Re: How do you know "your" religion is the "correct" one?

[Bombardana]

Atheism isn't a religion. Honestly I thought we knew this by now.

[zerogravityfat]

a rejection of faith and belief as a religion is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard in my life.

[soundgarden]

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 

[yorost]

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.  )  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.

[El JoNNo]

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.  )  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.

[yorost]

Oh give me a fucking break.  It's like you saw a couple things I wrote and ignored my entire post.

[El JoNNo]

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.

[yorost]

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.

[El JoNNo]

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.

[yorost]

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.

[eric42434224]

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

[yorost]

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.

[Adami]

This thread was more interesting when that robot was claiming that atheism needs to explain the universe.

[eric42434224]

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.

[yorost]

Thanks for the tip.

[eric42434224]

Thanks for the tip.

You're Welcome

[Vivace]

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.

[ainamotore]

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.

[Perpetual Change]

I'd respond, but I'm not sure if I'm smart enough to be allowed to talk to ainmatore yet 

[j]

 

-J

[Seventh Son]

I'd respond, but I'm not sure if I'm smart enough to be allowed to talk to ainmatore yet 

You can talk to me! 

[Vivace]

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".

[Odysseus]

..... 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.... 

[Vivace]

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.... 

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.

[Seventh Son]

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.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

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?

[Adami]

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.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

I see I see. What about the working on Sunday one, which is Exodus (?)

[ainamotore]

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?

[Adami]

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.

[ainamotore]

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.

[Adami]

Oh god you're great.

Sorry, that might have been offensive to you, I'll rephrase.

Oh man created myth, you're great.

[HarlequinForest]

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.

[ainamotore]

 
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.

[Odysseus]

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.