Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

O.T. - Climbing For Christ Australia

widewetandslippery

5-May-2010
3:15:59 PM

On 5/05/2010 Bob Saki wrote:
>I vote this thread be closed and deleted.
>

Can we delete the christians first?

Bob Saki

5-May-2010
4:29:20 PM

hey, i'm being even handed lets scrap the whole thread and this age old circuitous debate occur on a religious website or other non- climbing forum..........

People can believe what they like who cares, let's not knock them for it.


Miguel75

5-May-2010
4:52:37 PM

Ouch WWS; deletion may be a touch painful. I vote for a stoning! I'm happy to cast the frst stone!

Eduardo are you still being Mr Contrary? You won't let us stone you eh!

Being a practicing Christian (one happy to discuss religion when asked) I've learnt (still learning) to accept people's views, vitriolic or enquiring, especially when discussing spiritual topics on the internet. I've found it usually isn't the best place for spiritual discussions; or most things for that matter (except for tastful European "art" films).


dave h.

5-May-2010
5:02:14 PM

On 5/05/2010 Duncan wrote:
>On 5/05/2010 dave h. wrote:
>>Faith
>>Hope
>>Charity
>
>Faith, hope and charity (and indeed morality) are most definitely not
>exclusively religious values. I find it incredibly offensive when people
>of whatever religion suggest that you can on;y be a "good" person if you
>are religious.

I certainly agree that it's offensive for someone to claim that only the religious can be good, or moral. I apologise unreservedly if you thought I was suggesting that. But I do note that you were the one who brought notions of "good" into it, not me. And with respect I suggest that you're drawing a long bow if you think my post suggests that only people of faith are good.

I suggest that these three names do have religious *connotations*. Not that they're exclusive to religious people. For a start, wikipedia tells me that Faith, Hope and Charity was the name of a group of Christians who were martyred in the bad old days.

Second, I think saying this group of words has religious connotations is defensible on the grounds that they're singled out by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:13 (King James Version - more recent versions render the KJV's 'Charity' as 'love').

Third, faith is something that (at least some) secular folks normally deride - I point to Richard Dawkins to prove my point there. The New Testament speaks of a hope that Christians have, and commands the church to be charitable.

Edit: To be honest I'm not sure why people are suggesting that this thread be deleted. As a Christian I'm not so sensitive or insecure that I can't deal with what's been said here. If others don't like the discussion they don't have to participate.

olbert

5-May-2010
5:27:11 PM

On 5/05/2010 dave h. wrote:
>Edit: To be honest I'm not sure why people are suggesting that this thread
>be deleted. As a Christian I'm not so sensitive or insecure that I can't
>deal with what's been said here. If others don't like the discussion they
>don't have to participate.
This thread is the most funny thread I have read on Chockstone in ages - way better then Friday Funnies. It was absolutely hilarious!! Its part of Australia's culture to hang shit on well established institutions. Not all Australians do it, but it doesnt mean basically anything when people do.

The serious arguement against religion is really only being made by one or two participants here. Its one I happen to agree with but this thread is mostly about hanging shit not serious arguement.


dave h.

5-May-2010
5:45:18 PM

I understand that most people are having a laugh. But others seem to be concerned about causing offence too.

I haven't really heard any serious arguments about religion made here. I've heard a lot of bluster from voodoo who asserts that faith is irrational and presumably assumes everyone's familiar with all the arguments.


rodw

5-May-2010
8:10:14 PM

On 5/05/2010 dave h. wrote:
>I haven't really heard any serious arguments about religion made here.

This made me laugh.....sometimes things that are obvious just dont need to be pointed out...much like a boulderer claiming bouldering is real climbing...you just smile, shake ya head and walk away.


dave h.

5-May-2010
11:44:17 PM

Rodw, I have seen the light!

Your four elliptical half-sentences, with their unassailable logic, have swept aside two thousand years of theology and scholarship. Oh, the uselessness of the writings of Calvin, Luther, Stott & Packer in the face of this new secular assault on faith! Woe is us, for we are undone!!

*Ahem*

There are somewhere between 4.7 - ~6 billion people who claim to subscribe to some faith worldwide (I refer you to that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia). If we assume that half of them are only nominal believers, that still leaves us with 2-3 billion. Assume that only 20% of this remaining number have a carefully considered position for their faith, which leaves us with 400 - 600 million people. Assume only 5% of these are 'intelligent' (however we want to define that), which leaves us with 20-30 million people.

You could argue that this number should be whittled down further for whatever reason. And of course all of these people could be mistaken, but that's not the point. The point is that there are plenty of intelligent religious people who have well thought out reasons for their faith, and to baldly assert that there's nothing which needs to be said in order to demonstrate the truth or falsehood of religion is arrogant.

I think you need to acknowledge that there's a discussion to be had. Of course it's your prerogative to choose not to have it.


dimpet

6-May-2010
12:09:05 AM

How does the number of people who believe in something verify its correctness in any way?
This argument is absolutely pointless.
There is no way to prove that a god does or does not exists therefore it doesn't matter how many people believe in the existence of a god, because there belief can not be based on any evidence.

