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

[eric42434224]

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.

[Tick]

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.

[Adami]

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.

....I'm gonna get a better security system now. Stalker.

[Tick]

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.

[Tick]

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.

....I'm gonna get a better security system now. Stalker.

Avoid ADT, they will murder you on the monitoring fees.

[Adami]

At least ADT won't eat my god damn jelly beans!

[Tick]

At least ADT won't eat my god damn jelly beans!

and you know that how?

[Adami]

JELLY BEAN GOD DAMNIT!

[Tick]

JELLY BEAN GOD DAMNIT!

Never take the Jelly Bean Gods name in vain.

[Adami]

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.

[Tick]

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!

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

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.

[Progmetty]

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.

[emindead]

I dunno, really. Adami made me doubt of my religion. R.E.M. helped, too.

[Progmetty]

Don't doubt anything, when it comes to religion just believe whatever your father did, that's about the easiest way heh

[yeshaberto]

I dunno, really. Adami made me doubt of my religion. R.E.M. helped, too.

what did I miss?

[Bombardana]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[Bombardana]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[Bombardana]

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.

[Adami]

I'm confused are you a non christian arguing against the bible? Or a literalist arguing for the bible?

[Bombardana]

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.

[Adami]

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.

[Bombardana]

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

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[Bombardana]

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.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

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.

[Bombardana]

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

I never get the good spam email.

[bosk1]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[rumborak]

Hef, I have found that your particular convictions, as admirable as they are, do not reflect the majority of Christians' views.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[William Wallace]

...authors who clearly had no idea what they were talking about.

Ironic.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

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.  

EDIT:  Also, #4 - "Should I smite them?"  That's funny shit, right there.