why are so many hardcore christians in this forum?

Discussion in 'NoFap Technical Support and Feedback' started by meagainsttheworld, Jul 10, 2017.

  1. sparkywantsnoPMO

    sparkywantsnoPMO NoFap Moderator & Yeoman
    Staff Member

    1,300
    2,367
    143
    Okay, can we all calm down and have a discussion based just on the points, not personal prodding please? I'm not calling out anyone specifically.
     
    Septimus and samnf1990 like this.
  2. samnf1990

    samnf1990 Fapstronaut

    401
    667
    93
    In an attempt to return to the original theme, and to counter some points that I disagree with in a non-direct, non-user-specific way...

    There are many 'hardcore Christians' on this site for a few reasons: the more enthusiastic or 'extreme' their adhereance to the rules of their religion, the more keen they will be to uphold them all and want to remove PMO from their life; people of all belief systems are exposed to P and thus people of all belief systems can develop a pmo issue; hardcore/enthusiastic christians are conditioned to believe that the religion that helps them will help everybody, and evangelising is encouraged, so they make themselves and their religion known; anyone who can take a belief to the extreme of its application will be drawn to nofap-it is the most full and extreme response to the belief that porn is bad, to abstain completely.

    On the issue of scientific understanding leading to an increased chance of atheism: it cannot be denied. God, for many, is a helpful explanation for a complicated and seemingly unpredictable world, especially when one struggles to see how such complexity can come out of 'nothing' (the singularity at the start of the big bang). Yes there are religious scientists, but they are in a minority. This is because the more you study the world, and learn more and more about the scientific laws that govern it, the less need there is for god. Perhaps there is room, perhaps not. Most scientists who accept the laws of physics, and the theories of the big bang and evolution by natural selection, have no room for god in their understanding of the world. The place where he fits, perhaps, is before the big bang. This is problematic though, as to say before the big bang makes no sense (time is said to start at the big bang). There are scientists whose faith is more important to them than o maintain a consistant model to explain the universe, and so they preserve the faith in the god that they were indoctrinated in by the culture of their birthplace and family. Complete with all the creation myths, miracles and problematic views towards women, homosexuals and so on. Granted, many religious people pick and choose what ideologies are still relevant today and what was simply 'metaphor'. Simpler solution: toss it all out.

    I am not trying to argue that to be religios is a bad thing, it can offer comfort, security and community, but it is based on lies and bad guesses from thousands of years ago. Our explanations for the phenomena we see every day no longer need to appeal to skygods, miracles and prophets.

    Despite the logical issues I have with religion, I will never attack a person for holding those beliefs, but I will criticise the thinking that leads to maintaining such beliefs. Just as I will not attackna person who is a PA, I will criticise their behaviour, as I think theybare better off if they rid themself of it.

    I hope that gives both sides of the debate some food for thought.

    Oh yeah, and an interesting consideration; do americans treat the United States Constitution as an infallable, in some sense religious text?
     
  3. Buzz Lightyear

    Buzz Lightyear Fapstronaut

    2,716
    2,928
    143
    A good post, but from a too limited view.

    A wonder if a religious person - that is seeking to better explain phenomena in a scientifically respectable way - is really religious at all. What I mean is that this will to explain the material cause of things is peculiar to a modern and secular mindset, where causation is conceived as mechanical. God becomes a 'god of the gaps'.

    I think it's useful to compare this to the intellectual culture of a more religious age. Back then there were various conceptions of causation - material, efficient, formal, and final. Here you have a diversity and richness that is lacking in modern thought, and an abundance of material for the thinker to posit the existence of God. Final and formal causes - the facts of intelligence itself [and with it the very possibility of science], and a teleological development and purpose to things [as seen more in botanical biology as opposed to mechanical physics] - lent themselves naturally to the cause of theology. In contrast, we seem stuck today, insofar as we are looking for intelligibility, with material and efficient [mechanical] causes. Formal causes [conceptual intelligence of scientists] are still at work practically, but are mostly ignored at the theoretical level [philosophers of the more critical type are considered a nuisance]. If there is a God, he has here shrunk to the 'First Cause'. It's like our minds have been somehow truncated by something that happened well back in the sixteenth century, where we now lack the imagination to extricate ourselves from it.

