Can you be a right winger or a left winger

So in other words, you have no evidence to back up your assertion that your god has always existed. The origins of the universe are presently unknown, but that doesn't mean you can just say "goddidit." You need to actually have some evidence in order to make such an extraordinary claim.

 

I have evidence that doesn't adhere to a purely naturalistic worldview.

 

Okay, new question, then: Do you have any evidence that there is something more than just a naturalistic universe? Any evidence at all that there are supernatural things out there?

 

It depends on what you mean by "evidence". If you're determined to reject all supernatural possibility outright, that's not being rational or "inclusive" at all.

Here's one question of many: why did the Sanhedrin fail to parade Jesus' body around Jerusalem in the first century?

 

I mean evidence in the traditional sense: the means by which you support a given hypothesis. You propose a claim, you test it, and if the test doesn't hold up, you either reject or modify the original hypothesis. If the test does hold up, you test repeatedly to ensure that the result is correct. That's how evidence works. All things that are known in this universe have been evidenced in this exact same manner.

If I claim I have the ability to fly, I need to show it in order for it to be believable. If I cannot, then there is no reason to believe me. Since there is zero evidence of anything supernatural ever having occurred, there is no reason to include it in my thought process. If you have evidence, show it. The burden of proof is on you.

As for your second question, how is that in any way relevant?

 

What are you even arguing?

 

This thread delivers. Moviefan is like Nancy Allen and WormieSaber all rolled up into one.

 

You're only referring to observational evidence in the present; there's also sources from historical accounts and such.

Christianity hinges on the fully-visible bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Sanhedrin could've completely discredited the early Apostles by revealing Jesus' corpse to the public, but they didn't. Why?

 

1) Which historical accounts are those? The Bible? Please. The Bible is mostly fiction, and even the parts that do align with known history are still filled with errors. It is a collection of oral traditions that have been corrupted over the centuries with numerous translations and re-edits. It is a most unreliable source of historical information.

2) See above.

 

Here's another pertinent question: In LOTR why did they bother with an overland march to drop the Ring in the fires of Mt Doom? Why not just get a big sentient eagle with instructions from Gandalf to drop the ring in the volcano from the air?

 

And again, this is a glorious example of the danger religion, or more precisely, the religious can pose in society.

The US is not founded on Christian ideals or "Biblically-consistent ideals" or whatever, it's founded on ideals of the Enlightenment and on liberalism. THAT is the foundation of America. Going back to the ideas of the philosopher John Locke, he argued that in the natural state, all people were equal and independent, and from that, everyone had the right to defend their "Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions". That should look familiar, as it's thought (with sound logic) to be the origin of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" that has been a key phrase throughout America's history. Going further with Locke, Locke also argued for religious tolerance on a logical basis.

This influence in the founding of America is very notable in that this is NOT a religious conclusion. It's a secular one. And that is one of the key facets of America, that this is an inherently secular government that does not, in any way, take a stance on the subject of religion. That becomes apparent when looking at the influences of the American Revolution, the founding documents, and the writings of the founding fathers. It's also in line with the foundation of some states, like Rhode Island, which were expressly founded on the concept of religious tolerance.

Those involved, of course, included religious people, but there is absolutely nothing that stops someone from being devoutly religious while also able to work within a secular framework when needed to do so. That can be seen everywhere from Georges Lemaitre, a priest that made valuable contributions to physics and astronomy in his work on the Big Bang while also cautioning the Pope to not mix religion and science, to Barry Lynn, an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ while also serving as the Executive Director of Americans United, a group that advocates for protecting the separation of church and state. That rich history of secularism and keeping faith and good governance as separate matters is the legacy of the founding fathers, not a theocracy.

 

If you truly believe that, you don't know much about the history of the Jewish people. They recorded tons of things, from stone tablets to papyri, anytime something major happened in their society.

The main difference between Christians and everyone else when it comes to science is that Christians look to Scripture first, and use it to explain what occurs in the natural world. They don't abandon other sources, but the Bible takes priority.

Here's an example I've seen many apologists use: when asked how dinosaurs fit into Scripture, their answer is "They don't. That's going backwards. What you do is start with the Bible, and use it to explain the dinosaurs." People immediately object, saying dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible. Well, they're only partially correct; the word "dinosaur" wasn't coined until the 19th century, and didn't enter popular use until the 1920s. However, creatures are described in Scripture which closely resemble different varieties of dinosaurs...they're called "dragons".

