Why materialism has worn out...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-04-2013, 11:17 PM
RE: Why materialism has worn out...
(12-04-2013 04:12 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(12-04-2013 04:10 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I took about two pages of notes but I'm too tired to type it out right now. More tomorrow.

How very... Inefficient of you, Vosur.

He's losing his Germanness by hanging out with English speakers.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Erxomai's post
13-04-2013, 01:49 AM
RE: Why materialism has worn out...
(12-04-2013 11:17 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(12-04-2013 04:12 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  How very... Inefficient of you, Vosur.

He's losing his Germanness by hanging out with English speakers.

If he hadn't have hung out with English speakers so much, he should have maintained the ability to take down 2 notebooks of notes, instead of 2 pages ... Ah, I should speak Chinese more, otherwise I won't remember how to cook home cuisines.

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes HU.Junyuan's post
13-04-2013, 05:43 AM
RE: Why materialism has worn out...
(12-04-2013 04:12 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  How very... Inefficient of you, Vosur.

[Image: zgNi2xz.jpg]

A little bit of background information first: The event took place at the head office of world's leading German solar technology company SMA Solar Technology. It was for men only and you had to be on some kind of list to be able to attend it. The man who gave the presentation is the founder of an engineering company and has a Ph.D. in engineering. I tried my best not to approach the presentation with preconceived ideas, since the possibility of something creative or interesting coming up did exist after all. Much to my displeasure, no such thing happened.

The speaker began his presentation by walking the audience through the origin and development of science (not modern science, mind you). He claims that science cannot and did not develop outside of Christian Europe, because the prevailing religions and philosophies in other places didn't allow any examination of nature due to the pantheistic views of their respective cultures. According to him, even the Greeks, Hindus and Chinese (I'm interested in your response to this, Junyuan). His claims are, as many of you already know, patently false. Science (astronomy, mathematics, medicine, etc.) has been developing for thousands of years [1] before Christianity, much less Christian Europe, came into existence. Ironically, so he says, atheists use science to attack Christianity even though the former owes its existence to the latter. He continued by citing different religious scientists (Kepler, Planck, Galileo, Einstein [?!], etc.), who said that the existence of god was obvious to them when they observed nature with awe and that they practiced science as a means to explore the great works of their creator.

Following the history of science, the speaker, you probably already guessed it, attacked the theory of evolution. Although he admits that Darwin was "a reputable scientist", he thinks that science and darwinism have become a new religion in modern times and that Darwin's work "On the Origin of Species" is the Bible of non-believers. He claims that the Cambrian explosion is evidence for the intervention of a higher power, which is a "god of the gaps" argument at best and an argument from ignorance at worst, and criticized that the theory of evolution doesn't explain where information (weasel word) came from. His criticism is misplaced at best and nonsensical at worst since the theory of evolution isn't supposed to explain the origin of information. It makes about as much sense as saying that the theory of gravity is flawed because it doesn't explain how love works. The speaker continued by saying that DNA cannot and does not contain any information pertaining to the behavior of animals. According to him, a squirrel, for instance, doesn't know how to do things because its parents transmitted this knowledge to their offspring with their genes, but because a higher power (god) provided it with the information. These claims greatly contradict all knowledge gained in behavioural genetics [2]. He then claimed that DNA exchanges information with the cell it is contained in and with its environment. I have never heard about this before and I doubt that there is any validity to it. I'll see if I can find something about it online; meanwhile you guys should feel free to comment on it if you know more about it than I do.

He proceeded by criticizing the Age of Enlightenment and Marxism and Nihilism. The former periods' purpose, so he says, was to fulfill the instinctive desires of humans. I don't remember enough about his criticism of the latter to summarize it coherently, but I think you get the gist of it. I'll spare you the elaborate version the rest of this part of the presentation by summing it up shortly: By citing different philosophers and scientists, he tried to support his view that there is neither absolute morality, nor a meaning to our lives, nor a way of telling right from wrong without god and that secularism is responsible for the alleged increase of unhappiness and the decrease of birth rates in Europe. He also expressed his dislike and opposition to abortion and homosexual relationships at this point. The speaker moved on by claiming that science and religion complement each other and that one cannot exist without the other and by once again citing religious scientists and philosophers who share his views.

