Presumption and Imagination

[StuartJ]

A Christian member wrote on another topic:

I'd presume there was a single created sperm. I imagine it was created inside the womb next to the egg at the point of fertilisation.

To me, this speaks to the very heart of religious belief.

Can people of faith be in a state of the mind that blurs the distinction between what is broadly known as "reality" and what I term "imaginality" ...?

Because, when it comes down to matters of fact, we find that there is little to none when it comes to matters of faith.

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 17 by AdHoc]

I didn't say all believers were brainwashed.

If you claim that I did in the thread you sneered at ...

You should quote me here.

You asked the question if it was a good description of religion

I tried to answer your question.

If your position is that some believers are brainwashed then I guess its probably going to be difficult to find someone to seriously disagree with you.

Also for the record I didn't sneer at your thread. I don't have a problem with your thread or your OP.

I mistakenly assumed you were making a prejudiced generalization about believers and I was pretty sure that there was no evidence that all believers are brainwashed but I don't have a problem with the thread itself.

Yes, we have OPINIONS

Opinions are often the best we can do in the realm of gods and their sons, and angels and virgins and talking animals.

And it's worth comparing the idea of "opinion" with the Christian qusai-definition of "belief" in my signature below.

I'm not sure I follow you... there's a Christian definition of the word belief?

Back to my other questions:

Did you ever know abiogenesis happened?

Did you ever know Hannibal took an army including elephants through the Alps?

Did you ever know Saddam Hussein had WMDs?

You wrote:

I think its a pretty extraordinary claim to say all believers are brainwashed..

No ... I didn't make that claim did I ...? But you wrote that I did.

You wrote:

I mistakenly assumed you were making a prejudiced generalization

Very hasty ... and a bunch of other adjectives I won't use because a certain moderator who presumes and imagines things about Jesus has me on a FINAL WARNING ...!!!

I could play the "offended" card right here, but us moralless Atheists have been toughened by our life of sin and dissipation and can handle being accused of prejudice. It's not like we're Christians or anything.

I apologize for that

You wrote:

I'm not sure I follow you... there's a Christian definition of the word belief?

After I had written:

And it's worth comparing the idea of "opinion" with the Christian qusai-definition of "belief" in my signature below.

It's beginning to look a lot like you should read things a lot more carefully before you start with:

I'm glad we've established that. I can only imagine the unpredjudiced rigor that must've gone into the careful study and creation of such an important document.

Would you mind giving me a link to that great scientific treatise?

Which looks a whole lot like sneering to me.

I'll accept that but I wasn't sneering at the thread because I hadn't even read it yet. I was "sneering" at the idea that it was proven that believers are all brainwashed. Which isn't your position. Your position I assume is that some believers are brainwashed which is a of course obvious given the existence of brainwash cults and such.

I don't really care about the definition you have written in your signature. Its poorly written and I'll go as far as to state that there is no standard Christian definition of belief. So this is entirely pointless.

And you wrote:

All I saw were personal opinions.

Personal opinions are often all we get in this realm - but often the personal opinions are from folks who read things carefully and don't just assume things and sneer at other members.

(Yes, okay, some of us do lampoon the more deserving ones )

And as for abiogenesis, and Hannibal and Hussein ...

They are way, way off topic.

And besides, this is a Christian debate forum ...

And I only want to talk about Jesus.

Please keep the spotlight on Jesus and the allied angels and talking animals and such

Sure I'm comfortable talking about my beliefs and opening them up for criticism I was hoping you might be willing to do the same... no matter.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 21 by AdHoc]

Please read my signature carefully.

It's the official qusai-definition of belief from the Church of Rome.

I did not write it.

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 21 by AdHoc]

Please read my signature carefully.

It's the official qusai-definition of belief from the Church of Rome.

I did not write it.

I read it and I know you didn't author it, you said it was a Christian definition. I just meant that you had written it, as in copied it in your signature.

I think you and I can agree its poorly written and neither of us probably care what definitions the Church of Rome use for this or any other word.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 21 by AdHoc]

Please read my signature carefully.

It's the official qusai-definition of belief from the Church of Rome.

I did not write it.

I read it and I know you didn't author it, you said it was a Christian definition. I just meant that you had written it, as in copied it in your signature.

I think you and I can agree its poorly written and neither of us probably care what definitions the Church of Rome use for this or any other word.

For me it's particularly well written and accurate.

And you now appear bigoted against a particular Christian sect.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 21 by AdHoc]

Please read my signature carefully.

It's the official qusai-definition of belief from the Church of Rome.

I did not write it.

I read it and I know you didn't author it, you said it was a Christian definition. I just meant that you had written it, as in copied it in your signature.

I think you and I can agree its poorly written and neither of us probably care what definitions the Church of Rome use for this or any other word.

For me it's particularly well written and accurate.

And you now appear bigoted against a particular Christian sect.

I find it particularly insightful and given that it comes from the largest Christian sect in existence, it is a great source for understanding the nature of belief it takes to remain a Christian.