"Hold on," you might hear folks say. "Aren't dragons mythical?" Many apologists' answer (and mine) would be, "Not necessarily." Many different cultures have stories about dragons that have lasted for over a thousand years, and the Book of Job mentions a creature called Leviathan that both flies and breathes fire. This sounds ridiculous to naturalists, because they assume nothing's ever existed which people don't see on a regular basis in the present. A question I've often posed is, "if dragons never existed, why does the Chinese Zodiac contain 11 real animals, and one mythical creature?" Its just something to think about.

 

Now you're just being ridiculous. Yes, dinosaur bones might have inspired stories of dragons, but you're twisting it around and going about this in such a self-defeating and ridiculous way.

Especially in the context that you're supposed to be responding to this:

And your response is to bring up Jews being really good at writing stuff down, dragon tales, and the zodiac as evidence? Really?

 

That is one very large non-sequitor. It doesn't prove any credibility of the Bible, and it certainly has nothing to do with politics.

 

Humans and dinosaurs never lived during the same time periods, so no, the Bible does not mention dinosaurs in any way. Perhaps some ancient humans encountered dinosaur fossils and called them dragons or whatever, but the fact of the matter is dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago; the oldest human remains we have discovered are somewhere in the 200,000-1 million-year-old range.

 

In all fairness, I was going to start a separate thread about apologetics, but wound up using the Creation thread. If you guys would care to move this discussion there so the political chat can get back on track, I've no objection.

 

Apologetics would seem to cover far more than anything with creationism does, sufficient to really be it's own thread, I'd think.

 

Hold on, Merkurian. Now you're being a little unfair. All Moviefan2k4 was saying is that Christians (the right as you call it) see the Bible as key to how they view political issues; nothing more.

Regardless, I think this thread should be locked. It would have been better existing in one of the other topics instead of trying to stand on its own because, as Moviefan2k4 said, Christians view political issues through the lens of the Bible.

 

I'd be interested if anyone else views this as indicative of the polarity being discussed, but I was looking through the exit poll data for presidential elections from 1976 to 2012 at this address: http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/

An interesting thing I note is in their break down of exit polling by groups, there seems to be a marked shift between how split the voting is for Republicans and Democrats, as well as for conservatives and liberals (which I'll treat as roughly Republican and Democrat affiliated, respectively). I'll be listing percentages in the order of Republican/Democrat | conservative/liberal
Looking at how many voted for the opposite party, in 1976, those numbers were 11 / 20 | 30 / 26
The following election, Reagan's first in 1980, has similar numbers: 11 / 27 | 23 / 28
It's worth noting that in these elections, Republicans represented less than 30%, and Democrats represented over 40%. Now, jumping forward to two recent elections, again one where each party has won an election, for comparison.
In 2004, Bush's second election, has a big change in numbers: 6 / 11 | 16 / 13
In 2012, Obama's second election, the numbers are similar: 6 / 7 | 17 / 11
Of note is that here, both parties are now at somewhere between 30 and 40 percent of voters.

I'll try to put this together visually tonight, but what I seem to come away with here is that those identifying with one of the parties has become purer and purer, and the numbers of people that are willing and interested to vote for the opposing presidential candidate has been decreasing from 1976 to 2012, with the Democratic party level of partisanship recently catching up with the Republican level, and that the not necessarily party-sepecific terms of liberal and conservative have also seen the candidate purity grow as dissenting votes have dropped from around 25% to around 15% over the same time period.

My question on this then, is does this represent in some fashion a marker on how political echo chambers have been developing on both sides, where political groupings are less and less likely to include those that have some dissent, to the point that they will openly consider candidates of an opposing party?

 

Look at Chris Christie…here's a guy who has broad national appeal, a Republican governor in a very Democratic state, and will probably run in 2016. Will he win the Republican nomination? No. Why? The Republicans don't want a moderate, pro-choice candidate. They probably could have won with Gulliani in '08, but ran McCain. I like and admire John McCain…but his campaign in '08 seemed to be a 180 from his campaign in '00.