After this he kind of lost the golden thread. He went on about how Quantum Mechanics disprove Einsteins theory of relativity because it has been shown that protons can exchange information between each other at 1000 times the speed of light. Once again, I've never heard of this before, but I'll research it later. That side, he used this as evidence for a transcendent dimension and said that QM provide a mechanism by which god can intervene in our world without violating any natural laws. According to him, QM has also proven that reality could not exist unless there was a supernatural power that keeps it from not existing. He furthermore claimed that matter doesn't exist, that the only thing that does exist is information. The universe, so he says, is an ocean of information. He misrepresented the laws of conservation by arguing that our memories exists beyond death since since matter (information?) and energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. Obviously, this ignores the fact that mass and energy can do change their form all the time (electricity that is being used to power machines, for instance, is being converted into heat energy). I was tempted to laugh when proclaimed that he hereby settled the matter of whether or not death is the end for us.

As a Christian who believes that we were created in the image of god, he expressed his offense at the notion that we are simply highly evolved animals and denies that our feelings and emotions are merely biochemical processes generated by our brain (he proposed what he calls a "Quantum Brain"). He believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible (including Adam and Eve and original sin), free will, the heaven/hell dichotomy and claimed that the allegorical interpretation of the Bible came before the literal one (any thoughts on this, Bucky Ball/Mark Fulton/kingschosen?). He expressed his discontent with the fact that god has become a hypothesis, which, based on its lack of supporting evidence, is increasingly being rejected in Europe. He agrees with atheists in that god can neither been proven nor disproven with empirical evidence but believes instead that one has to witness god personally. He says that his both him and his wife regularly talk to god and hear his voice, that they have a personal relationship with him.

Overall it was a decent presentation. Obviously I disagree with the vast majority of his claims, but I was impressed by the amount of topics he addressed within the short time frame he was given. I was disappointed by the fact that he didn't address polytheism, i.e. why we should think that there is one instead of several supernatural deities.

After having finished his presentation, we had about twenty to thirty minutes for a discussing and eating something. My father asked me for my thoughts and I told him exactly what I said above. One of the other attendants joined us (a very nice Christian, by the way) and had a conservation with my father. My dad told him that I used to be a Christian but became an atheist a while ago because I questioned and thought about what I had believed for so long. Embarrassed at first, because I seemed to be the only non-believer there, I was pleasantly surprised about his reaction. He applauded me for being skeptical and told me that he would rather talk to someone who questions his believes and arrives at a different conclusion than him than to someone whose beliefs are immune to criticism.

Anyway, after we were done eating, we entered the final phase of the event, a Q&A round. I enjoyed the questions asked by the audience because they were thoughtful and stimulating. One of the people there asked the speaker why he proclaimed that darwinism is dead when there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it. Another person stated that he sees no reason to believe in a personal god or free will (I presume he is a deist because he said that he still believes in a god) and asked the speaker for his stance on the topic.

I used the unique opportunity to ask him a question as well: "There are two things that I'm interested in. Firstly, why are you a Christian and not, for example, a Muslim or a Jew? Christianity is not the only religion which advocates having a personal relationship with god after all. And secondly, what reasons would you give a young fellow like myself for thinking that Christianity is the only true religion? In other words, why should I convert to Christianity and not to any of the competing religions?"

I think ideasonscribe can relate with my situation very well because he (if I remember correctly) once asked a Christian apologist at one of the "theist vs atheist" debates a question and received a total lackluster answer. That's exactly how I felt at that moment. The speaker responded to me that he's not a Muslim because their scripture cannot be criticized and because you cannot convert to another religion without fearing for your life. He said that Christianity is not a religion because you don't need to do anything for it, because there are no rules. According to him, "God has already done everything for our salvation". Later on, however, he said hat Christianity is a religion of freedom. I was unhappy with his answer on several levels. While he did explain why he's not a Muslim, he entirely ignored Judaism (which I specifically asked of him). Also, he didn't even try to answer the second part of my question, why I, or anyone else for that matter, should believe that Christianity is any more valid than other religions.

I would have asked him more questions after the event ended; unfortunately, I didn't have a chance to do so because me and my dad had to catch a train. My father said one particular thing during the "eat and discussion" break that beautifully demonstrates why I'm never going to be 'like him'. He said that he hopes that I'll have a personal experience like him because it will enable me to continuously regard my beliefs as valid even if evidence and sound arguments exist against them.




