DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: TheOutlawXanadu on August 02, 2010, 03:24:44 PM
-
I have a question for religious people. Total n00b, uneducated question here since religion is not really a part of my life. No real opinion on it or God in general. But I have always wondered:
If there are multiple religions in the world, and I am guessing each one of them says it is the right one and none other, then how can you be 100% sure the one you believe in is... I dunno... Correct, or legit, or true or... You know what I am saying? That the one you believe in is the right one even though the other ones say it is not.
-
I have a question for religious people. Total n00b, uneducated question here since religion is not really a part of my life. No real opinion on it or God in general. But I have always wondered:
If there are multiple religions in the world, and I am guessing each one of them says it is the right one and none other, then how can you be 100% sure the one you believe in is... I dunno... Correct, or legit, or true or... You know what I am saying? That the one you believe in is the right one even though the other ones say it is not.
Legitimate question, but really off topic for this thread. We've sort of touched on this idea in a few different threads lately, but I don't believe there was one set thread that specifically addressed the question specifically as you worded it. Go ahead and start a thread on that if you want to discuss.
EDIT: Actually, probably better if I just split this off for you. Feel free to edit the title if you don't think the title I gave it is accurate.
Anyhow, the VERY short version for me is this: As to why I believe Christianity is the right religion, that is a long, detailed answer that requires a lot of discussion, but the simple version is that I believe that many of the claims made by Christianity are verifiably true and backed up by history, archaelogy, and the sciences, and should not be verifiable if not true. Add to that the fact that very specific prophesies were made and were verifiably fullfilled in exactly the manner they were foretold. The fact that such a large number of claims are verifiably true, and against all realistic odds given the sheer number of claims and the circumstances under which they are made, leads me to believe that those claims that are not verifiable are also likely true. In other words, to put it in more roughly biblical terms, because God has demonstrated to me that certain things that are true, I can have faith that those things that are stated or promised that I cannot verify are also true. That, in a nutshell, is why I believe Christianity to be true.
Your question also, to me at least, implies the following question: "how do you know that your religion is the only correct one?" (forgive me if you were not implying that) The short version: Christianity claims over and over that the God of the Bible is the ONLY true God and that Christianity is the ONLY way to him. It tells of a God who created all of us and expects ALL humanity to serve him, yet also gives us the freedom not to and has allowed people to reject him and go our own way. I believe you are a Neal Morse fan if I recall correctly. The One album uses this as its central theme and puts this very poetically. I can write a longer post on this later if you indeed want to hear more on that subject.
-
Empirically, there is no way. Islam is empirically as good as Christianity, as is Roman or Norse mythology. So, the question becomes "what makes you not seriously doubt whatever you believe in?". And there, social context is the major one I would think. If everyone around you believes something different from you, doubt could creep in. If everyone believes the same, hey, that gives you a good cushion.
rumborak
-
Thanks Bosk.
-
You're welcome. I also edited to provide somewhat of an answer above after you posted.
-
This is a question that applies well beyond religion, though, into general belief/moral/ethics structures. It's pretty simple for many people following the question everything perspective, you recognize that your beliefs are merely a set of personal choices. You have to question yourself as well as any system presented to you.
That means you understand that you are almost surely wrong and that you will likely never know what is true.
-
I think there's also something like a "reverse Pascal's wager" going on. If you invested a significant portion of your life in a certain viewpoint, you would have to consider that part as "wasted" if you were too change your view. It's a bit like someone dumping ever more money into a tanking stock, in the hope it will come up again. The thought of having wasted the already-spent money outweighs the pain of spending even more. I'm not saying that certain viewpoints are a "tanking stock" (even though, Creationism could certainly qualify as something like that), but the "cost" of changing your view increases over time.
rumborak
-
I have a question for religious people. Total n00b, uneducated question here since religion is not really a part of my life. No real opinion on it or God in general. But I have always wondered:
If there are multiple religions in the world, and I am guessing each one of them says it is the right one and none other, then how can you be 100% sure the one you believe in is... I dunno... Correct, or legit, or true or... You know what I am saying? That the one you believe in is the right one even though the other ones say it is not.
I believe that many of the claims made by Christianity are verifiable true and backed up by history, archaeology, and the sciences, and should not be verifiable if not true.
hey Bosk, can you elaborate on this please. I am curious. Examples? History, I can see a debate happening. But archaeology? really?
-
I have a question for religious people. Total n00b, uneducated question here since religion is not really a part of my life. No real opinion on it or God in general. But I have always wondered:
If there are multiple religions in the world, and I am guessing each one of them says it is the right one and none other, then how can you be 100% sure the one you believe in is... I dunno... Correct, or legit, or true or... You know what I am saying? That the one you believe in is the right one even though the other ones say it is not.
I believe that many of the claims made by Christianity are verifiable true and backed up by history, archaeology, and the sciences, and should not be verifiable if not true.
hey Bosk, can you elaborate on this please. I am curious. Examples? History, I can see a debate happening. But archaeology? really?
I'd say archaeology is one of the big things that invalidates the Bible's claim to absolute truth. When you start to realize that the OT is mostly a fairy tale with no grounding in reality, it sort of makes you wonder how accurate the NT could be...
-
Buddhism depends on the idea that all beings are connected through a type of energy beyond the material realm. When you are reasonably advanced at meditation you can "feel" this energy. I have "felt" this energy too. I use quotation marks because feeling is not the right word, but it's impossible to explain it to others that haven't experienced it. That's how I know emperically my religion is correct. I'm personally not sure if I could believe in something you can't empirically determine. So if I weren't a Buddhist I'd probably be an atheist (although you could call Buddhism atheism).
-
"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—
this.
the Christian Scriptures are a historical document that was circulated in the generations of those who knew whether it was true or not...and they passed it on
if I were to try and pass off a document that declared that in 1965 there was a massive world war that killed millions, there are enough of you here that were alive then that would quickly note it was hogwash. the NT writers made equally wild claims about the Messiah (whom they had been waiting on for milleniums) and instead of declaring it as hogwash, they passed on the document and many of the eyewitnesses went down as martyrs declaring that what they saw was true
-
I think a simple answer would be...
One "knows" their religion is correct because they were brought up and taught that their religion was the correct one and they grew up around the faith and still have the faith. They don't need to explore other religions because they have the faith that their religion is the correct one.
Now, obviously this isn't true, but I believe this is why so many believe their religion is the correct one. Now, when one begins to lose that faith, that is when they start to question everything (Hai Guys!)
-
"Believing" one's religion is the correct one, and "knowing" it is are two different things. But, yeah, I think what you are saying is definitely true of a lot of people. However, that certainly doesn't apply to everyone. I, for one, believe the religion I was raised in is an absolute lie, and I changed as a young adult.
-
You don't know, it's a gamble imo, like a watermelon.
-
I, for one, believe the religion I was raised in is an absolute lie, and I changed as a young adult.
You went from Christian to ... different Christian, right?
rumborak
-
I, for one, believe the religion I was raised in is an absolute lie, and I changed as a young adult.
You went from Christian to ... different Christian, right?
rumborak
inb4 "Catholics aren't Christians"
-
I think a simple answer would be...
One "knows" their religion is correct because they were brought up and taught that their religion was the correct one and they grew up around the faith and still have the faith. They don't need to explore other religions because they have the faith that their religion is the correct one.
Now, obviously this isn't true, but I believe this is why so many believe their religion is the correct one. Now, when one begins to lose that faith, that is when they start to question everything (Hai Guys!)
sadly this is true in many cases...but not so for me. I went through a long period where I doubted the decision I made to follow Christianity and researched non-theism as well as other religions and still continue to listen/consider those things that are opposed to my convictions. am I completely unbiased? doubt it. am I convicted despite hearing the case for other religions with an open mind? absolutely!
-
I, for one, believe the religion I was raised in is an absolute lie, and I changed as a young adult.
This scenario is just as common as the opposite, in my experience. Whether you retain the religion you're brought up in or rebel against it seems to be the product of a lot of different things, not just "I realized Religion A was wrong, but now I adhere to Religion B, which is right". In other words, it seems unlikely for any number of people to leave the religion they were brought up in, harbor no ill will towards it so as not to muddle their ability to see things clearly, and through rigorous and completely level-headed study with a completely open mind, arrive at the "correct" conclusion. There are just too many external and internal factors and biases at play.
-J
-
I, for one, believe the religion I was raised in is an absolute lie, and I changed as a young adult.
This scenario is just as common as the opposite, in my experience. Whether you retain the religion you're brought up in or rebel against it seems to be the product of a lot of different things, not just "I realized Religion A was wrong, but now I adhere to Religion B, which is right". In other words, it seems unlikely for any number of people to leave the religion they were brought up in, harbor no ill will towards it so as not to muddle their ability to see things clearly, and through rigorous and completely level-headed study with a completely open mind, arrive at the "correct" conclusion. There are just too many external and internal factors and biases at play.
-J
\
I tend to agree, but I've read enough of Bosk's posts here to believe him in his case.
-
Well, I'm not holding my situation up as the model or anything. Just saying that's what it was for me. I say that only to point out that a lot of people don't just blindly follow whatever they were brought up in and assume it is true. Many do. But others don't, and the reasosn why they don't vary trememdously, which is what I think J was also saying unless I misunderstood.
-
Nope, you got it. :tup
-J
-
great thread, many good points and views!
-
great thread, many good points and views!
would you say they were..... epic? :millahhhh
-
Well, I'm not holding my situation up as the model or anything. Just saying that's what it was for me. I say that only to point out that a lot of people don't just blindly follow whatever they were brought up in and assume it is true. Many do. But others don't, and the reasosn why they don't vary trememdously, which is what I think J was also saying unless I misunderstood.
Yea but you moved from one sect of Christianity to another, so assuming you were brought up nothing, or another religion that is entirely different, I would have a hard time imaginging you becoming a non-Catholic Christian.
Going from Catholicism to Protestant isn't really all that big of a change, the views are all similar it's just the reasonings and such that change (and I will admit they do change pretty drastically)
-
great thread, many good points and views!
would you say they were..... epic? :millahhhh
some ..yes...EPIC!
-
Going from Catholicism to Protestant isn't really all that big of a change, the views are all similar it's just the reasonings and such that change (and I will admit they do change pretty drastically)
I agree, although I'd say that even the "reasonings" don't change much at all. It's some of the conclusions that are different, and the points of emphasis. But from within, it's perceived as a huge change, even if it really isn't much of one.