>There are somewhere between 4.7 - ~6 billion people who claim to subscribe
>to some faith worldwide (I refer you to that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia).
>If we assume that half of them are only nominal believers, that still leaves
>us with 2-3 billion. Assume that only 20% of this remaining number have
>a carefully considered position for their faith, which leaves us with 400
>- 600 million people. Assume only 5% of these are 'intelligent' (however
>we want to define that), which leaves us with 20-30 million people.
>
>You could argue that this number should be whittled down further for whatever
>reason. And of course all of these people could be mistaken, but that's
>not the point. The point is that there are plenty of intelligent religious
>people who have well thought out reasons for their faith, and to baldly
>assert that there's nothing which needs to be said in order to demonstrate
>the truth or falsehood of religion is arrogant.
>
>I think you need to acknowledge that there's a discussion to be had. Of
>course it's your prerogative to choose not to have it.


dave h.

6-May-2010
12:16:26 AM

1) It doesn't. As I said in my post. My point was that for Rodw to dismiss the beliefs of all religious people everywhere (as patently absurd, or so obviously false that nothing more needed to be said) was arrogant. In hindsight it would've been simpler to state that without trying to resort to dodgy statistics.

2) I'd say it's an important argument. If there is a God surely there are implications which follow on from that.

3) I'd say that belief in God may be based on personal experience. That's evidence for the person who has the experience. Of course it's not evidence I'd expect you to accept in argument, which is why I would not try and argue that God exists based on my or someone else's personal experience.


dimpet

6-May-2010
12:31:05 AM

2) There maybe implications but why would you make any decision based on something can can not be proven or dis-proven. I think it would not be a very intelligent thing to do.
3) If you dont expect anyone to accept it as evidence then isn't it pointless even mentioning it isn't it??


dave h.

6-May-2010
12:48:13 AM

Ignoring 2 because it depends on 3.

Your first post suggested that belief in God cannot be based on evidence ("because there belief can not be based on any evidence."). My 3rd point was directed at that part of your comment specifically - belief for an individual may be based on their personal experience, which, for them, is acceptable evidence for that belief.

Personal experience is of little value if you're trying to argue a skeptic into belief. So in that sense it'd be pointless to mention it in argument.

My point is not that I can argue a skeptic into believing, because I can't. My point is that my position as a Christian is defensible (I hope it is, so far so good).


Nooj

6-May-2010
1:01:21 AM

So that climbing. Good eh?


rodw

6-May-2010
7:30:44 AM

For the record, I wasnt trying to dismiss your beliefs, Im sorry you read it that way, more pointing out the fact that if you dont believe (btw I dont), dont bother arguing just walk away...how is my non belief arrogant?

I just dont go around telling ppl of my beliefs unless asked (even then Im evasive, as TBH, to me its not really important), I certain dont have a website...

www.climberswhodontgiveashitaboutreligion.com

...and promote it in climbing forums and then start calling people arrogant because they dismiss it as silly. Believe what ya want to believe, but if I choose to personally dismiss your beliefs do not call me arrogant...just see it how I view your beliefs, just another point of view.


billk

6-May-2010
2:30:40 PM

On 6/05/2010 Nooj wrote:
>So that climbing. Good eh?

You betcha. Some days you say to yourself - or even out loud - "Jesus Christ if I get out of this alive I'm never going climbing ever again" but that thought barely survives knocking the top off the first beer.


Hendo

6-May-2010
2:42:07 PM

On 6/05/2010 dimpet wrote:
>2) There maybe implications but why would you make any decision based on
>something can can not be proven or dis-proven. I think it would not be
>a very intelligent thing to do.

Uncertainty rules supreme! No proof (or disproof) is beyond uncertainty.


The good Dr

6-May-2010
6:24:28 PM

The inability to actually have a discussion with contrary points between those of religious and non-religious (ie skeptic or athiest) view points is based in the framework of the discussion. The words sound the same, but their contextual meaning to each party is different

It is not possible to argue against belief, as belief (in whatever) is the basic tenet on which the point of view is based. In a sense skeptics and scientists believe that a particular approach to questions is appropriate due to the empirical nature of the underlying framework, but it is still a belief. In this case it is a belief in a process as distinct from a belief in a deity. This difference is massive and basically unresolvable.


mattjr

6-May-2010
6:29:00 PM

On 6/05/2010 The good Dr wrote:
>The inability to actually have a discussion with contrary points between
>those of religious and non-religious (ie skeptic or athiest) view points
>is based in the framework of the discussion...
>
>..This difference is massive and basically unresolvable.

Lets have a fight about it!? (or perhaps a war?)


Butters81

6-May-2010
6:50:11 PM

so Climbing For Christ...
are you trying to find him? help him? raise money for him?
Or do you get to a crux and tell yourself you're doing this for Jesus?
What's it all about?
Is there a particular brand of chalk that is more effective in dealing with stigmata?


D.Lodge

6-May-2010
7:06:17 PM

Was in Moonarie last week and found out that " Jesus loves me, the Poofter"

There are 159 messages in this topic.