[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...y_cultures
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_genetics

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Vosur's post
13-04-2013, 06:16 AM
RE: Why materialism has worn out...
(13-04-2013 05:43 AM)Vosur Wrote:  [align=justify]
(12-04-2013 04:12 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  How very... Inefficient of you, Vosur.

[Image: zgNi2xz.jpg]

What? I was only pointing out that you need to be more considerate toward your efficiency.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
13-04-2013, 06:22 AM
RE: Why materialism has worn out...
Were women prohibited because he was afraid their superior intuition would see through all his bullshit? Consider

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Erxomai's post
13-04-2013, 06:56 AM
RE: Why materialism has worn out...
Dagnammit Vos, your English is awesome.

No one would ever guess that you are from an inferior race.

That was a great write up. Thank you.

And I think there was a 'moment' that you will probably remember for the rest of your life.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
13-04-2013, 07:03 AM
RE: Why materialism has worn out...
(13-04-2013 05:43 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(12-04-2013 04:12 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  How very... Inefficient of you, Vosur.

[Image: zgNi2xz.jpg]

A little bit of background information first: The event took place at the head office of world's leading German solar technology company SMA Solar Technology. It was for men only and you had to be on some kind of list to be able to attend it. The man who gave the presentation is the founder of an engineering company and has a Ph.D. in engineering. I tried my best not to approach the presentation with preconceived ideas, since the possibility of something creative or interesting coming up did exist after all. Much to my displeasure, no such thing happened.

The speaker began his presentation by walking the audience through the origin and development of science (not modern science, mind you). He claims that science cannot and did not develop outside of Christian Europe, because the prevailing religions and philosophies in other places didn't allow any examination of nature due to the pantheistic views of their respective cultures. According to him, even the Greeks, Hindus and Chinese (I'm interested in your response to this, Junyuan). His claims are, as many of you already know, patently false. Science (astronomy, mathematics, medicine, etc.) has been developing for thousands of years [1] before Christianity, much less Christian Europe, came into existence. Ironically, so he says, atheists use science to attack Christianity even though the former owes its existence to the latter. He continued by citing different religious scientists (Kepler, Planck, Galileo, Einstein [?!], etc.), who said that the existence of god was obvious to them when they observed nature with awe and that they practiced science as a means to explore the great works of their creator.

Following the history of science, the speaker, you probably already guessed it, attacked the theory of evolution. Although he admits that Darwin was "a reputable scientist", he thinks that science and darwinism have become a new religion in modern times and that Darwin's work "On the Origin of Species" is the Bible of non-believers. He claims that the Cambrian explosion is evidence for the intervention of a higher power, which is a "god of the gaps" argument at best and an argument from ignorance at worst, and criticized that the theory of evolution doesn't explain where information (weasel word) came from. His criticism is misplaced at best and nonsensical at worst since the theory of evolution isn't supposed to explain the origin of information. It makes about as much sense as saying that the theory of gravity is flawed because it doesn't explain how love works. The speaker continued by saying that DNA cannot and does not contain any information pertaining to the behavior of animals. According to him, a squirrel, for instance, doesn't know how to do things because its parents transmitted this knowledge to their offspring with their genes, but because a higher power (god) provided it with the information. These claims greatly contradict all knowledge gained in behavioural genetics [2]. He then claimed that DNA exchanges information with the cell it is contained in and with its environment. I have never heard about this before and I doubt that there is any validity to it. I'll see if I can find something about it online; meanwhile you guys should feel free to comment on it if you know more about it than I do.

He proceeded by criticizing the Age of Enlightenment and Marxism and Nihilism. The former periods' purpose, so he says, was to fulfill the instinctive desires of humans. I don't remember enough about his criticism of the latter to summarize it coherently, but I think you get the gist of it. I'll spare you the elaborate version the rest of this part of the presentation by summing it up shortly: By citing different philosophers and scientists, he tried to support his view that there is neither absolute morality, nor a meaning to our lives, nor a way of telling right from wrong without god and that secularism is responsible for the alleged increase of unhappiness and the decrease of birth rates in Europe. He also expressed his dislike and opposition to abortion and homosexual relationships at this point. The speaker moved on by claiming that science and religion complement each other and that one cannot exist without the other and by once again citing religious scientists and philosophers who share his views.