    And this only goes to prove that this new found power is not only a force for nature to reckon with [science and technology] but is also a force for our minds to reckon with [ideology] both in the individual and in the species [culture].
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
  4. Buzz Lightyear

    Buzz Lightyear Fapstronaut

    2,716
    2,928
    143
    The problem today is we don't think properly. It's not that we don't know things, it's that we lack the education to see how arbitrary our knowledge is. And if a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, then a lot of it may be positively fatal.

    The more wide-ranging, comprehensive, and historical our view is, the less dogmatic we can be about Knowledge. Knowledge starts to look more like conceptual art, always moving and in flux. And this mindset is only too amenable to faith.
     
  5. I don't treat the constitution as some religious text, but whenever I see a religious group trying to undermine it with stupid things like blasphemy laws we have a problem. For a country to provide freedom of religion, it's laws have to be higher than religious law. Otherwise you get theological states that don't allow certain faiths to worship as well.

    My stance is actually pretty pro-religion despite the fact I personally don't like it.
     
    samnf1990 likes this.
  6. samnf1990

    samnf1990 Fapstronaut

    401
    667
    93
    The reason I ask about the US constitution is that I often see it referred to as a go-to argument solver, and treated 'as gospel' in that it is almost 'blasphemy' to criticise it (or its amendments). The problems with gun crime and the government's (not this one) attempts to even debate tightening regulation or banning firearms, are always shot down by appeals to this document. Guns should not be banned because the constitution says so. Men and women must always sleep with the opposite sex, not each other, because the bible says so. Both religious texts and outdated political documents can stand in the way of progress, and I notice a parallel between the two in regards to how protective of these documents their supporters can be. It is right because it is written.
     
  7. I will win

    I will win Fapstronaut

    521
    1,309
    123
    I don't damn care if you insulted me. Insulting my prophet is the something that I care for. I love my prophet more than my family and the whole world.

    Basically, you are misunderstanding why the government did such a thing. They did that because you cannot jail someone for insulting, by this way, 80% of people would be in jail. Not because the government didn't make insulting illegal means you should insult others and make fun of them. Smoking is legal. Therefore, smoking is good. You have the right to insult whoever you want, but that reveals who really you are and will make people take you less seriously. In addition, I'm talking about those people on the internet who insult others on hardcore and claim it's okay and not bad because it's a part of 'free speech'.

    Yes, you're free to insult whoever you want, but that wouldn't make you a gentle man or a good person. You'll mostly sound a homeless who spent all his life in a street, that is how he learned insulting others and not respecting them.
     
  8. I will win

    I will win Fapstronaut

    521
    1,309
    123
    No, there's no thing bad in insulting other people and not respecting them says tehsliceofcake. If the government made something legal, therefore, it should be good and all people should do it like smoking.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2017
  9. sparkywantsnoPMO

    sparkywantsnoPMO NoFap Moderator & Yeoman
    Staff Member

    1,300
    2,367
    143
    I think an important difference between the constitution and a religious document such as the bible is that the bible does not have provisions for changes.

    The constitution of the US is the highest law of the land, as defined in the document, but it’s not unchangeable. In the gun reference you cited, an amendment could be made changing the constitution. And there have been plenty of times it has been changed, even during high controversies. But there has to be an order of precedence.
     
    samnf1990 likes this.
  10. Buzz Lightyear

    Buzz Lightyear Fapstronaut

    2,716
    2,928
    143
    :confused:
    Comparing a constitution to the bible?
     
  11. sparkywantsnoPMO

    sparkywantsnoPMO NoFap Moderator & Yeoman
    Staff Member

    1,300
    2,367
    143
    The post I had quoted had made that comparision, going so far as to say the constitution is treated “as gospel.”
     