-J
-
I dunno. It's also not an unprecedented switch either, with historical figures (most notably Luther) having done so before.
I don't want to belittle your internal struggle during the switch, bosk, but it just doesn't strike as an example of "switching to a different religion".
rumborak
-
Just a note that Luther didn't switch by choice, he was excommunicated. He was fighting to fix the Church. Not surprisingly, they didn't want it and had to be faced with an ongoing revolution before enough elements were strong enough to push needed changes in.
-
Just a note that Luther didn't switch by choice, he was excommunicated. He was fighting to fix the Church. Not surprisingly, they didn't want it and had to be faced with an ongoing revolution before enough elements were strong enough to push needed changes in.
This. He also didn't want the new movement to be called Lutherans - he preferred Evangelicals.
He probably wouldn't like that now.
-
Their can be only one absolute truth. People can believe whatever they want, but the truth won't change because you don't believe it to be so. Their are many who have it wrong but only one faction who has it right. That's just the way it is.
Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, etc...
Someone has it right.
Is my belief the truth? I sure think it is. It will suck if I'm one of the people who fell for a lie.
Also, I eat Hamburgers so...
-
Their can be only one absolute truth. People can believe whatever they want, but the truth won't change because you don't believe it to be so. Their are many who have it wrong but only one faction who has it right. That's just the way it is.
Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, etc...
Someone has it right.
Is my belief the truth? I sure think it is. It will suck if I'm one of the people who fell for a lie.
Also, I eat Hamburgers so...
No, the fact is that no one could have it right.
-
Their can be only one absolute truth. People can believe whatever they want, but the truth won't change because you don't believe it to be so. Their are many who have it wrong but only one faction who has it right. That's just the way it is.
Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, etc...
Someone has it right.
Is my belief the truth? I sure think it is. It will suck if I'm one of the people who fell for a lie.
Also, I eat Hamburgers so...
No, the fact is that no one could have it right.
Really? Explain to me why?
-
Their can be only one absolute truth. People can believe whatever they want, but the truth won't change because you don't believe it to be so. Their are many who have it wrong but only one faction who has it right. That's just the way it is.
Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, etc...
Someone has it right.
Is my belief the truth? I sure think it is. It will suck if I'm one of the people who fell for a lie.
Also, I eat Hamburgers so...
No, the fact is that no one could have it right.
Really? Explain to me why?
Really? You want to explain how it could be possible that no religion has it right?
-
Their can be only one absolute truth. People can believe whatever they want, but the truth won't change because you don't believe it to be so. Their are many who have it wrong but only one faction who has it right. That's just the way it is.
Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, etc...
Someone has it right.
Is my belief the truth? I sure think it is. It will suck if I'm one of the people who fell for a lie.
Also, I eat Hamburgers so...
No, the fact is that no one could have it right.
Really? Explain to me why?
Really? You want to explain how it could be possible that no religion has it right?
I listed Atheist. Wouldn't they have it right, if no religion does? Someone has to have it right if their is a God(to a certain extent). If not, the Godless were right all along. Am I right?
-
What if the true god is a jelly bean monster? There are infinite possibilities as far as possible religious beliefs. The existing ones are tiny in number.
It's like saying, either hot dogs, nachos, grapes or slurpees are the best food/drink. Clearly there are LOTS of other options.
-
I see...we just missed each other slightly. In respects to simply "god/no god", yes, one of them has to be right. I was speaking of things in terms of more detail....like there could be multiple gods that dont care about humans at all. In that case no one would be right.
-
What if the true god is a jelly bean monster? There are infinite possibilities as far as possible religious beliefs. The existing ones are tiny in number.
It's like saying, either hot dogs, nachos, grapes or slurpees are the best food/drink. Clearly there are LOTS of other options.
If God is a Jelly Bean Monster, I'm sure someone knows and has a Jelly Belly shrine in there house. :biggrin:
-
What if the true god is a jelly bean monster? There are infinite possibilities as far as possible religious beliefs. The existing ones are tiny in number.
It's like saying, either hot dogs, nachos, grapes or slurpees are the best food/drink. Clearly there are LOTS of other options.
If God is a Jelly Bean Monster, I'm sure someone knows and has a Jelly Belly shrine in there house. :biggrin:
....I'm gonna get a better security system now. Stalker.
-
I see...we just missed each other slightly. In respects to simply "god/no god", yes, one of them has to be right. I was speaking of things in terms of more detail....like there could be multiple gods that dont care about humans at all. In that case no one would be right.
Well, their you go offending Zeus and his cronies. :biggrin:
-
What if the true god is a jelly bean monster? There are infinite possibilities as far as possible religious beliefs. The existing ones are tiny in number.
It's like saying, either hot dogs, nachos, grapes or slurpees are the best food/drink. Clearly there are LOTS of other options.
If God is a Jelly Bean Monster, I'm sure someone knows and has a Jelly Belly shrine in there house. :biggrin:
....I'm gonna get a better security system now. Stalker.
Avoid ADT, they will murder you on the monitoring fees.
-
At least ADT won't eat my god damn jelly beans!
-
At least ADT won't eat my god damn jelly beans!
and you know that how?
-
JELLY BEAN GOD DAMNIT!
-
JELLY BEAN GOD DAMNIT!
Never take the Jelly Bean Gods name in vain.
-
JELLY BEAN GOD DAMNIT!
Never take the Jelly Bean Gods name in vain.
Don't worry, it was one of the yellow ones.
Anyway, sorry for derailing this. I'm done.
-
JELLY BEAN GOD DAMNIT!
Never take the Jelly Bean Gods name in vain.
Don't worry, it was one of the yellow ones.
Anyway, sorry for derailing this. I'm done.
Me too, but it was fun!
-
I believe that many of the claims made by Christianity are verifiably true and backed up by history, archaeology, and the sciences, and should not be verifiable if not true. Add to that the fact that very specific prophesies were made and were verifiably fullfilled in exactly the manner they were foretold.
GuineaPig asked about this, but Mrs. Cozmo and I were discussing this and I was reminded of this post. If you have the time at some point, I am curious as to any examples you may have on this (of history and/or archaeology backing up the bible's claims) that I could look into.
-
Problem with getting to a thread so late in the game is that you read so much good points and not-so-good and you wanna comment on a lot of them, then you discover it will be too much work and just take an audience seat.
Great read.
-
I dunno, really. Adami made me doubt of my religion. R.E.M. helped, too.
-
Don't doubt anything, when it comes to religion just believe whatever your father did, that's about the easiest way heh
-
I dunno, really. Adami made me doubt of my religion. R.E.M. helped, too.
what did I miss?
-
Is it relevant to this topic to explain why I think my lack of belief is correct? If not just ignore this post.
I am an atheist (I should say I'm an agnostic atheist, which means I don't believe, but I would not say that I am certain there is no God.), but I can only specifically explain why I don't believe in the Christian God, as I do not have much knowledge of the Gods of other religions. There are a potentially infinite number of Gods, so I can't possibly explain for each one why I do not believe in them. However, the burden of proof is on religion to prove that there is God, and one thing all religion has in common is that there is no evidence for their claims for Gods and miracles. A pretty major point against religion is that if it is true, it must be 100% true. As such, even the smallest contradictions show that religious claims are not infallible. For example, creationist claims are clearly incorrect, and this weakens the position of the Bible as a whole.
-
A pretty major point against religion is that if it is true, it must be 100% true. As such, even the smallest contradictions show that religious claims are not infallible. For example, creationist claims are clearly incorrect, and this weakens the position of the Bible as a whole.
This shows a pretty poor understanding about the diversity of Christian thought.
-
A pretty major point against religion is that if it is true, it must be 100% true. As such, even the smallest contradictions show that religious claims are not infallible. For example, creationist claims are clearly incorrect, and this weakens the position of the Bible as a whole.
This shows a pretty poor understanding about the diversity of Christian thought.
Well no. I understand the diversity of Christian thought, but I don't accept that it is valid to be able to pick and choose which bits of a religion are literal and which bits are metaphorical, or to choose which bits of the Bible to follow and which to ignore.
-
You don't think using logic and reflection are a good way to form your metaphysical beliefs?
For instance, if Hef really feels that Jesus is the son of god and the true path to salvation, but also feels that paul is a horrible human being and decided to exclude pauls teachings, that sounds pretty reasonable to me.
God I hate paul.
-
You don't think using logic and reflection are a good way to form your metaphysical beliefs?
For instance, if Hef really feels that Jesus is the son of god and the true path to salvation, but also feels that paul is a horrible human being and decided to exclude pauls teachings, that sounds pretty reasonable to me.
God I hate paul.
Everyone is free to believe whatever version they want, but I can't see why anyone would presume the truth to be different from what is written in the Bible, which is the word of God. Oh, God meant something different when he wrote that? He only meant this bit as a metaphor, but this bit here is to be taken literally? That doesn't work as far as I'm concerned. Human interpretation has no bearing on what is the truth.
-
I'm confused are you a non christian arguing against the bible? Or a literalist arguing for the bible?
-
I'm confused are you a non christian arguing against the bible? Or a literalist arguing for the bible?
I'm an atheist arguing that religious folk cannot talk their way around the Bible's failings by being selective about what is supposed to be taken literally and what isn't.
-
Oh fair enough, and yes they can. Because man wrote the bible, and most christians who do the things you accuse them of believe one of two things.
1. Man wrote the bible, thus blah blah blah
2. God wrote the bible, and it just so happens that they way they interpret it is the 100% infalible truth and everyone else is just wrong.
-
Oh fair enough, and yes they can. Because man wrote the bible, and most christians who do the things you accuse them of believe one of two things.
1. Man wrote the bible, thus blah blah blah
2. God wrote the bible, and it just so happens that they way they interpret it is the 100% infalible truth and everyone else is just wrong.
I don't see that either of those things strengthen the position of the Bible
-
I'm confused are you a non christian arguing against the bible? Or a literalist arguing for the bible?
I'm an atheist arguing that religious folk cannot talk their way around the Bible's failings by being selective about what is supposed to be taken literally and what isn't.
Well, it's not "being selective" as in picking and choosing what one likes or doesn't like. It's doing historical research to understand the viewpoint of people from that place and time and history, so as to have a context in which to read the Bible. It's doing textual research to see how different sources were assembled into the final product, and what changes were made along the way, and why. It's researching the gospels and other first century writings to see which sayings and deeds of Jesus are most likely to be historical, and which ones were most likely to have been created by the developing tradition. And a million other things.
It is nowhere near as simple as you are claiming.