After this he kind of lost the golden thread. He went on about how Quantum Mechanics disprove Einsteins theory of relativity because it has been shown that protons can exchange information between each other at 1000 times the speed of light. Once again, I've never heard of this before, but I'll research it later. That side, he used this as evidence for a transcendent dimension and said that QM provide a mechanism by which god can intervene in our world without violating any natural laws. According to him, QM has also proven that reality could not exist unless there was a supernatural power that keeps it from not existing. He furthermore claimed that matter doesn't exist, that the only thing that does exist is information. The universe, so he says, is an ocean of information. He misrepresented the laws of conservation by arguing that our memories exists beyond death since since matter (information?) and energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. Obviously, this ignores the fact that mass and energy can do change their form all the time (electricity that is being used to power machines, for instance, is being converted into heat energy). I was tempted to laugh when proclaimed that he hereby settled the matter of whether or not death is the end for us.

As a Christian who believes that we were created in the image of god, he expressed his offense at the notion that we are simply highly evolved animals and denies that our feelings and emotions are merely biochemical processes generated by our brain (he proposed what he calls a "Quantum Brain"). He believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible (including Adam and Eve and original sin), free will, the heaven/hell dichotomy and claimed that the allegorical interpretation of the Bible came before the literal one (any thoughts on this, Bucky Ball/Mark Fulton/kingschosen?). He expressed his discontent with the fact that god has become a hypothesis, which, based on its lack of supporting evidence, is increasingly being rejected in Europe. He agrees with atheists in that god can neither been proven nor disproven with empirical evidence but believes instead that one has to witness god personally. He says that his both him and his wife regularly talk to god and hear his voice, that they have a personal relationship with him.

Overall it was a decent presentation. Obviously I disagree with the vast majority of his claims, but I was impressed by the amount of topics he addressed within the short time frame he was given. I was disappointed by the fact that he didn't address polytheism, i.e. why we should think that there is one instead of several supernatural deities.

After having finished his presentation, we had about twenty to thirty minutes for a discussing and eating something. My father asked me for my thoughts and I told him exactly what I said above. One of the other attendants joined us (a very nice Christian, by the way) and had a conservation with my father. My dad told him that I used to be a Christian but became an atheist a while ago because I questioned and thought about what I had believed for so long. Embarrassed at first, because I seemed to be the only non-believer there, I was pleasantly surprised about his reaction. He applauded me for being skeptical and told me that he would rather talk to someone who questions his believes and arrives at a different conclusion than him than to someone whose beliefs are immune to criticism.

Anyway, after we were done eating, we entered the final phase of the event, a Q&A round. I enjoyed the questions asked by the audience because they were thoughtful and stimulating. One of the people there asked the speaker why he proclaimed that darwinism is dead when there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it. Another person stated that he sees no reason to believe in a personal god or free will (I presume he is a deist because he said that he still believes in a god) and asked the speaker for his stance on the topic.

I used the unique opportunity to ask him a question as well: "There are two things that I'm interested in. Firstly, why are you a Christian and not, for example, a Muslim or a Jew? Christianity is not the only religion which advocates having a personal relationship with god after all. And secondly, what reasons would you give a young fellow like myself for thinking that Christianity is the only true religion? In other words, why should I convert to Christianity and not to any of the competing religions?"

I think ideasonscribe can relate with my situation very well because he (if I remember correctly) once asked a Christian apologist at one of the "theist vs atheist" debates a question and received a total lackluster answer. That's exactly how I felt at that moment. The speaker responded to me that he's not a Muslim because their scripture cannot be criticized and because you cannot convert to another religion without fearing for your life. He said that Christianity is not a religion because you don't need to do anything for it, because there are no rules. According to him, "God has already done everything for our salvation". Later on, however, he said hat Christianity is a religion of freedom. I was unhappy with his answer on several levels. While he did explain why he's not a Muslim, he entirely ignored Judaism (which I specifically asked of him). Also, he didn't even try to answer the second part of my question, why I, or anyone else for that matter, should believe that Christianity is any more valid than other religions.

I would have asked him more questions after the event ended; unfortunately, I didn't have a chance to do so because me and my dad had to catch a train. My father said one particular thing during the "eat and discussion" break that beautifully demonstrates why I'm never going to be 'like him'. He said that he hopes that I'll have a personal experience like him because it will enable me to continuously regard my beliefs as valid even if evidence and sound arguments exist against them.