[marco]

Can people of faith be in a state of the mind that blurs the distinction between what is broadly known as "reality" and what I term "imaginality" ...?

Not only can they blur reality and imagination, they readily do. Tertullian attempted a rationalisation of Christ's incarnation and to him is attributed the saying: I believe because it is absurd. Faith is essentially an abandonment of reason, preferring to accept that since God can author anything, one can believe anything. It is not just Christianity that requires belief in absurdity - competing faiths do very well in that area.


When we get down to the water-wine, living-dead, blind-seeing miracles, there is no discussion possible. The single word: "Credo" suffices. For some people Jesus is actually alive today, quietly inspiring them in his door-to-door efforts. I suppose such conceptions may not be immaculate, but they're harmless as long as they don't try to implant themselves on others. Unfortunately we have periods when people want to do more than implant; forced conversions happen in today's technological age. While some of us celebrate the entry into 2019, others are stuck in the first century, with its old superstitions and old gods, or they battle in 7th century Arabia.

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 21 by AdHoc]

Please read my signature carefully.

It's the official qusai-definition of belief from the Church of Rome.

I did not write it.

I read it and I know you didn't author it, you said it was a Christian definition. I just meant that you had written it, as in copied it in your signature.

I think you and I can agree its poorly written and neither of us probably care what definitions the Church of Rome use for this or any other word.

For me it's particularly well written and accurate.

That's interesting...

I think it sounds confusing and pompous... but that's just my opinion.

If you use the Flesch readability scoring tool which gives a quantitative assessment you get the value 155 which is defined as "Fairly difficult to read".

This is essentially a fail for a definition which is pointless if not readable.

And you now appear bigoted against a particular Christian sect.

Oh wow!

Because I don't care how the Church of Rome defines words I'm a bigot?

I also don't care how the Government of Sweden defines terms am I also bigoted against Swedes?

If I can offer you some advice I wouldn't be so quick to cry bigotry as I think it could be insulting to people who have suffered from real and disgusting bigotry.

[Tart]

A Christian member wrote on another topic:

I'd presume there was a single created sperm. I imagine it was created inside the womb next to the egg at the point of fertilisation.

To me, this speaks to the very heart of religious belief.

Can people of faith be in a state of the mind that blurs the distinction between what is broadly known as "reality" and what I term "imaginality" ...?

Because, when it comes down to matters of fact, we find that there is little to none when it comes to matters of faith.

Im not quite sure what you are questioning here. The quote you are referencing to seems to be a hypotheses on life fertility... Which is something we dont know how it came to be. From bacteria splitting, to life from mating, i dont think science has given that answer. So let the man hypothesize...

I mean shoot, nonbelievers came up with the multiverse, to explain the fine tuning of the universe... if you want to take this down to "people of faith" imagining up theories you think are ridiculous... Do you think the multiverse is any more credible then the quote you reference?

[StuartJ]

A Christian member wrote on another topic:

I'd presume there was a single created sperm. I imagine it was created inside the womb next to the egg at the point of fertilisation.

To me, this speaks to the very heart of religious belief.

Can people of faith be in a state of the mind that blurs the distinction between what is broadly known as "reality" and what I term "imaginality" ...?

Because, when it comes down to matters of fact, we find that there is little to none when it comes to matters of faith.

Im not quite sure what you are questioning here. The quote you are referencing to seems to be a hypotheses on life fertility... Which is something we dont know how it came to be. From bacteria splitting, to life from mating, i dont think science has given that answer. So let the man hypothesize...

I mean shoot, nonbelievers came up with the multiverse, to explain the fine tuning of the universe... if you want to take this down to "people of faith" imagining up theories you think are ridiculous... Do you think the multiverse is any more credible then the quote you reference?

The presumption and imagination were to do with the conception of the Jesus character.

My contention is Christians just make stuff up ...

In the great game of Pretend called Christianity.

And we have a Christian here saying that is EXACTLY what he does.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 28 by Tart]

Im not quite sure what you are questioning here. The quote you are referencing to seems to be a hypotheses on life fertility... Which is something we dont know how it came to be.

For your information, I guessed about the quote and I got it right. The quote comes from a discussion on how exactly Mary conceived Jesus.
The person who gave that line just presumed that a single sperm was created, next to an egg, in the womb. They didn't mean it as a guess, as a shrug of the shoulders, they meant it as something they think happened, and are then content to move on from there, this presumption in mind.

So let the man hypothesize...

Even if it was a hypothesis...what did the person who said that, have to go on? What evidence is there to show that there was a sperm created next to an egg?

I mean shoot, nonbelievers came up with the multiverse, to explain the fine tuning of the universe

The difference between the multiverse and Mr. Sperm-Next-To-Egg is that we don't declare the multiverse to be a revealed Truth, capital T.
Mr. Sperm-Next-to-Egg has literally nothing to go on for his hypothesis. Whereas the multiverse? Are you going to suggest that physicists have nothing to go on when it comes to that? That it's as poorly supported as sperm-next-to-egg?

Oh and FYI? Fine-tuning...? Try harder next time.