  12. LavaMe

    LavaMe Fapstronaut

    I ageee that many people with advanced learning do find God unnecessary. But the reasons mostly offered, including yours, really miss the point. For instance Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all were monotheists. They were all some of the smartest men of their age and much smarter than most people today. Aristotle was, besides a great philosopher, a great scientist.

    The Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest. It was initially rejected by most scientists because it viewed the world as having a point of creation. It was said to be smuggling God into science. Prior to that atheists claimed the universe always existed. If the universe began to exist that would be evidence for God, so the Big Bang was initially rejected. The point here is scientifically minded atheists can bend the facts to justify their position just as much as simple minded theists.

    Also your claim that God is helpful to explain an unpredictable world really doesn't match up with the reality of the Christian faith and its impact. I don't deny for some people this is the purpose that God serves. But Christianity always viewed the world as having a natural order. It viewed the world as having laws and being predictable. This is why modern science arose in the west and not the east, because the world had order. This is why so many great scientific discoveries were made by Christians and especially monks and priests, because the Christian Faith wasn't opposed to order and didn't view the world as being the arbitrary will of a god. This is why Christians developed the university.
     
  13. MJ93

    MJ93 Fapstronaut



    Sorry, but I had to post this.
     
  14. Spiff

    Spiff Fapstronaut

    408
    777
    93
    I'm one who believes in God and yet loves science. I'm not a professional scientist, but I do study it in my free time, and have yet to learn something that has lead me to atheism. The wonders of science only further my awe of God and His creation. This wonder was one of the things that brought me to faith.

    Be careful of the limitations of science. As it evolves it becomes more and more fragmented and specialized and less and less capable of dealing with issues that span scientific disciplines. The truth is that no one human mind can grasp it all and come up with comprehensive answers to the really big questions. No doubt many would disagree with me.

    As for our need to invent God to explain things... this is an interesting idea. Supposing the God of the bible exists, it matters not whether we think we need Him to explain the things we see. I suppose it's a matter of faith.

    This is an overly simplistic and dismissive understanding of the basis for faith. If my experience on this forum holds true, argument will do little to change either of our minds, so let's just keep the peace and agree to disagree.

    :emoji_v:
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  15. A: Because you touch yourself at night.

    PSA to the rest of the thread:

    There can be no conflict between God and science since one is spiritual the other physical. You cannot measure spiritual beings, so to look towards science to "prove" the existence of a God is asking science to do something it cannot perform by its own nature. So when you look towards natural science for measurable evidence of a spiritual being you really just end up looking like a retard. Just saying.
    st,small,215x235-pad,210x230,f8f8f8.lite-1.jpg
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 12, 2017
    Spiff and LavaMe like this.
  16. samnf1990

    samnf1990 Fapstronaut

    401
    667
    93
    There are many different versions of the bible that are printed and used. Do these not amount to changes?
     
  17. Pretty soon "progressive" in terms of culture is gonna mean legalized bestiality. Oops. Did I just say that? :eek:
     
  18. I will win

    I will win Fapstronaut

    521
    1,309
    123
    So getting mad over someone who insulted your mother while she is dead is disgusting? and not only that, but makes you weak. On the other hand, You as a non-Muslim will never understand why we love our prophet.


    You're proving my point.

    Are you still not getting my point? I don't care if you insulted me to death; I only care when you try to justify your acts.

    I am obviously not talking about all homeless people, but isn't it the same that the person who cannot control what he they is a snowflake who can't handle any heat at all?
     
  19. I will win

    I will win Fapstronaut

    521
    1,309
    123
    There's something called logic, in which, you can prove God's existence by using it. Theories in math are proven by logic not by science. Similarly, you don't need to prove God by science. You can use logic though.
     
    sparkywantsnoPMO likes this.
  20. Bumble

    Bumble Guest

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page