[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...y_cultures
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_genetics

Wow, where does one start? Thanks for taking the time to report Vosur Thumbsup

I think that the reason that God is increasingly being rejected in Europe (I hope this is true) is that He is spending too much time talking to squirrels (I hope this is also true Laughat ). Hearing a guy who uses science everyday in his work refute the very basis of science seems so...bizzare to me.

Your father's final line could have been uttered by my father...sigh.

So what did you personally get out of this? How did going to this presentation affect you?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
13-04-2013, 07:11 AM
RE: Why materialism has worn out...
Man. I woulda went straight off. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2013, 07:23 AM
RE: Why materialism has worn out...
(13-04-2013 05:43 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(12-04-2013 04:12 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  How very... Inefficient of you, Vosur.

[Image: zgNi2xz.jpg]

A little bit of background information first: The event took place at the head office of world's leading German solar technology company SMA Solar Technology. It was for men only and you had to be on some kind of list to be able to attend it. The man who gave the presentation is the founder of an engineering company and has a Ph.D. in engineering. I tried my best not to approach the presentation with preconceived ideas, since the possibility of something creative or interesting coming up did exist after all. Much to my displeasure, no such thing happened.

The speaker began his presentation by walking the audience through the origin and development of science (not modern science, mind you). He claims that science cannot and did not develop outside of Christian Europe, because the prevailing religions and philosophies in other places didn't allow any examination of nature due to the pantheistic views of their respective cultures. According to him, even the Greeks, Hindus and Chinese (I'm interested in your response to this, Junyuan). His claims are, as many of you already know, patently false. Science (astronomy, mathematics, medicine, etc.) has been developing for thousands of years [1] before Christianity, much less Christian Europe, came into existence. Ironically, so he says, atheists use science to attack Christianity even though the former owes its existence to the latter. He continued by citing different religious scientists (Kepler, Planck, Galileo, Einstein [?!], etc.), who said that the existence of god was obvious to them when they observed nature with awe and that they practiced science as a means to explore the great works of their creator.

Following the history of science, the speaker, you probably already guessed it, attacked the theory of evolution. Although he admits that Darwin was "a reputable scientist", he thinks that science and darwinism have become a new religion in modern times and that Darwin's work "On the Origin of Species" is the Bible of non-believers. He claims that the Cambrian explosion is evidence for the intervention of a higher power, which is a "god of the gaps" argument at best and an argument from ignorance at worst, and criticized that the theory of evolution doesn't explain where information (weasel word) came from. His criticism is misplaced at best and nonsensical at worst since the theory of evolution isn't supposed to explain the origin of information. It makes about as much sense as saying that the theory of gravity is flawed because it doesn't explain how love works. The speaker continued by saying that DNA cannot and does not contain any information pertaining to the behavior of animals. According to him, a squirrel, for instance, doesn't know how to do things because its parents transmitted this knowledge to their offspring with their genes, but because a higher power (god) provided it with the information. These claims greatly contradict all knowledge gained in behavioural genetics [2]. He then claimed that DNA exchanges information with the cell it is contained in and with its environment. I have never heard about this before and I doubt that there is any validity to it. I'll see if I can find something about it online; meanwhile you guys should feel free to comment on it if you know more about it than I do.

He proceeded by criticizing the Age of Enlightenment and Marxism and Nihilism. The former periods' purpose, so he says, was to fulfill the instinctive desires of humans. I don't remember enough about his criticism of the latter to summarize it coherently, but I think you get the gist of it. I'll spare you the elaborate version the rest of this part of the presentation by summing it up shortly: By citing different philosophers and scientists, he tried to support his view that there is neither absolute morality, nor a meaning to our lives, nor a way of telling right from wrong without god and that secularism is responsible for the alleged increase of unhappiness and the decrease of birth rates in Europe. He also expressed his dislike and opposition to abortion and homosexual relationships at this point. The speaker moved on by claiming that science and religion complement each other and that one cannot exist without the other and by once again citing religious scientists and philosophers who share his views.

