because they can't rip out their deeply held beliefs that in Christ we have hope -- and they want everyone to see that! Yet, primarily I'd dare say most Christian would do such simply because they sincerely love and wish to help the other person, even if their ultimate desire would be to have them come to Christ. There's no reason the two can't be had together. God loved us while we were sinners (Romans 5:8) and so we ought to love others regardless, even if they're the enemy (something I'm sure all Christians at some point fail to do, yet we can only strive to sincerely have such strength, to forgive our enemies and love them even unto point of death).

I expect some like Phil and Rick would disagree with me point out cases of self-defense, but then love I see is what Christ desires even if it leads to death because our physical lives aren't what matter, it's who we are and where we'll be hereafter. That doesn't make me a pacifist, as the lives of innocents should be protected, and I seriously think there really are some evil people who have hardened themselves so much they are beyond return -- yet, while they're alive it shouldn't stop us trying to reach such and leave the rest to God. Truly evil people who wish others harm should be restrained to protect the lives of others, or have justice served out lawfully on account of those they've harmed.

Moving on, you then say, "You also appear to think that atheists are especially poor in that regard." No. I can see how my statement of an Atheist scoffing and ridiculing might seem like such. But, it's to be expected. Many Atheists would mean no offense by it, as a wry smile crosses their face when observing some Christian say something they believe is absolute nonsense. They might even call it out as such (as you've done many times here), but there's no ill-intent. It's just, what they/you believe. God isn't real. Doesn't exist. Or, if God does, certainly Christianity is still full of foolish beliefs. Primitive, stupid even. It's not that I think the Atheist is poor in this regard, for he too has his own personal beliefs which define him. So why oughtn't an Atheist scoff and ridicule the Christian or Muslim? It's not that he will overtly do so, you know, he might be quite charitable, eat, drink and laugh with Christians. Even buy lunch or drinks for his Christian friend, etc. BUT, inside of his own mind, he knows he thinks their beliefs are complete rubbish, stupid even ignorant. How could they not? It's what separates us, but such isn't necessarily bad. We can tolerate and accept one another, even if we think each other are wrong, silly or stupid. Right?

Anyway, I just let myself write there. Will end it, for now.

OK.

edwardmurphy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:How does one explain the colour red to a blind person?

It is important to have some point of reference, some true understanding of what another believes to understand how to deal with faith.

Without it you can show empathy and even support BUT, while better than nothing, it is not really enough.

That's probably why there aren't a lot of atheist chaplains out there. Shouldn't be a problem for a person of faith, though.

Don't speak too soon, I think there is an agnostic chaplain out there. He was well-versed in literally every spirituality and religion on the planet from the Odin pantheon of Norse epics, to Islamic mysticism. Guy sounds like he'd be fascinating to have a beer with.

fakedit: found it, they're actually called "humanist" chaplains instead of the paradoxical "atheist chaplain".
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/06/18 ... es-debate/

edwardmurphy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:How does one explain the colour red to a blind person?

It is important to have some point of reference, some true understanding of what another believes to understand how to deal with faith.

Without it you can show empathy and even support BUT, while better than nothing, it is not really enough.

That's probably why there aren't a lot of atheist chaplains out there. Shouldn't be a problem for a person of faith, though.

You say that because you don't understand the difference between the faiths.