-
I'm confused are you a non christian arguing against the bible? Or a literalist arguing for the bible?
I'm an atheist arguing that religious folk cannot talk their way around the Bible's failings by being selective about what is supposed to be taken literally and what isn't.
Well, it's not "being selective" as in picking and choosing what one likes or doesn't like. It's doing historical research to understand the viewpoint of people from that place and time and history, so as to have a context in which to read the Bible. It's doing textual research to see how different sources were assembled into the final product, and what changes were made along the way, and why. It's researching the gospels and other first century writings to see which sayings and deeds of Jesus are most likely to be historical, and which ones were most likely to have been created by the developing tradition. And a million other things.
Again, this really doesn't strengthen the position of the Bible in the slightest. If I was a Christian, I'd be concerned that the source of my faith was riddled with authors who clearly had no idea what they were talking about. It's missing the point to try to justify why those absurd claims were made, because the claims are still wrong. Context is not a defense of religious texts, it is one of their greatest weaknesses, as it shows them not to be the absolutely true word of God, but flawed and subject to the authors own bias and ignorance.
-
Concerning the "picking and choosing what I want to agree with" idea, here's a bit that's been floating around email for about 10 years now, under the guise of being a letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger. It addresses her anti-gay stance and offers some suggestions for other passages in Leviticus that we could still be following. I found it quite amusing.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
-
Concerning the "picking and choosing what I want to agree with" idea, here's a bit that's been floating around email for about 10 years now, under the guise of being a letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger. It addresses her anti-gay stance and offers some suggestions for other passages in Leviticus that we could still be following. I found it quite amusing.
snip
:lol
I never get the good spam email.
-
Yeah, I've seen that one and variations of it quiet a few times. It's kinda cute/funny the first time through. But it's such a straw man that it completely misses the point.
-
I'm confused are you a non christian arguing against the bible? Or a literalist arguing for the bible?
I'm an atheist arguing that religious folk cannot talk their way around the Bible's failings by being selective about what is supposed to be taken literally and what isn't.
Well, it's not "being selective" as in picking and choosing what one likes or doesn't like. It's doing historical research to understand the viewpoint of people from that place and time and history, so as to have a context in which to read the Bible. It's doing textual research to see how different sources were assembled into the final product, and what changes were made along the way, and why. It's researching the gospels and other first century writings to see which sayings and deeds of Jesus are most likely to be historical, and which ones were most likely to have been created by the developing tradition. And a million other things.
Again, this really doesn't strengthen the position of the Bible in the slightest. If I was a Christian, I'd be concerned that the source of my faith was riddled with authors who clearly had no idea what they were talking about. It's missing the point to try to justify why those absurd claims were made, because the claims are still wrong. Context is not a defense of religious texts, it is one of their greatest weaknesses, as it shows them not to be the absolutely true word of God, but flawed and subject to the authors own bias and ignorance.
The Bible is not the source of our faith. That may be where we are htting a wall here.
-
Hef, I have found that your particular convictions, as admirable as they are, do not reflect the majority of Christians' views.
rumborak
-
Hef, I have found that your particular convictions, as admirable as they are, do not reflect the majority of Christians' views.
rumborak
I know. But I would think that most of them would also affirm that the Bible is not the "source" of their faith, but that an encounter/experience of God is the source. The Bible helps out, but I have never heard of anyone just picking up a Bible, reading it, and saying "Yep, that sounds good to me!" and becoming a Christian.
-
...authors who clearly had no idea what they were talking about.
Ironic.
-
Yeah, I've seen that one and variations of it quiet a few times. It's kinda cute/funny the first time through. But it's such a straw man that it completely misses the point.
Well, the point in all this is that when I'm in another long drawn out conversation with my mother about something and she pulls out her standard "It says it in the bible!!!" card, these will be my comebacks to her.
"Oh, but that was then, those don't apply."
"But the example that fits your argument DOES apply? I see."
She will get flustered, realizing that (to a degree), I'm right and she doesn't have all the answers, but she will defend the discrepancy tooth and nail. It will be a beautiful day for me. :lol
EDIT: Also, #4 - "Should I smite them?" That's funny shit, right there.
-
It just makes clear we need a new Bible. One that uses exapmles that are relevant to today, and uses clear language with specific instruction. Bible 2.0
-
It just makes clear we need a new Bible. One that uses exapmles that are relevant to today, and uses clear language with specific instruction. Bible 2.0
This new Bible should include emoticons and other socially relevant language, too. lol
-
And Jesus said as he ascended into heaven "ROFL KTHXBAI SUXORS LOL :-PPPPP"
-
I would so totally read that Bible.
-
Hef, I have found that your particular convictions, as admirable as they are, do not reflect the majority of Christians' views.
rumborak
I know. But I would think that most of them would also affirm that the Bible is not the "source" of their faith, but that an encounter/experience of God is the source. The Bible helps out, but I have never heard of anyone just picking up a Bible, reading it, and saying "Yep, that sounds good to me!" and becoming a Christian.
I'm curious about that too, Hef. Do you have scriptural support for that? I was looking at Romans 10 (whole chapter for context) which states clearly that faith comes by hearing the Word of God. I don't doubt your experience at all, but I'm not so sure that it's necessary or a substitute for the Word.
-
Does the phrase "Word of God" always refer to the Bible?
-
Yeah, I've seen that one and variations of it quiet a few times. It's kinda cute/funny the first time through. But it's such a straw man that it completely misses the point.
Well, the point in all this is that when I'm in another long drawn out conversation with my mother about something and she pulls out her standard "It says it in the bible!!!" card, these will be my comebacks to her.
"Oh, but that was then, those don't apply."
"But the example that fits your argument DOES apply? I see."
She will get flustered, realizing that (to a degree), I'm right and she doesn't have all the answers, but she will defend the discrepancy tooth and nail. It will be a beautiful day for me. :lol
EDIT: Also, #4 - "Should I smite them?" That's funny shit, right there.
Oh, I understand what you are saying. And, look, I don't deny that some people do arbitrarily pick and choose. But some "pick and choose" because there is a valid reason. Fpr example, there is clearly a command in the Bible to build an ark and put certain animals in it. Should I build an ark and put animals in it and tell other people they better do the same? No because it is clear that is not a general command to all people. Whether you believe the story of Noah is literal or merely a parable, the narrative describes a specific command that a specific person was to carry out. Obvious from the conteext. The context may be less obvious to someone who is not as familiar with the Bible, but the things cited in that article refer to commandments that were given specifically to Jews that were part of the Hebrew nation as a "people set apart for God," and not for anyone else. So, yes, saying those don't apply to me is "picking and choosing," but it's picking and choosing because those rules don't apply to me. It's no different than if I choose not to follow the rules in the California Vehicle Code for what color police lights I can have on my car, what markings and stickers I should have on it, etc. Although those are laws, and there are parts of the VC that do apply to me, those don't apply to me because I don't have a police car.
EDIT: And, yeah, I agree. It's funny.
-
...authors who clearly had no idea what they were talking about.
Ironic.
Doubly ironic.
-
...authors who clearly had no idea what they were talking about.
Ironic.
Doubly ironic.
Your mom's ironic.
-
Buddhism depends on the idea that all beings are connected through a type of energy beyond the material realm. When you are reasonably advanced at meditation you can "feel" this energy. I have "felt" this energy too. I use quotation marks because feeling is not the right word, but it's impossible to explain it to others that haven't experienced it. That's how I know emperically my religion is correct. I'm personally not sure if I could believe in something you can't empirically determine. So if I weren't a Buddhist I'd probably be an atheist (although you could call Buddhism atheism).
hi, are you saying you can observe through meditation the 6 existence forms stated by the buddhism theory, which are creatures in hell, ghost, animal and human( of sourse) and asura and heaven?
sorry, i think you know what i mean, i don't know the precise expression of the 6 forms.
-
Oh god I can't stand Mahayana, at least what it's become once it had sex with New Age.
-
i don't know much about bible.
i think all religions are the same spirit, there are different gods, which in buddhism i believe they are called "Bodhisattva", these bodhisattvas are a high level form of existence than human, sometimes they present themselves in fleshy form for the purpose of salvage of human and every kind of creature.
there are so many things we don't understand, for example "the dark matter", "why we are human and some creatures are animals?","why we can only live for several decades?" human always has limitations.
-
What? Buddhism has no gods or spirits, unless people bring them in from different beliefs. A Bodhisatva is someone who has reached enlightenment, not a god or spirit. They don't present themselves in different forms. Unless you're discussing Karma, in which case the entire point of being a Bodhisatva is to escape Karma, so they're not coming back at all.
And I have no idea what you're talking about with dark matter. Humans are animals, just like other creatures.
I seriously can't make sense of the last sentence or so of your post.
-
Reminds of the conversation between a minister and Richard Dawkins, now this minister is African and very black with the stereo-typical feature and all. Dawkins states that we are all African Apes and explains our evolution and migration etc... Someone on youtube edited to so it has Dawkins just calling him an African Ape and the Minister just standing there speechless :lol
I'd link it but I'm at work.
-
Buddhism depends on the idea that all beings are connected through a type of energy beyond the material realm. When you are reasonably advanced at meditation you can "feel" this energy. I have "felt" this energy too. I use quotation marks because feeling is not the right word, but it's impossible to explain it to others that haven't experienced it. That's how I know emperically my religion is correct. I'm personally not sure if I could believe in something you can't empirically determine. So if I weren't a Buddhist I'd probably be an atheist (although you could call Buddhism atheism).
hi, are you saying you can observe through meditation the 6 existence forms stated by the buddhism theory, which are creatures in hell, ghost, animal and human( of sourse) and asura and heaven?
sorry, i think you know what i mean, i don't know the precise expression of the 6 forms.
I think you mean the levels of consciousness one can reach through meditation. Consciousness levels are on a gliding scale, so you can't really say how many levels there are, but humans have roughly 5 levels of consciousness:
1. Dreamless sleep
2. Sleep with dreams
3. Normal consciousness, here you are still connected to your subconscious through your ego. >95% of people in western society are stuck in this state while they are awake.
4. Consciousness freed from the ego, but not yet in touch with nature.
5. Free from suffering and completely in touch with nature, or enlightened. Enlightened people can choose to be in this state at all times.
Levels 4 and 5 can be reached, or "observed" as you stated it, through meditation. When you are in level 5 you can perceive other existence forms too, animals for example. I hope this answered your question. ;)
Oh god I can't stand Mahayana, at least what it's become once it had sex with New Age.
I don't see how that has anything to do with what he said. The New Age bit, that is.
I seriously can't make sense of the last sentence or so of your post.
Give him a break, English obviously isn't his first language.
-
What did the W.O.P.R. say in Wargames? "The only winning move is not to play." :justjen
-
there are so many things we don't understand, for example "the dark matter", "why we are human and some creatures are animals?","why we can only live for several decades?" human always has limitations.
Magnets. I mean seriously, when will we figure out those?
rumborak
-
I dunno, really. Adami made me doubt of my religion. R.E.M. helped, too.
what did I miss?
My joke! :lol
-
I think if there is a correct religion, we don't know about it yet. I would think a correct religion wouldn't have to shroud itself in allusion and hearsay.
rumborak
-
I dunno, really. Adami made me doubt of my religion. R.E.M. helped, too.
what did I miss?
My joke! :lol
:lol you worried me for a day
-
Damn. And here I thought I had single handedly disproven god, and not even on purpose.
DAMN YOU FALSE HOPE!
-
it wasn't single handed anyways, it was also REM
-
it wasn't single handed anyways, it was also REM
Nah, just me.
-
Adami = Michael Stipes?!?!
-
Adami = Michael Stipes?!?!
No, I've disproven god, I'm clearly the devil.
-
.......... So you're Michael Stipes then?
-
I think if there is a correct religion, we don't know about it yet. I would think a correct religion wouldn't have to shroud itself in allusion and hearsay.
rumborak
Well, the true religion is Scientology. Problem solved.
-
You're glib.
-
trick question, all religions are false mythical tales.
-
Prove it! ... Oh wait I agree with you.
-
The truth is over there, walk into the light.
-
Well the truth is, a lot of people do not know as much about other religions as Christianity. They only know basic ideas, like how Islam has Muhammed as prophet and they do not believe that Jesus is God and stuff, but they do not know the details, like the scriptures, practices, etc., as much as they know about Christianity. and I think it's the same for most of the believers of other religions, except in the context of theirs.
Well this excludes, of course, those people who study about many religions.
-
Well the truth is, a lot of people do not know as much about other religions as Christianity. They only know basic ideas, like how Islam has Muhammed as prophet and they do not believe that Jesus is God and stuff, but they do not know the details, like the scriptures, practices, etc., as much as they know about Christianity. and I think it's the same for most of the believers of other religions, except in the context of theirs.
Well this excludes, of course, those people who study about many religions.
The amount of depth and detail one knows about any religion has nothing to do with if the religion is in fact "correct".
-
Well the truth is, a lot of people do not know as much about other religions as Christianity. They only know basic ideas, like how Islam has Muhammed as prophet and they do not believe that Jesus is God and stuff, but they do not know the details, like the scriptures, practices, etc., as much as they know about Christianity. and I think it's the same for most of the believers of other religions, except in the context of theirs.
Well this excludes, of course, those people who study about many religions.
That's right. Most people in Western society are either Christian, agnostic or atheist, since they don't know much (or anything) about other religions. This is ofcourse also true for people in countries where Islam/Buddhism/Hinduism etc. is prevalent. In most countries where Islam is the main religion it's even forbidden to have material regarding any other religion. I think it's understandable for a lot of people not to know anything about other religions if they're just not interested in the subject. But it does make someone look kind of stupid when they come into a thread like this saying "God doesn't exist" or "all religions suck and don't make any sense (basically)" while they don't know anything other than Christianity. Or not even Christianity.
-
Well the truth is, a lot of people do not know as much about other religions as Christianity. They only know basic ideas, like how Islam has Muhammed as prophet and they do not believe that Jesus is God and stuff, but they do not know the details, like the scriptures, practices, etc., as much as they know about Christianity. and I think it's the same for most of the believers of other religions, except in the context of theirs.
Well this excludes, of course, those people who study about many religions.
The amount of depth and detail one knows about any religion has nothing to do with if the religion is in fact "correct".
Indeed. But the purpose of this thread (I think) is not to objectively prove that one's religion is correct but to show your opinion on which religion you believe to be correct and to give your opinion about other people's views. It's impossible to give your opinion on some else's views if you don't have any knowledge regarding their views.
-
Well the truth is, a lot of people do not know as much about other religions as Christianity. They only know basic ideas, like how Islam has Muhammed as prophet and they do not believe that Jesus is God and stuff, but they do not know the details, like the scriptures, practices, etc., as much as they know about Christianity. and I think it's the same for most of the believers of other religions, except in the context of theirs.
Well this excludes, of course, those people who study about many religions.
The amount of depth and detail one knows about any religion has nothing to do with if the religion is in fact "correct".
What I'm trying to point out is that people claim their religion is correct without even knowing about other religions first. Because that way, it's a premature conclusion.
-
Well the truth is, a lot of people do not know as much about other religions as Christianity. They only know basic ideas, like how Islam has Muhammed as prophet and they do not believe that Jesus is God and stuff, but they do not know the details, like the scriptures, practices, etc., as much as they know about Christianity. and I think it's the same for most of the believers of other religions, except in the context of theirs.
Well this excludes, of course, those people who study about many religions.
The amount of depth and detail one knows about any religion has nothing to do with if the religion is in fact "correct".
What I'm trying to point out is that people claim their religion is correct without even knowing about other religions first. Because that way, it's a premature conclusion.
Oh I understand the some of the circumstances why someone might think their religion is correct. I was just differentiating the "thinking" it is "correct", and it actually being correct. :)
-
If you're an atheist.
Loljk
-
Well the truth is, a lot of people do not know as much about other religions as Christianity.
Most Christians don't know much about Christianity, either.
In fact, most people just don't know much about anything.
-
Well the truth is, a lot of people do not know as much about other religions as Christianity.
Most Christians don't know much about Christianity, either.
In fact, most people just don't know much about anything.
Agreed.
-
If you're an atheist.
Loljk
This. Atheism is the only religion that forbids faith, so it's got that going for it.
-
If you're an atheist.
Loljk
This. Atheism is the only religion that forbids faith, so it's got that going for it.
Atheism is not a religion, it is the rejection of a claim. Stop saying it is a religion.
-
Atheism is not a religion, it is the rejection of a claim. Stop saying it is a religion.
Nonsense. The definition of religion:
1. "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"
2. "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"
Besides, I like treating it as a religion conversationally, as it lends nicely to "compare and contrast".
-
Atheism is not a religion, it is the rejection of a claim. Stop saying it is a religion.
Nonsense. The definition of religion:
1. "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"
2. "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"
Besides, I like treating it as a religion conversationally, as it lends nicely to "compare and contrast".
1. Atheism is not a set of beliefs, it is a rejection of a claim. Theist claim there is a God, we don't buy it. Atheism has nothing to do with "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", the rejection of the claim of god does not hinge on any of these and easily done without any of these.
Do you believe in fairies? No, well you must be an a-fairiest and therefore are a religion. Makes about as much sense.
2. What fundamental beliefs and practices? No believing in something is a fundamental belief? Practices? I know of no Atheist rituals or holy books. An Atheist is someone who does not believe in god, that is it. All for there own reasons.
You can lump Buddhist in with Atheists, as they do not believe in god. However they have there core beliefs, you know what it is called? ... Buddhism..
-
No good. You cannot invent your own definition of atheism, then critique it. Atheism is defined in the dictionary, and it is the definition I supplied, which I got from the dictionary.
Buddhism meets the definition of a religion. And Buddhism is in fact a religion.
-
No good. You cannot invent your own definition of atheism, then critique it. Atheism is defined in the dictionary, and it is the definition I supplied, which I got from the dictionary.
Buddhism meets the definition of a religion. And Buddhism is in fact a religion.
And Atheism does not. All Atheists believe is that there is no god. That's it. Atheism doesn't attempt to explain the nature or origin of the universe. There is only one defining characteristic of Atheism, and that clearly is not sufficient to count as "A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects". Try again.
-
No good. You cannot invent your own definition of atheism, then critique it.
Ummm this is the definition of Atheism.
A person without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods; A person who believes that no gods or deities exist
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist
atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
An individual who rejects the notion of a supreme being that exists outside of the abilities of modern science to either prove or disprove.
jewishscientist.wordpress.com/definitions/
I did not critique any thing, allow me to re-iterate. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, nothing more nothing less.
Atheism is defined in the dictionary, and it is the definition I supplied, which I got from the dictionary.
Wrong you supplied the definition for religion. Atheism is the definition(s) I supplied.
Buddhism meets the definition of a religion. And Buddhism is in fact a religion.
Most Buddhist don't believe in god(s), therefore those that don't are Atheists.
-
I will continue to discuss atheism as a religion, as it meets the criteria contained in the dictionary definition.
I also just like it for purposes of comparison. We have dictionaries that define words. That is their job. They get paid for it. We accept the fact that in utilizing language, the province of definitions is contained within the various recognized dictionaries. You are not qualified to create definitions. You, and I, are qualified to provide them. Which I did. And upon which my correct explanation stands.
So don't try again.
-
LULWAT?!?
I'm going to quote what you stated before
Atheism is not a religion, it is the rejection of a claim. Stop saying it is a religion.
Nonsense. The definition of religion:
1. "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"
2. "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"
Besides, I like treating it as a religion conversationally, as it lends nicely to "compare and contrast".
Do you agree or disagree that this is the definition of Religion which you supplied?
You've got yourself in a pickle I'm afraid. You've now made the same mistake twice. You offered YOUR definition of religion. Then explained it.
Ummm I offered 3 definitions from 3 different sources..
If you make the mistake a third time, I am going to have some serious questions and doubts.
I didn't make the mistake the first time.
We have dictionaries that define words. That is their job. They get paid for it. We accept the fact that in utilizing language, the province of definitions is contained within the various recognized dictionaries. You are not qualified to create definitions. You, and I, are qualified to provide them.
I agree
Which I did. And upon which my correct explanation stands.
No you didn't and your explanation is false.
So don't try again.
Are you even reading my posts?
-
We have dictionaries that define words. That is their job. They get paid for it. We accept the fact that in utilizing language, the province of definitions is contained within the various recognized dictionaries. You are not qualified to create definitions. You, and I, are qualified to provide them. Which I did. And upon which my correct explanation stands.
There is more than one dictionary. Different dictionaries have different definitions. For example, Merriam-Webster says:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Which is not the same definition you use. According to this dictionary El Jonno and Seventh Son are right.
BTW: I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the tone of your posts in this thread is quite condescending. This does not help the discussion.
-
By the way, an atheist who does not offer or subscribe to an alternative view on the cause and purpose of the universe, the nature of Man, and a solid set of philosophical premises, is rather vacuous.
I would have to say that a theist with an irrational view is superior to an atheist whose sole belief is: "There is no God".
If you are going to be a proper atheist, you better have proper alternative responses to all the questions that religions purport to answer.
-
We have dictionaries that define words. That is their job. They get paid for it. We accept the fact that in utilizing language, the province of definitions is contained within the various recognized dictionaries. You are not qualified to create definitions. You, and I, are qualified to provide them. Which I did. And upon which my correct explanation stands.
There is more than one dictionary. Different dictionaries have different definitions. For example, Merriam-Webster says:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Which is not the same definition you use. According to this dictionary El Jonno and Seventh Son are right.
BTW: I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the tone of your posts in this thread is quite condescending. This does not help the discussion.
Please reread the posts. We are defining religion, not atheism. God...
-
We have dictionaries that define words. That is their job. They get paid for it. We accept the fact that in utilizing language, the province of definitions is contained within the various recognized dictionaries. You are not qualified to create definitions. You, and I, are qualified to provide them. Which I did. And upon which my correct explanation stands.
There is more than one dictionary. Different dictionaries have different definitions. For example, Merriam-Webster says:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Which is not the same definition you use. According to this dictionary El Jonno and Seventh Son are right.
BTW: I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the tone of your posts in this thread is quite condescending. This does not help the discussion.
Please reread the posts. We are defining religion, not atheism. God...
Please reread the posts. The discussion started with atheism.
BTW: Again, I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the tone of your posts in this thread is quite condescending. This does not help the discussion.
-
We have dictionaries that define words. That is their job. They get paid for it. We accept the fact that in utilizing language, the province of definitions is contained within the various recognized dictionaries. You are not qualified to create definitions. You, and I, are qualified to provide them. Which I did. And upon which my correct explanation stands.
There is more than one dictionary. Different dictionaries have different definitions. For example, Merriam-Webster says:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Which is not the same definition you use. According to this dictionary El Jonno and Seventh Son are right.
BTW: I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the tone of your posts in this thread is quite condescending. This does not help the discussion.
Please reread the posts. We are defining religion, not atheism. God...
The argument is whether or not Atheism qualifies as a religion. Part of the definition of religion that you supplied us with requires that religion attempts to explain the origin of the universe in which we live in. Atheism does no such thing. All it does is say "God does not exist". It is the only defining characteristic of Atheism. Your second definition requires a number of beliefs and practices held by those that believe in Atheism. There are no practices, and there is only one, singular belief. That God does not exist. Based on that, one can reach the conclusion that Atheism is not a religion.
-
Are you or are you not going to address the fact that you were completely wrong. No only were you wrong in your statements about Atheism but you were wrong about what you yourself stated and would not acknowledge the fact that I did provide you with contradictory definitions to a definition in which you did not supply.
By the way, an atheist who does not offer or subscribe to an alternative view on the cause and purpose of the universe, the nature of Man, and a solid set of philosophical premises, is rather vacuous.
This is a false statement. Just because someone does not ponder the nature of existance does not mean they are not intelligent. Now if you are trying to imply that an Atheist is closed minded because he/she does not believe in a god, that in and of it self it closed minded. However the Atheist could be closed minded about god or the exact opposite. The Atheist could be looking for god in everything but is not convinced.
I would have to say that a theist with an irrational view is superior to an atheist whose sole belief is: "There is no God".
This is also a very moot point of view. Are you saying believing in a god somehow make you more moral? What do you mean be sole belief? So an Atheist reject the notion of god, big whoop. This does not necessarily dictate said persons actions.
If you are going to be a proper atheist, you better have proper alternative responses to all the questions that religions purport to answer.
I'm sorry the burden of proof is not on my shoulders. Theists are the ones trying to push there religion, Atheists are rejecting it. Religion has not met the burden of proof in the eyes of the Atheist, for there own reasons. If you wish you are more than welcome to challenge me on this subject, but I do not speak for the Atheist community as we are all different without our sect of beliefs and doctrines.
The only thing I need to be a proper Atheist is to look at the contradictory evidence and poorly written holy books.
-
We have dictionaries that define words. That is their job. They get paid for it. We accept the fact that in utilizing language, the province of definitions is contained within the various recognized dictionaries. You are not qualified to create definitions. You, and I, are qualified to provide them. Which I did. And upon which my correct explanation stands.
There is more than one dictionary. Different dictionaries have different definitions. For example, Merriam-Webster says:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Which is not the same definition you use. According to this dictionary El Jonno and Seventh Son are right.
BTW: I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the tone of your posts in this thread is quite condescending. This does not help the discussion.
Please reread the posts. We are defining religion, not atheism. God...
The argument is whether or not Atheism qualifies as a religion. Part of the definition of religion that you supplied us with requires that religion attempts to explain the origin of the universe in which we live in. Atheism does no such thing. All it does is say "God does not exist". It is the only defining characteristic of Atheism. Your second definition requires a number of beliefs and practices held by those that believe in Atheism. There are no practices, and there is only one, singular belief. That God does not exist. Based on that, one can reach the conclusion that Atheism is not a religion.
You know Seventh Son that almost sounds like an argument based on logic. lol
-
We have dictionaries that define words. That is their job. They get paid for it. We accept the fact that in utilizing language, the province of definitions is contained within the various recognized dictionaries. You are not qualified to create definitions. You, and I, are qualified to provide them. Which I did. And upon which my correct explanation stands.
There is more than one dictionary. Different dictionaries have different definitions. For example, Merriam-Webster says:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Which is not the same definition you use. According to this dictionary El Jonno and Seventh Son are right.
BTW: I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the tone of your posts in this thread is quite condescending. This does not help the discussion.
Please reread the posts. We are defining religion, not atheism. God...
The argument is whether or not Atheism qualifies as a religion. Part of the definition of religion that you supplied us with requires that religion attempts to explain the origin of the universe in which we live in. Atheism does no such thing. All it does is say "God does not exist". It is the only defining characteristic of Atheism. Your second definition requires a number of beliefs and practices held by those that believe in Atheism. There are no practices, and there is only one, singular belief. That God does not exist. Based on that, one can reach the conclusion that Atheism is not a religion.
You know Seventh Son that almost sounds like an argument based on logic. lol
:neverusethis:
-
The argument is whether or not Atheism qualifies as a religion. Part of the definition of religion that you supplied us with requires that religion attempts to explain the origin of the universe in which we live in. Atheism does no such thing. All it does is say "God does not exist". It is the only defining characteristic of Atheism. Your second definition requires a number of beliefs and practices held by those that believe in Atheism. There are no practices, and there is only one, singular belief. That God does not exist. Based on that, one can reach the conclusion that Atheism is not a religion.
I know of no atheists who define their religious non-belief in such narrow terms. Most offer a world view and alternatives to the irrationalities and postulates of the theists. It is those atheists that interest me. It is those atheists that should speak for the cause of atheism.
I'm actually tired of atheists who have nothing to offer as a philosophical alternative. Atheism is the only rational view out there, yet its spokesmen tend to be annoying little nebishes who offer nothing with respect to the Big Questions of life. They just want to negate others beliefs, rather than offering a good positive alternative view of Life and how to live it.
In short, we desperately need better atheists.
-
The argument is whether or not Atheism qualifies as a religion. Part of the definition of religion that you supplied us with requires that religion attempts to explain the origin of the universe in which we live in. Atheism does no such thing. All it does is say "God does not exist". It is the only defining characteristic of Atheism. Your second definition requires a number of beliefs and practices held by those that believe in Atheism. There are no practices, and there is only one, singular belief. That God does not exist. Based on that, one can reach the conclusion that Atheism is not a religion.
I know of no atheists who define their religious non-belief in such narrow terms. Most offer a world view and alternatives to the irrationalities and postulates of the theists. It is those atheists that interest me. It is those atheists that should speak for the cause of atheism.
I'm actually tired of atheists who have nothing to offer as a philosophical alternative. Atheism is the only rational view out there, yet its spokesmen tend to be annoying little nebishes who offer nothing with respect to the Big Questions of life. They just want to negate others beliefs, rather than offering a good positive alternative view of Life and how to live it.
In short, we desperately need better atheists.
I'm growing more and more convinced that you're just trolling, but I'll keep humoring you.
I'm using the definition of religion that you provided us all with. Using that definition, it becomes clear that Atheism does not qualify as a religion. That is because there is no set moral code that atheists must follow, for each individual atheist must create that for him/herself. If an atheist comes up with an alternative for the origins of mankind and our world, great! But that's not a prerequisite to becoming an atheist. And this is precisely why Atheism is not a religion, because it is not organized by a set of fundamental rules, unlike Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. All atheists are free to do as they please because they are bound only by themselves.
-
The argument is whether or not Atheism qualifies as a religion. Part of the definition of religion that you supplied us with requires that religion attempts to explain the origin of the universe in which we live in. Atheism does no such thing. All it does is say "God does not exist". It is the only defining characteristic of Atheism. Your second definition requires a number of beliefs and practices held by those that believe in Atheism. There are no practices, and there is only one, singular belief. That God does not exist. Based on that, one can reach the conclusion that Atheism is not a religion.
I know of no atheists who define their religious non-belief in such narrow terms. Most offer a world view and alternatives to the irrationalities and postulates of the theists. It is those atheists that interest me. It is those atheists that should speak for the cause of atheism.
Well than look know further. What would you like to talk about?
I'm actually tired of atheists who have nothing to offer as a philosophical alternative. Atheism is the only rational view out there, yet its spokesmen tend to be annoying little nebishes who offer nothing with respect to the Big Questions of life.
In reality Atheism offers nothing. The whole point of speaking out against religion (I am talking about the so called "New Atheism" movement) is that religion is unproven claims of truth and on a grand scale is detremental.
Who are these spokesmen you speak of? I am aware of those you maybe refering to, I'm just curious as to who you are refering to. Why would anyone have to offer an answer to any "Big questions" when the argument is (again "New Atheism" thinger) religion is false and has no evidence to support almost all of it's claims.
They just want to negate others beliefs, rather than offering a good positive alternative view of Life and how to live it.
In short, we desperately need better atheists.
I'm sorry you have only meant irrational religion bashers. I do not share you opinion. Who specific are you refering to? As I have never heard a lecture debate or read of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dilahunty, Dennette, Harris etc Take that route at all.
-
In reality Atheism offers nothing. The whole point of speaking out against religion (I am talking about the so called "New Atheism" movement) is that religion is unproven claims of truth and on a grand scale is detremental.
Exactly. Atheism offers nothing. It needs to start offering something. Else it will never be anything more than a fringe group of philosophical anarchists.
And religion will continue offering the masses the psychological opium of giving life purpose, even if that purpose is ultimately an illusion.
So we need atheists to step up to the plate with something more than "there is no God". They need to offer an alternative philosophy based on reason, with an objective code of morality, ethics, etc. Something to motivate those who look for an "answer" and find it in the destructive and irrational codes of religious doctrine.
In other words, it's time for atheists to become relevant.
Who are these spokesmen you speak of? I am aware of those you maybe refering to, I'm just curious as to who you are refering to. Why would anyone have to offer an answer to any "Big questions" when the argument is (again "New Atheism" thinger) religion is false and has no evidence to support almost all of it's claims.
There are no spokesmen. You are the spokesman. I am the spokesman. It starts with presenting atheism as a rational and complete alternative to the misery and barbaric savagery of religion. It starts with showing people that morality and ethics has NOTHING to do with religion. That they can achieve a proper life by dedicating themselves to living a rational life.
We should all strive to elevate ourselves and the people around us to a higher plane. A good way to do that would be to eliminate all religions. The ONLY way to do that is to present a viable alternative. The BEST way to fail is to continue limiting our position to the gainsaying of the existence of God and leaving it at that.
-
What the hell is going on in this thread?
Aniamotore, atheism isnt' a set of beliefs, it's one belief, that there is no god. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. The word Atheism means just that, A lack of theism. Nothing else. It's not a group, no other set of beliefs, nothing. Just that there is no god or gods. THAT IS IT.
This thread seriously makes me wonder why certain trolls haven't been warned.
-
Exactly. Atheism offers nothing. It needs to start offering something. Else it will never be anything more than a fringe group of philosophical anarchists.
Atheism needs to offer nothing, there is no need to contort the meaning of it; it is what it is. If you think that those who are speaking out about religion (which is anti-theism not atheism) are a "ringe group of philosophical anarchists"; you 1. clearly have not been paying attention to those whom are writing the books and travelling the world giving lectures. 2. have only meant the bottom of the barrel atheist who bash religion because they and know not rationally why.
And religion will continue offering the masses the psychological opium of giving life purpose, even if that purpose is ultimately an illusion.
And it will probably never go away.
So we need atheists to step up to the plate with something more than "there is no God". They need to offer an alternative philosophy based on reason, with an objective code of morality, ethics, etc. Something to motivate those who look for an "answer" and find it in the destructive and irrational codes of religious doctrine.
In other words, it's time for atheists to become relevant.
No we must not. What needs to happen is better education, teach our children to use reason and seek for evidence. As much as I would like religion to disappear, claiming objective morality makes one no better than those claiming to no the mind of god. If education, reason and skeptism brings them closer to their god belief I am fine with that as long as they acknowledge the evidence and not try spread falsities.
There are no spokesmen. You are the spokesman. I am the spokesman. It starts with presenting atheism as a rational and complete alternative to the misery and barbaric savagery of religion. It starts with showing people that morality and ethics has NOTHING to do with religion. That they can achieve a proper life by dedicating themselves to living a rational life.
I agree that religion and modern morals do not belong in the same sentence. Argue there beliefs but do not shove your own down their throat.
We should all strive to elevate ourselves and the people around us to a higher plane. A good way to do that would be to eliminate all religions. The ONLY way to do that is to present a viable alternative. The BEST way to fail is to continue limiting our position to the gainsaying of the existence of God and leaving it at that.
Everyone should attempt to be better. The natural world is a beautiful place and there is alternatives thinking. I don't know if an offering of alternative is the best wording but logical conversational discorse is usually the bst way.
-
In reality Atheism offers nothing. The whole point of speaking out against religion (I am talking about the so called "New Atheism" movement) is that religion is unproven claims of truth and on a grand scale is detremental.
Exactly. Atheism offers nothing. It needs to start offering something. Else it will never be anything more than a fringe group of philosophical anarchists.
And religion will continue offering the masses the psychological opium of giving life purpose, even if that purpose is ultimately an illusion.
So we need atheists to step up to the plate with something more than "there is no God".
There is nothing else for them to offer.
-
If you present atheism as some 'all encompassing alternative to religion', it ceases to be atheism.
-
If you present atheism as some 'all encompassing alternative to religion', it ceases to be atheism.
If you do not, it will remain a marginalized irrelevancy.
-
No it won't. It will continue to be what it always has been - a non-religion.
-
If you present atheism as some 'all encompassing alternative to religion', it ceases to be atheism.
If you do not, it will remain a marginalized irrelevancy.
It's a lack of belief in god. What else do you expect it to be?
-
Furthermore, what does this have to do with its definition or whether it's a religion or not?
-
I like to say morals should never tied to atheism nor religion, they should be tied to humans; that is where they come from
-
Atheism isn't a religion. Honestly I thought we knew this by now.
-
a rejection of faith and belief as a religion is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard in my life.
-
Atheism is not a religion, it is the rejection of a claim. Stop saying it is a religion.
Nonsense. The definition of religion:
1. "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"
Which we don't have. Though we may agree on "explanation" for the origin (and note that I resist using "cause") of the universe, we by all means don't have any idea on the nature or purpose.
2. "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"
We don't have beliefs or practices, or rituals or ceremonies or holidays. We have facts of life which we get from our friends in the scientific community who dedicate their lives for a logical, rational understanding of the universe (and again, not its "nature" or "purpose", just "it"). Again, these are either Laws of nature or general accepted Theories of nature based on empirical evidence observed. Nothing is based on "faith."
Atheism does not fall under either of your definitions, and therefore not a religion.
EDIT: Sorry to the others who already said the same. I just couldn't resist replying myself. Telling an atheist that atheism is a religion..is well, irksome :P
-
a rejection of faith and belief as a religion is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard in my life.
It isn't a completely idiotic viewpoint. As you put it, it can be related to premise of whether zero is really a number or not(which sadly took humanity a really long time to decide upon. :lol) In logic and mathematics we have axioms to indicate that nothing is actually something. In particular, in Set Theory we indicate that nothing is an element of every set. If you have a set R={A, B, C, ...} where R is the set of religions and each element, A, B, etc. represents a particular religion, then we also have the nothing element, ie, no religion, classified as a religion.
Claiming no faith or belief being a religion has potential to be to argued from base ideas like that, so it isn't completely idiotic. This arguing is largely a game, though, and doesn't matter how you eventually classify it. Semantics don't change what a standpoint is.
Granted, what I said has no bearing the second someone is assuming atheism encompasses the holding of truth that no God exists, or any unproven idea about the concept of God assumed as true(basically anything as far as I know). Then you would have to deal with it by the definitions of religion.
-
a rejection of faith and belief as a religion is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard in my life.
It isn't a completely idiotic viewpoint. As you put it, it can be related to premise of whether zero is really a number or not(which sadly took humanity a really long time to decide upon. :lol) In logic and mathematics we have axioms to indicate that nothing is actually something. In particular, in Set Theory we indicate that nothing is an element of every set. If you have a set R={A, B, C, ...} where R is the set of religions and each element, A, B, etc. represents a particular religion, then we also have the nothing element, ie, no religion, classified as a religion.
Claiming no faith or belief being a religion has potential to be to argued from base ideas like that, so it isn't completely idiotic. This arguing is largely a game, though, and doesn't matter how you eventually classify it. Semantics don't change what a standpoint is.
Granted, what I said has no bearing the second someone is assuming atheism encompasses the holding of truth that no God exists, or any unproven idea about the concept of God assumed as true(basically anything as far as I know). Then you would have to deal with it by the definitions of religion.
Nothing like contorting mathematics into something where it does not belong. You cannot mathematically prove nor disprove the supernatural. Equating the use of zero in a math problem to whether or not you believe something exist is twisting the meaning of both and being either dishonest or misunderstanding what they both mean.
If someone claims there is no god(s), they are not religious. Dismissing and claiming an absence, when there is such a poor amount of evidence (IMHO there is none), does not put you at any philosophical, ritualistic or doctrinal standpoint. On the other side of the fence believing in a god(s) does not defualt you in the position of being religious either.
Yes it is an idiotic viewpoint if one knows the meaning of all the terms involved, else is just ignorant.
-
Oh give me a fucking break. It's like you saw a couple things I wrote and ignored my entire post.
-
Oh give me a fucking break. It's like you saw a couple things I wrote and ignored my entire post.
No, you stated that it could be argued in the way that math is calculated; I disagree. As I stated in my above post, it cannot be argued in such a way. You are right this arguing is a game and it is wrong, one can argue it but it will not hold up. Also the definition of atheism has to be weighed against the definition of religion.
So please give me a fucking break.
-
No, it was just a comparison to questions of absence in logic. I never said you can determine it by way of mathematics and never claimed I was trying to use mathematics to answer the question, but if I want to make the comparison I have to describe what I mean. Did you miss the word "potential" when I talked about the basis of argument, or did you just assume I was making the argument right there? Oh, and any argument you make that is sound will follow logic, which in cases like this is the mathematics I would be using. You don't "calculate" anything.
All I was pointing out was that you can argue something like no faith as being a faith without being completely idiotic, there is logical precedence that we freely accept in this world that supports those ideas. That was the only thing I was taking issue with here, blowing an entire side off as having no possible reasoning other than idiocy. That's callus and if anything only makes the overall discussion worse.
If someone claims there is no god(s), they are not religious. Dismissing and claiming an absence, when there is such a poor amount of evidence (IMHO there is none), does not put you at any philosophical, ritualistic or doctrinal standpoint.
Saying inability to answer the question of God is a standpoint on the issue.
-
No, it was just a comparison to questions of absence in logic. I never said you can determine it by way of mathematics and never claimed I was trying to use mathematics to answer the question, but if I want to make the comparison I have to describe what I mean. Did you miss the word "potential" when I talked about the basis of argument, or did you just assume I was making the argument right there? Oh, and any argument you make that is sound will follow logic, which in cases like this is the mathematics I would be using. You don't "calculate" anything.
And I took issue with the comparison. Mathematics does not apply to every logical argument.
All I was pointing out was that you can argue something like no faith as being a faith without being completely idiotic, there is logical precedence that we freely accept in this world that supports those ideas. That was the only thing I was taking issue with here, blowing an entire side off as having no possible reasoning other than idiocy. That's callus and if anything only makes the overall discussion worse.
You can twist and distort meanings intelligently but in the end it is still stupid.
If someone claims there is no god(s), they are not religious. Dismissing and claiming an absence, when there is such a poor amount of evidence (IMHO there is none), does not put you at any philosophical, ritualistic or doctrinal standpoint.
Saying inability to answer the question of God is a standpoint on the issue.
[/quote]
Yes it is. It is not ritualistic and it is not doctrinal. Although it is possible for it to be a philosophical standpoint, so I will retract that. I did not say it was not a standpoint.
-
No, it was just a comparison to questions of absence in logic. I never said you can determine it by way of mathematics and never claimed I was trying to use mathematics to answer the question, but if I want to make the comparison I have to describe what I mean. Did you miss the word "potential" when I talked about the basis of argument, or did you just assume I was making the argument right there? Oh, and any argument you make that is sound will follow logic, which in cases like this is the mathematics I would be using. You don't "calculate" anything.
And I took issue with the comparison. Mathematics does not apply to every logical argument.
To say mathematics does not apply to every logical statement doesn't even make sense. Mathematics is more like the art of using logic, not something that is only applicable given certain logical arguments.
-
No, it was just a comparison to questions of absence in logic. I never said you can determine it by way of mathematics and never claimed I was trying to use mathematics to answer the question, but if I want to make the comparison I have to describe what I mean. Did you miss the word "potential" when I talked about the basis of argument, or did you just assume I was making the argument right there? Oh, and any argument you make that is sound will follow logic, which in cases like this is the mathematics I would be using. You don't "calculate" anything.
And I took issue with the comparison. Mathematics does not apply to every logical argument.
To say mathematics does not apply to every logical statement doesn't even make sense. Mathematics is more like the art of using logic, not something that is only applicable given certain logical arguments.
Yes, But not when you use an oversimplified and incorrect application of those mathematics
-
It was an example of an idea, not a fucking proof or argument. Does it not make sense to use something simple to try and express an idea? Yes, yes it does make sense.
-
This thread was more interesting when that robot was claiming that atheism needs to explain the universe.
-
It was an example of an idea, not a fucking proof or argument. Does it not make sense to use something simple to try and express an idea? Yes, yes it does make sense.
It is not always ok to try and express something very complicated by something overly simple....not to mention if the expression is not applicable and incorrect. So no, no it doesnt make sense.
-
Thanks for the tip.
-
Thanks for the tip.
You're Welcome :)
-
Strip away all the human generated elements and leave nothing but the words of Christ and the examples of the Saints and you have something more profound than anything in my opinion.
-
Strip away all the human generated elements and leave nothing but the words of Christ and the examples of the Saints and you have something more profound than anything in my opinion.
The "words of Christ" ARE the words of man. The Bible and all other religious texts are written by men and for men. You can't strip away "human generated" elements, because without them, there ARE no elements.
-
I'd respond, but I'm not sure if I'm smart enough to be allowed to talk to ainmatore yet :biggrin:
-
:lol
-J
-
I'd respond, but I'm not sure if I'm smart enough to be allowed to talk to ainmatore yet :biggrin:
You can talk to me! :biggrin:
-
Strip away all the human generated elements and leave nothing but the words of Christ and the examples of the Saints and you have something more profound than anything in my opinion.
The "words of Christ" ARE the words of man. The Bible and all other religious texts are written by men and for men. You can't strip away "human generated" elements, because without them, there ARE no elements.
Of course there are elements and of course the Bible is written by man, but why is hard to believe that the muse of such writings is God Himself? Everyone has a sort of muse when they are writing. Can anyone explain this muse? What is it? Can such a connection be made to God? If not, then explain exactly what a muse is and where it comes from and how it works. I'm not saying that for everyone that muse is God, what I'm trying to point out is the connection they both have. They are both guiding voices.
Also when it comes to what such and such a person said back during the days of Christ it's impossible to have an exact account as nobody wrote anything down per se except of course the Romans for example. Nothing Christ said during his life was written down until 40AD with Paul's letters and then finally with the Gospels. the Gospels if you want to believe in it or not, are as far as Christianity is concerned is about as close to the "real words" as we can get barring the translations and other jargon that was probably thrown in for personal reasons. In the end and for the most part the words of Christ in the Gospel are the best we can do and they are "His words".
-
..... I believe that many of the claims made by Christianity are verifiably true and backed up by history, archaelogy, and the sciences, and should not be verifiable if not true. Add to that the fact that very specific prophesies were made and were verifiably fullfilled in exactly the manner they were foretold.
Interesting...
There is no primary evidence for the existence of Jesus, that was established by D.F.Strauss back in the 1850s. His book Leben Jesu caused a seismic shift in the outlook of 19th centrury German protestant theology, Germany being the centre of protestant theological thought during the period. The church was forced to adapt or die - it resulted in a marked shift away from literalism and a corresponding move towards the message of Christianity, which certainly contributed to its continued health.
The first non-scriptural writings that mention Jesus are those of Pliny the Elder and also Tacitus, many years after Jesus alleged life - both are pretty much hearsay-turned-written-word as neither existed at the same time as Jesus. As for the Gospels themselves, Mark was written about 15-20 years after Jesus' death by a bunch of people who spoke Greek, weren't apostles, but wanted to lend authenticity to their writings by claiming they were written by Mark. Luke and Matthew were written about 10-15 years after Mark, and are based on Mark, but with slightly different emphases, also written in Greek by people who never met him. John (who would have been long dead, and is therefore also crap) was written around 90CE and marked a profound change in theology - this has a lot to do with Jesus alleged claim in other gospels that the kingdom of god would be brought to earth within the apostles' own life time. Didn't happen, so the writers of John moved the goalposts and re-interpreted their theology to try and paper over the dismal failure of Jesus to live up the the alleged hype.
We cannot possibly make any sort of realistic interpretation of the bible without viewing it in the context in which it was written. The bible is the product of hundreds of years of wrangling, change, reversals, disagreements, editing and everything else with regard to worldview, and the projection of mankind's hopes, fears, dreams into a constructed divine realm. If you look at something as supposedly simple as the nature and character of god, the bible is full of contradictions and disagreement between J, E D and P sources. If people really feel that they need the bible that much, they'd be a lot better off treating it as you would Shakespeare or something like that - it may contain truths in the metaphorical sense, but if people try to treat it as literally true, then they are barking up the wrong tree and will end up bitterly disappointed and feel cheated.
Does the removal of literalism really matter in the 21st century? No. The message, if you need it, is still there. Seems like common sense IMO...
shit... that was a long 'un.... :omg:
-
Interesting...
There is no primary evidence for the existence of Jesus, that was established by D.F.Strauss back in the 1850s. His book Leben Jesu caused a seismic shift in the outlook of 19th centrury German protestant theology, Germany being the centre of protestant theological thought during the period. The church was forced to adapt or die - it resulted in a marked shift away from literalism and a corresponding move towards the message of Christianity, which certainly contributed to its continued health.
The first non-scriptural writings that mention Jesus are those of Pliny the Elder and also Tacitus, many years after Jesus alleged life - both are pretty much hearsay-turned-written-word as neither existed at the same time as Jesus. As for the Gospels themselves, Mark was written about 15-20 years after Jesus' death by a bunch of people who spoke Greek, weren't apostles, but wanted to lend authenticity to their writings by claiming they were written by Mark. Luke and Matthew were written about 10-15 years after Mark, and are based on Mark, but with slightly different emphases, also written in Greek by people who never met him. John (who would have been long dead, and is therefore also crap) was written around 90CE and marked a profound change in theology - this has a lot to do with Jesus alleged claim in other gospels that the kingdom of god would be brought to earth within the apostles' own life time. Didn't happen, so the writers of John moved the goalposts and re-interpreted their theology to try and paper over the dismal failure of Jesus to live up the the alleged hype.
We cannot possibly make any sort of realistic interpretation of the bible without viewing it in the context in which it was written. The bible is the product of hundreds of years of wrangling, change, reversals, disagreements, editing and everything else with regard to worldview, and the projection of mankind's hopes, fears, dreams into a constructed divine realm. If you look at something as supposedly simple as the nature and character of god, the bible is full of contradictions and disagreement between J, E D and P sources. If people really feel that they need the bible that much, they'd be a lot better off treating it as you would Shakespeare or something like that - it may contain truths in the metaphorical sense, but if people try to treat it as literally true, then they are barking up the wrong tree and will end up bitterly disappointed and feel cheated.
Does the removal of literalism really matter in the 21st century? No. The message, if you need it, is still there. Seems like common sense IMO...
shit... that was a long 'un.... :omg:
Interesting, as there are books that account for Christ's existance through letters written to Roman Captains and Emperors. These letters are in fact very real and they name a man crucified in Jerusalem and even mention a few details that the Bible confirms. The accounts of Pilate are also historical in that we know Pilate existed and we know through this administration that Jewish priests turned a man over to them for execution. I really wish I could name this source but I'm away from my library. There is enough evidence out there to support a man by the name of Jesus who was born in Nazareth and was executed by Rome and was turned over by the Sadducees. The details are sketchy since they had to piecemail this together passed on messages but in the end it seems D.F. Strauss's material is being or has been refuted. A lot of these discoveries are very new so we are continuing to build the legacy of this world Jesus connected with. If there is one other testament to the Christian religion it is towards the Saints themselves who are very real and are documented to have done some of the most miraculous of things.
-
I don't even believe in Christianity but there's a good bit of proof on Jesus' existence. Whether or not he actually did all the miracles is another debate, but he definitely existed.
-
Question to religious folk:
I've always wondered what the defense is to the stuff from the bible talked about in that spam e-mail. Like the stuff that says if you work on Sunday you should be put to death or that you can buy slaves from neighboring countries.
Is it that those are being taken out of context or something like that?
-
Question to religious folk:
I've always wondered what the defense is to the stuff from the bible talked about in that spam e-mail. Like the stuff that says if you work on Sunday you should be put to death or that you can buy slaves from neighboring countries.
Is it that those are being taken out of context or something like that?
It's leviticus, it's part of the tanach and only applied to the ancient israelites. Hope that helps.
-
I see I see. What about the working on Sunday one, which is Exodus (?)
-
I don't even believe in Christianity but there's a good bit of proof on Jesus' existence. Whether or not he actually did all the miracles is another debate, but he definitely existed.
Whether he existed or not is irrelevant. If he existed he was simply a man. He was not God's son, or his cousin, or anything else, because there is no God. And there were no miracles. And there are no miracles (other than the hockey win). Thus if he existed, so what. And if he did not exist, so what?
-
I don't even believe in Christianity but there's a good bit of proof on Jesus' existence. Whether or not he actually did all the miracles is another debate, but he definitely existed.
Whether he existed or not is irrelevant. If he existed he was simply a man. He was not God's son, or his cousin, or anything else, because there is no God. And there were no miracles. And there are no miracles (other than the hockey win). Thus if he existed, so what. And if he did not exist, so what?
You heard it here first folks, there is no god. I guess there's no point in any kind of religious or theological or philosophical discussions about this anymore. Case closed, immorality for all.
-
You heard it here first folks, there is no god. I guess there's no point in any kind of religious or theological or philosophical discussions about this anymore. Case closed, immorality for all.
Correct. Case closed on God, but not on morality. Morality has nothing whatever to do with God, never did, and never will. Morality is a code of behavior that is written by men, for men, based on the nature of men. There is no rational case to be made for artificially constructing an imaginary realm from which morality must originate. It originates here, from us, and for us. It always did. It always will.
-
Oh god you're great.
Sorry, that might have been offensive to you, I'll rephrase.
Oh man created myth, you're great.
-
Exactly. Atheism offers nothing. It needs to start offering something. Else it will never be anything more than a fringe group of philosophical anarchists.
Why exactly do you try to argue that atheism is a religion, but then chastise atheism here for not offering a set of beliefs that satisfy the definition of religion that you offered? You might as well be saying, "atheism is a bad religion because it's not a religion."
Atheism is the only rational view out there
I don't even believe in Christianity but there's a good bit of proof on Jesus' existence. Whether or not he actually did all the miracles is another debate, but he definitely existed.
Whether he existed or not is irrelevant. If he existed he was simply a man. He was not God's son, or his cousin, or anything else, because there is no God. And there were no miracles. And there are no miracles (other than the hockey win). Thus if he existed, so what. And if he did not exist, so what?
To claim absolute truth in the lack of existence of god(s) is equally as irrational as to claim absolute truth in the existence.
-
To claim absolute truth in the lack of existence of god(s) is equally as irrational as to claim absolute truth in the existence.
Nonsense. I am not required to prove a negativity. I can postulate that there are men who are born with 10 eyes, then demand that you prove they do not exist? Absurd. I do not have to prove that there is no God. It's self-evident.
-
Interesting, as there are books that account for Christ's existance through letters written to Roman Captains and Emperors. These letters are in fact very real and they name a man crucified in Jerusalem and even mention a few details that the Bible confirms.
It seems strange that Christian theologians have totally managed to miss this supposed treasure chest of supposed 'evidence' in their quest to make Christian theology a reality.....
A few details that the Bible confirms? Wouldn't he have been called Y'shua Bin Youssef rather than Jesus for a start? I smell intellectual dishonesty.
The accounts of Pilate are also historical in that we know Pilate existed and we know through this administration that Jewish priests turned a man over to them for execution.
Yes, there is evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate as he was reasonably important as prefect of occupied Judea. I suspect that quite a few men were turned over to Pilate because they were naughty boys. Discipline would have been much of his role, so no real news there....
The Romans were great record keepers, which leads to the question of why a man as allegedly important as 'Jesus' left no trace in the books, despite all the restrospective hoopla....
I really wish I could name this source but I'm away from my library.
I'd be interested to check it out if and when you get round to it...
There is enough evidence out there to support a man by the name of Jesus who was born in Nazareth and was executed by Rome and was turned over by the Sadducees.
Hearsay, yes. Evidence, no.
There may well have been a man who became known as Jesus, who may well have been a Jewish teacher, and who made the fatal mistake of claiming to be the son of God, which is treason by Roman standards, and may therefore have been crushed like a bug by the Roman authorities. However, there is nothing concrete in the evidence locker.
The details are sketchy....
Very sketchy.....
......but in the end it seems D.F. Strauss's material is being or has been refuted.....
Then how come Christian theologians are unaware of this? A bit of an oversight there....
A lot of these discoveries are very new so we are continuing to build the legacy of this world Jesus connected with.
A lot of these 'discoveries' seem to be nothing more than white noise and wishful thinking.
If there is one other testament to the Christian religion it is towards the Saints themselves who are very real and are documented to have done some of the most miraculous of things.
Which saints? And documented by whom? Fellow zealots who had a lot invested in the whole thing, perhaps?
Which is more important? Biblical literalism or people living good, moral lives?
The point someone made earlier about morality being human-produced is spot on. Morality existed in the form of reciprocal altruism long before Judaeo-Christian religion came along, and exists in societies that J-C religion never touched. If people need christian theology in order to live a moral life, then that is fair enough, but I can't help feeling that it would be more impressive to live a good life because it is logically the right thing to do rather than through fear of divine wrath, or the promise of Sky-Cake at the end.
-
The point someone made earlier about morality being human-produced is spot on. Morality existed in the form of reciprocal altruism long before Judaeo-Christian religion came along, and exists in societies that J-C religion never touched. If people need christian theology in order to live a moral life, then that is fair enough, but I can't help feeling that it would be more impressive to live a good life because it is logically the right thing to do rather than through fear of divine wrath, or the promise of Sky-Cake at the end.
I agree here. Depending on your denomination, in any case, religion might be able to constitute a false morality, like the killer who is caught and acts a certain way to escape the death penalty. But if your really doing an action out of morality your doing it out of a human sense of justice and fairness, not out of fear of anything divine.
-
I agree here. Depending on your denomination, in any case, religion might be able to constitute a false morality, like the killer who is caught and acts a certain way to escape the death penalty. But if your really doing an action out of morality your doing it out of a human sense of justice and fairness, not out of fear of anything divine.
Finally, some rationality has seeped into this thread. I love the dopey argument put forth by mystics that without religion there will be no morality. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact a BETTER morality will result from a code that is developed from, and in, the real world rather than the imaginary world. In the imaginary world, morality is arbitrary and subjective, and is subject to powerlusting humans seeking domination and dominion over each other. In the real world, the only one that actually exists, morality can be designed in consonance with our nature and in consonance with our requirements for living together sensibly and logically.
Atheistic morality is a MUCH HIGHER form of morality than any imaginary religious code could EVER be. It is based on reason and empirical observation, rather than fear and loathing.
-
Oh good xenu, my statement about morality was a joke. I'm agnostic, of course I think morality is man made.
-
Oh good xenu, my statement about morality was a joke. I'm agnostic, of course I think morality is man made.
There is no "I think" about it. It is a metaphysical certainty that it is man-made. The only question is whether it will be based on silly fear-based mysticism or on rational analysis.
We've tried Sharia Law and all its sundry and shoddy variants, let's move on to something better.
-
Well hell, where have you been all our lives? We should just make you Grand High Poobah of the world.
-
I'm being dethroned? :'(
-
I'm being dethroned? :'(
Sorry, man.
-
To claim absolute truth in the lack of existence of god(s) is equally as irrational as to claim absolute truth in the existence.
Nonsense. I am not required to prove a negativity. I can postulate that there are men who are born with 10 eyes, then demand that you prove they do not exist? Absurd. I do not have to prove that there is no God. It's self-evident.
It's non-falsifiable; by definition, it can't be proven or known to be untrue, and to claim otherwise would be irrational.
-
To claim absolute truth in the lack of existence of god(s) is equally as irrational as to claim absolute truth in the existence.
Nonsense. I am not required to prove a negativity. I can postulate that there are men who are born with 10 eyes, then demand that you prove they do not exist? Absurd. I do not have to prove that there is no God. It's self-evident.
It's non-falsifiable; by definition, it can't be proven or known to be untrue, and to claim otherwise would be irrational.
-
It is a metaphysical certainty that it is man-made.
No it isn't.
I do love the "ridiculous to prove a negative" part, though. So you can make all sorts of claims about other people's beliefs being false, but when they ask you for a defense you back-up and say that its "not fair" for you to take the scientific route and be forced to eliminate all other hypothesis first? Fine. But then you simply can't justify the "certain knowledge" attitude.
Once again, this is another one of your arguments that I've seen come straight from the mouth of Ayn Rand (who herself was just impolitely regurgitating her tragic mistranslations of stuff that people had already been saying for a hundred years at least) . It's time to give that psuedo-philosophical shock-artist a rest already and read some real thinking material.
-
It is a metaphysical certainty that it is man-made.
No it isn't.
I do love the "ridiculous to prove a negative" part, though. So you can make all sorts of claims about other people's beliefs being false, but when they ask you for a defense you back-up and say that its "not fair" for you to take the scientific route and be forced to eliminate all other hypothesis first? Fine. But then you simply can't justify the "certain knowledge" attitude.
Once again, this is another one of your arguments that I've seen come straight from the mouth of Ayn Rand (who herself was just impolitely regurgitating her tragic mistranslations of stuff that people had already been saying for a hundred years at least) . It's time to give that psuedo-philosophical shock-artist a rest already and read some real thinking material.
You are complicating something that is very simple. Here is the procedure: You claim the existence of an entity or phenomenon, then you prove it exists. You do not imagine an alternative to that which exists, declare it to be real, then demand that others disprove its existence.
To get away with this nonsense you need to invent another concept that is anti-real and anti-scientific and anti-Man. I am speaking of course of the terrible concept known as: faith. Faith is the dubious foundation upon which the whole silly concept of God is built (and I use that term very loosely in this context...).
Faith, of course, is the necessary pre-cursor that leads you to Sharia Law, the Crusades, or even just Eddie Long. It's a slippery slope, this "denying reality" thing...
-
To get away with this nonsense you need to invent another concept that is anti-real and anti-scientific and anti-Man. I am speaking of course of the terrible concept known as: faith. Faith is the dubious foundation upon which the whole silly concept of God is built (and I use that term very loosely in this context...).
Faith, of course, is the necessary pre-cursor that leads you to Sharia Law, the Crusades, or even just Eddie Long. It's a slippery slope, this "denying reality" thing...
You're not talking about people who have faith. Faith implies a shred of reason and optimism. Faith implies suggesting answers where there are no clear ones. You, on the other hand, are talking about delusional psychopaths-- people who claim to KNOW, as you claim to know. They are more dangerous than most people of faith.
"Faith" isn't anti-man or anti-scientic or anti-real just because you can point out some examples where evil people who capitalized on others' willingness to believe in things without thinking twice.