After this he kind of lost the golden thread. He went on about how Quantum Mechanics disprove Einsteins theory of relativity because it has been shown that protons can exchange information between each other at 1000 times the speed of light. Once again, I've never heard of this before, but I'll research it later. That side, he used this as evidence for a transcendent dimension and said that QM provide a mechanism by which god can intervene in our world without violating any natural laws. According to him, QM has also proven that reality could not exist unless there was a supernatural power that keeps it from not existing. He furthermore claimed that matter doesn't exist, that the only thing that does exist is information. The universe, so he says, is an ocean of information. He misrepresented the laws of conservation by arguing that our memories exists beyond death since since matter (information?) and energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. Obviously, this ignores the fact that mass and energy can do change their form all the time (electricity that is being used to power machines, for instance, is being converted into heat energy). I was tempted to laugh when proclaimed that he hereby settled the matter of whether or not death is the end for us.

As a Christian who believes that we were created in the image of god, he expressed his offense at the notion that we are simply highly evolved animals and denies that our feelings and emotions are merely biochemical processes generated by our brain (he proposed what he calls a "Quantum Brain"). He believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible (including Adam and Eve and original sin), free will, the heaven/hell dichotomy and claimed that the allegorical interpretation of the Bible came before the literal one (any thoughts on this, Bucky Ball/Mark Fulton/kingschosen?). He expressed his discontent with the fact that god has become a hypothesis, which, based on its lack of supporting evidence, is increasingly being rejected in Europe. He agrees with atheists in that god can neither been proven nor disproven with empirical evidence but believes instead that one has to witness god personally. He says that his both him and his wife regularly talk to god and hear his voice, that they have a personal relationship with him.

Overall it was a decent presentation. Obviously I disagree with the vast majority of his claims, but I was impressed by the amount of topics he addressed within the short time frame he was given. I was disappointed by the fact that he didn't address polytheism, i.e. why we should think that there is one instead of several supernatural deities.

After having finished his presentation, we had about twenty to thirty minutes for a discussing and eating something. My father asked me for my thoughts and I told him exactly what I said above. One of the other attendants joined us (a very nice Christian, by the way) and had a conservation with my father. My dad told him that I used to be a Christian but became an atheist a while ago because I questioned and thought about what I had believed for so long. Embarrassed at first, because I seemed to be the only non-believer there, I was pleasantly surprised about his reaction. He applauded me for being skeptical and told me that he would rather talk to someone who questions his believes and arrives at a different conclusion than him than to someone whose beliefs are immune to criticism.

Anyway, after we were done eating, we entered the final phase of the event, a Q&A round. I enjoyed the questions asked by the audience because they were thoughtful and stimulating. One of the people there asked the speaker why he proclaimed that darwinism is dead when there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it. Another person stated that he sees no reason to believe in a personal god or free will (I presume he is a deist because he said that he still believes in a god) and asked the speaker for his stance on the topic.

I used the unique opportunity to ask him a question as well: "There are two things that I'm interested in. Firstly, why are you a Christian and not, for example, a Muslim or a Jew? Christianity is not the only religion which advocates having a personal relationship with god after all. And secondly, what reasons would you give a young fellow like myself for thinking that Christianity is the only true religion? In other words, why should I convert to Christianity and not to any of the competing religions?"

I think ideasonscribe can relate with my situation very well because he (if I remember correctly) once asked a Christian apologist at one of the "theist vs atheist" debates a question and received a total lackluster answer. That's exactly how I felt at that moment. The speaker responded to me that he's not a Muslim because their scripture cannot be criticized and because you cannot convert to another religion without fearing for your life. He said that Christianity is not a religion because you don't need to do anything for it, because there are no rules. According to him, "God has already done everything for our salvation". Later on, however, he said hat Christianity is a religion of freedom. I was unhappy with his answer on several levels. While he did explain why he's not a Muslim, he entirely ignored Judaism (which I specifically asked of him). Also, he didn't even try to answer the second part of my question, why I, or anyone else for that matter, should believe that Christianity is any more valid than other religions.

I would have asked him more questions after the event ended; unfortunately, I didn't have a chance to do so because me and my dad had to catch a train. My father said one particular thing during the "eat and discussion" break that beautifully demonstrates why I'm never going to be 'like him'. He said that he hopes that I'll have a personal experience like him because it will enable me to continuously regard my beliefs as valid even if evidence and sound arguments exist against them.




[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...y_cultures
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_genetics

Men only? WTAF?Shocking

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2013, 07:23 AM
RE: Why materialism has worn out...
Oops. Double-tap.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: